CC BY
5
негативную реакцию. В работах Д.Б. Кабалевского, Ю.Б. Алиева, А.Н. Сохора находим обозначение оптимального подхода в определении роли и места «легкой» и «серьезной» музыки в жизни личности, в учебном процессе. Новизна этой методики состоит в том, что классическую музыку предлагается осваивать во взаимодействии с музыкой массовых жанров, в ходе ее осознанного восприятия, формировать у учащихся знания о жанрах и средствах музыкальной выразительности, умение анализировать музыку в данном ракурсе. Д.Б. Кабалевский отмечает: «Я убежден в том, что без легкой музыки жизнь была бы немыслима, как без улыбки, без шутки, без веселого отдыха. Худо, очень худо другое - когда легкая музыка исчерпывает все музыкальные запросы человека...» [7, с. 119]. Такой интегрированный подход особенно важен в обучении эстрадному вокалу.
Библиографический список
Толерантное воспитание может также осуществляться посредством участия в различных вокальных конкурсах, в том числе посвященных патриотическому воспитанию молодежи. Исполняя песню, певец должен понимать этот материал и пережить его, только после этого он может донести ее до зрителя. Ведь музыка - это живой организм, который живет или не живет, благодаря исполнителю.
И.Г. Шароев отмечает: «Эстрадное искусство оправдывает своё назначение только в том случае, если является отражением жизни народа, если пульс эстрады бьется в унисон с пульсом времени. Именно в связи с этим и следует рассматривать воспитательное назначение эстрады» [8, с. 25]. И когда в результате обучения эстрадному вокалу молодой человек может сказать слушателю о самом главном - о том, что он хочет донести своим исполнением, тогда истинная педагогическая цель достигнута.
1. Хаитов РМ., Игнатьева Г.А., Сидорович И.Г. Иммунология. 2000.
2. Философский энциклопедический словарь. Available at: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/34833
3. Резолюция генеральной конференции ЮНЕСКО от 16 ноября. 1995.
4. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2005.
5. Краткий психологический словарь. Москва, 1985.
6. Полозова А. В. О путях взаимодействия академической и массовой музыки и педагогических возможностях музыки массовых жанров: материалы межрегиональной научно-практической конференции с международным участием. Москва, 2006.
7. Кабалевский Д.Б. Дорогие мои друзья. Москва, 1977.
8. Шароев И.Г. Режиссура эстрады и массовых представлений: учебник для студентов театральных высших учебных заведений. Издание 3-е, исправленное. Москва, 2009.
9. Уколова Л.И. Педагогически организованная музыкальная среда как средство становления духовной культуры растущего человека. Диссертация ... доктора педагогических наук. Москва, 2008.
10. Уколова Л.И. Влияние культурно-образовательной среды на процесс воспитания растущего человека. Мир науки, культуры, образования. 2013; 6 (43): 274 - 276.
11. Уколова Л.И. Формирование духовной культуры молодого поколения. Искусство и образование. 2015; 4 (5): 132 - 135.
12. Солдатова Г.У., Лекторский В.А., Петренко В.Ф. и др. Толерантность как фактор противодействия ксенофобии. Методология социального конструирования толерантности и управления рисками ксенофобии в многополярном мире. Москва, 2011: 13 - 89.
References
1. Haitov R.M., Ignat'eva G.A., Sidorovich I.G. Immunologiya. 2000.
2. Filosofskij 'enciklopedicheskij slovar'. Available at: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/34833
3. Rezolyuciya general'noj konferencii YuNESKO ot 16 noyabrya. 1995.
4. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2005.
5. Kratkijpsihologicheskijslovar'. Moskva, 1985.
6. Polozova A. V. O putyah vzaimodejstviya akademicheskojimassovojmuzykiipedagogicheskih vozmozhnostyah muzykimassovyh zhanrov: materialy mezhregional'noj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem. Moskva, 2006.
7. Kabalevskij D.B. Dorogie moi druz'ya. Moskva, 1977.
8. Sharoev I.G. Rezhissura 'estrady i massovyh predstavlenij: uchebnik dlya studentov teatral'nyh vysshih uchebnyh zavedenij. Izdanie 3-e, ispravlennoe. Moskva, 2009.
9. Ukolova L.I. Pedagogicheski organizovannaya muzykal'naya sreda kak sredstvo stanovleniya duhovnoj kul'tury rastuschego cheloveka. Dissertaciya . doktora pedagogicheskih nauk. Moskva, 2008.
10. Ukolova L.I. Vliyanie kul'turno-obrazovatel'noj sredy na process vospitaniya rastuschego cheloveka. Mirnauki, kul'tury, obrazovaniya. 2013; 6 (43): 274 - 276.
11. Ukolova L.I. Formirovanie duhovnoj kul'tury molodogo pokoleniya. Iskusstvo iobrazovanie. 2015; 4 (5): 132 - 135.
12. Soldatova G.U., Lektorskij V.A., Petrenko V.F. i dr. Tolerantnost' kak faktor protivodejstviya ksenofobii. Metodologiya social'nogo konstruirovaniya tolerantnostii upravleniya riskami ksenofobii v mnogopolyarnom mire. Moskva, 2011: 13 - 89.
Статья поступила в редакцию 16.11.16
УДК 378
Isbanioly M., English teacher (Israel); postgraduate, Manal West Timisoara University, (Romania), E-mail: jsirota1976@gmail.com
PARTICIPATION OF TEACHERS IN DECISION MAKING AS MOTIVE TO REFORMS IN EDUCATION SYSTEM. Reform in general is usually motivated by decision makers. However, most of researchers who deal with organizational change emphasize the employees' participation in the change process. Around the world and Israel's cooperation model is reflected in teachers' self-managed schools. The today's trend is school autonomy that is expressed in self-administrated schools. Those schools' moto is participation of teachers in organizational and professional decisions. The article defines what a self-administrated school is, what the autonomy level in schools is, what difficulties of teachers' staff cooperation on the organizational and personal levels are. The article's conclusion is that there is a great importance to teachers' participation in decision making, but it has to be performed in a way, in which the teachers will feel they deal with their expertise' field, if they have difficulty in implementing the decisions and it will load their work. Key words: reform, education system, self-administrated school, participation in decision making, pressure.
М. Исбаниоли, преп. английского языка (Израиль); аспирант, Западный Университет Тимишоара, Румыния, E-mail: jsirota1976@gmail.com
ПРИВЛЕЧЕНИЕ ПЕДАГОГОВ К САМОУПРАВЛЕНИЮ ШКОЛЫ
КАК СРЕДСТВО МОТИВАЦИИ В РЕАЛИЗАЦИИ РЕФОРМ СИСТЕМЫ ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ
Реформы в целом, как правило, зависят от лиц, принимающих решения. Однако, большинство исследователей, которые занимаются изучением эффективности продвижения реформ, подчёркивают роль сотрудников в процессе изменений. Современный тренд в системе образования в мировой практике и в школах Израиля - это самоуправляемые школы.
В этих школах велико участие педагогов в принятии всех организационно-профессиональных решений, касающихся процесса обучения и воспитания школьников. В данной статье рассмотрены различные уровни автономии общеобразовательных в школах; показаны трудности, возникающие у сотрудников в процессе сотрудничества на организационном и личном уровнях. В статье делается вывод о том, что во многом реформы системы образования зависят от степени участия в них учителей, от возможности их участия в самоуправлении школы и в принятии решений.
Ключевые слова: реформирование, система образования, самоуправляемые школы, участие учителей в принятии решений.
The declared goal of reforms in education is to raise the achievement of more and more students and allow them better integration in society. In addition to the fact that sometimes reforms are a survival necessity of organizations and a way of systems to keep an issue in the focus of public interest, is serves as a lever for constant renewal and expresses longing to change education [1]. Reforms in education occur too recently Grimmett & Wideen [2] define reform in education as a planned change process aimed to achieve objectives appreciated by it initiators. Therefore, a reform in education is a change usually driven from top to bottom. Meaning, from policy designers to the performing echelon (school principals) that is pressed to perform changes in the system and suit it to the expectations of the supervisors and the environment.
There are many definitions to the term participation in decision making; one of the primary definitions (1979) is the one of Locke and Schwaiger that defined participation in decision making as the division of influence between principals and employees. A later reference to the term (1994) is the one of Wagner that broadens the definition and claimed that: participation in decision making creates similar involvement of the principal and the employees in the processes of data transition, decision making or solving problems" [3].
When coming to discuss in school there is a question what is participation in decision making in school. The common perception is that the actions in school are divided into two different areas: the wide school area, which includes management, coordination, planning and budgeting; and the class area, which includes teaching and educational pedagogic activities. Traditionally, school's general administration area is perceived as more important in the modern bureaucratic scale, and the right to decision making in this area is preserved to school management. But, according to the modern perceptions, the teachers, which are school's most important resource, have to get more power and real partnership in school managing through their participation in decision making concerning its policy designing [4].
School of self-managing as a lever to teacher's cooperation. As part of the general trend in many countries around the world the tendency to transfer the authority to schools and allow them administrative autonomy [5] has been developed, although the reasons and motives may vary from country to country. For example, the desire for extra democratization in India, the interest the government of Argentina to share the public in the problems of education foundation or Brazil's efforts to promote local autonomy [6]. Except the difference in the motives of different countries, there is a mutual motive to the idea of decentralizing authority and giving possibility of self-administration in schools, and it is the faith that self-administration will lead to improvement in education quality. The opinion that investment in education is the most worthwhile investment of public money has been reinforced lately when findings of longitudinal study made in 63 countries for 40 years, has pointed a clear connection between education quality, the gross domestic product and the improvement of life quality in the country [7]
The idea of self-administration in schools in Israel was raised because of reality that required solutions to administrative problems, as burnout and teachers' absence [8] and pedagogic problems, as low academic achievements, students' dropout from schools, prominent academic gaps and cultural variance between groups of students. Another main difficulty was considerable reduction of budgets and study hours. The increasing difficulty of the ministry of education to be responsible for educational achievements in terms of budget reduction from one hand, and the decentralization trend that was accelerated in many countries in the world from the other hand [9], and recognition of the difficulty of centralizing system to supply the variety of educational needs of a plural society led the education system to new stage, in which the educational-organizational center of gravity were transferred from the system to the community and schools. The assumption is that school knows better the needs of students and teachers' community and therefore it will be more efficient to let it make its own decisions as it suits it [10] All these were part of the reasons that in the study year of 2015-2016 the ministry of education has decided to about experimental activation of self-administrated elementary schools. The experiment was applied in nine schools in four
districts of the ministry of education: North, Haifa, Center and South. From the study year of 1996-1997 until the study year of 2000-2001 joined 801 schools along the country working in self-administration. Therefore, school autonomy is a result of decentralization policy, by which some of the authorities of the ministry of education are transferred to school. Usually it means that school gets a permit for self-administration of budgets and self-indication of pedagogic policy. The level of self-administration depends in the level of decentralizing the ministry of education's authorities, when the level may vary from place to place, from time to time and from one type of school to another [11].
The level of participation of teachers in decision making.
Participation of teachers in decision making is presented theoretically in the model of partnership in management [12]. Partnership in management is an organizational strategy based on several assumptions: (a) Social - participation and democracy as main values in culture. (b) Organizational - participation that is required by the goals school set to itself in the current time. (c) Psychologic - participation contributes to satisfying the needs of belonging, significance, identification and personal growth (Shachar, H. & Magen-Nagar, N., 2010). Although quite a few reviews were made against the idea of shared management and participation of teachers in decision making, it was accelerated and has taken roots mainly in professional thinking and less in professional action of the ministry of education [13].
With that in mind it is worth asking what are the areas the teachers should participate in decision making in order to make the process efficient and give teachers a sense of sharing from one hand, and from the other hand will not overwhelm them too much. In respond to this question, Hoy and Tarter (1993) divided the variety of decisions in school into three domains as mentioned before: "the acceptance domain", that includes the subjects and issues in which teachers accept the management's decisions (as: budget, human resource); "the sensitivity domain", that includes the subjects in which teachers feel themselves as pedagogical experts and they can and need to be partners in decision making (as: class managing, achievements evaluation); "the margins domain", that includes subjects in which one teacher or another has unique expertise and he can and need to be partners in decision making (as: informatics, planning computer laboratory, esthetic design of spaces in school). By their opinion, the model may help the principal to participate teachers in decision making in an efficient and economical way.
The range of subjects the principal must deal with every day is huge. Starting from proper use of resources, trough responding to local events in school and ending with finding current solutions to students' populations that differ from each other in language, culture and religion [14]. Therefore, it may be assumed that participation of the the staff in decision making may make it much easier for the principal. But at this point, many principals have a dilemma between the need and intention to share teachers in decision making and the fact the principal has the sole responsibility for the success or failure performing the decisions in each one of these domains, even when it made by other staff members of with their participation [15]. Many principals confront a main dilemma: between the need and intention to share teachers in decision making and the fact the principal has the sole responsibility for the success or failure performing the decisions in those domains, even when it made by other staff members of with their participation (Winkler, D. ). It seems that this dilemma may influence a lot the style the principal will take in participation of the staff in school decision making, even if it is self-administrated school. And in fact, researches of administrated school has found that school had many obstacles, as low accountability of teachers, lack in expertise of decision makers, poor communication and lack of trust between teachers and management (Shachar, H. 1997). The researchers have pointed the fact that teachers' authority was limited because the wide education system, which school is subject to it binds them in rules and regulations referring to the wide range of their activity. The conclusions of the researches were that real participation of teachers in managing and decision making requires redefinition of all officials and allocation of time and resources. Therefore, even if school declares a process of participating teachers in decision mak-
ing, it is important to find out the level of its actual happening and in which domains.
Positive and negative aspects of participation in decision making. Many empirics researches examined the subject of participation in decision making in industrial work environment (i.e. [16]) and in educational environment. In the educational context, a research that examined over 600 teachers has found that participating teachers in decision making is positively connected to school's streamlining [17], it is also improves the quality of decision making and contributes to teacher's work quality in addition, there are some that see in it a main component that allows changes in school. Lately there are many discussions about participation in decision making as a tool of inserting reforms and positive changes in work processes in schools. An example of a positive change may be seen un the research of Somech in 2002 that found that participation in decision making improves the pedagogic quality and students' achievements, indirectly - trough improvement of teaching methods, she also notes in her article that participation in decision making contributes to making school more democratic work place. However, in other researches was found that in schools that has participation the teachers' productivity or the students' achievements were not improved (i.e. [18]). Beyond that, there are some that claim that participation in decision making has negative influence because it distracts the teachers and empty their energies [19]. Maybe the organization's characteristics (in this case - school) are those that harden the participation implementation. Literature that deal with school research points on two main problems of school as an organization: A. most of schools are hierarchic, there is a clear role hierarchy - the principal is at the head of the organization, the teachers are underneath him and there is no echelon between them. School has little variety in roles and reduced mobility. B. schools are organizations with "loose connections" between different units [20]. I.e. teachers' work is disconnected from each other and from the principal's work. These characteristics harden the implementation of participation in school, since there is clear distribution of echelons that distance teachers from the high deciding rank, and in addition the loos connections between different units in school harden participating teachers and power distribution in the process of decision making. Participation in decision making was mentioned a lot in the research literature because of its positive influence on satisfaction, improvement in employee's work performance and improvement in his health (i.e. [20]) Participation in decision making is positively connected to teacher's performance, meaning that as there is more
Библиографический список
participation, the teacher perform better his work. Other research works have showed that participation in decision making is positively connected to the teacher's health. A possible explanation to participation's good influence may come from its giving autonomy, trust, patience, tolerance and openness in the interaction between the principal and the teachers [21].
At the beginning of the 1990's researchers (i.e. [22; 23]) has started to research the negative aspect of participation in decision making. Their main claim was that for certain people and in certain circumstances participation in decision making may be perceived as stressor. Researches that tried to understand the negative influence of participation in decision making was focused on the terms delegation of authority, enriching the duty and roles' complexity and requirements [24]. The last ones explain how participation leads to pressure, according to their claim, in work that include participation in decision making the work rate and the demands from the employees is increased, therefore, the situation of increase in participation in decision making may be simulated to an increase in work demands. For example, some note that employee's participation in decision making in an area he does not have enough information and experience will have negative influence, make him feel shame and "not good enough" (harm in self-image). Apparently, the reasons to the negative influence of participation is in the fact that participation creates a role that requires many skills, a lot of experience in independent decision making and as such it leads to larger pressure than other roles. Participation in decision making also adds to the employee challenge, responsibility and duty to be accountable (Shachar, H. & Magen-Nagar, N., 2010)
However, there is no doubt that giving autonomy and participation in decision making must be conditioned in providing the teacher the necessary knowledge. Autonomy means, among others, the school's ability to determine the appropriate priorities for its students' population. Since teachers are those who have most of the information about these priorities, they will be those who will participate in the decision about them. Meaning that the more cooperation between the teacher and school, and the teachers will decide according to their professional knowledge and knowing the student, they will feel less pressure and the level of their satisfaction of participating decision making will increase (Shachar, H. 1997). When we come to make changes in school, it is important that the principal will define the change area and its goals and will integrate the teacher in making decisions in his field. In this situation, the positive aspects of participating decision making will be expressed.
1. Адлер Н. Введение. В Фишер, Михаэли Н (редакция). Изменения и совершенствования системы образования: эссе. Иерусалим, 2010.
2. Блэз Ж. Эффективное учебное руководство учителям о принципах продвижения преподавания и обучения в школах. Вестник образования. 2000; 38 (2): 130 - 141.
3. Локк А.Е., Швайгер Д.М. Участие в решении. Исследования в области организационного поведения. 1979; 1: 265 - 339.
4. Шахар Н. Последствия изменения проектом школы на удовлетворенность учителей своим трудом восприятие трудностей обучения. Обучение и воспитание. 1997; 13: 43.
5. Винклер Д. Выявление влияния децентрализации образования на качество образования. Вашингтон, округ Колумбия: образовательная программа по улучшению качества 2, агентство США по международному развитию (АМР США). Академия развития образования, 2005.
6. Коэн Ж. Связь децентрализации и школы по повышению качества. Академия развития образования США, 2004.
7. Джемисон, Е., Джемисон. Влияние качества образования на рост доходов и снижение смертности. Экономика образования 2007, (26) 6: 758 - 770.
8. Газиел Г. Самоуправляемая школа: теория, исследования и практика. Рамота: Тель-Авивский Университет, 2002.
9. Шахар Х. & Маген-нагар Н. Участие в принятии решений и чувство автономии и степени удовлетворенности педагогов, комментарий в управление и организацию образования. 2010.
10. Чабб Дж. Должен ли рынок контролировать образовательный процесс принятия решений? Американские Политические Науки: обзор; 1998, Jun 90, ч. 84; Выпуск 2.
11. Ндо А., Миран М. Последствия школьного управления. Международный журнал образования Администрации. 2006; (20) 2: 126 - 116.
12. Аподака-Такер М. На базе школы менеджмента: взгляд из государственных и частных начальных школ. Анализ Образовательной Политики Архивов, 10 (23). Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v10n23.html. 2002
13. Рознозер Н., Шимрон С. Делегирование полномочий и возможностей. Центр Хаим Zipri общинного образования, компания общинных центров в Израиле ЛТД, 2000.
14. Петерс. Политика образования, благосостояние и язык рынка. Австралийский Исследователь в области образования. 2002, (27) 2: 63 - 86.
15. Шахар Н. Последствий изменения проекта школы на удовлетворенность учителей своим трудом и своим восприятием трудности обучения. Обучение и воспитание. Учитель. 1997; 13: 43 - 57.
16. Лам С.С. К., Чен х. П. Подходы к коллективному взаимодействию и работоспособности работников в разных культурах. Академический журнал менеджмента. 2002; Вып. 45: 905 - 914.
17. Тейлор Л.Д. Участие педагога в принятии решений. Образовательная оценка и стратегический анализ. 1994; 16: 302 - 319.
18. Леитвуд К. Влияние трансформационного лидерства на организационные условия и взаимодействие студента с учебным заведением. Журнал Управление образованием. 2000; 38 (2): 112 - 129.
19. Маркс М.Х. & Луис С.К. Вправе ли учитель повлиять на занятия? Последствия влияния педагога на учебную практику и успеваемость. Образовательная оценка и стратегический анализ. 1997; 19 (3): 245 - 275.
20. Елбоим - Дрор Р. Три школы в менеджменте и теории управления. Теория и её применение в образовании. Иерусалим: Еврейский Университет, 1987: 63 - 80.
21. Ганстер Д.С., Фузилеры М.Р Контроль на рабочем месте. Международный обзор промышленной и организационной психологии. 1989: 236 - 280.
22. Джонсон М., Ледбеттер Л. Роль преподавателей в общем процессе принятия решений в школе: критические точки зрения. Документ, представленный на ежегодном заседании американской научно-педагогической Ассоциации, Атланта, США. 1993.
23. Паркер Майк и Джейн Слотер. Союз и управления стрессом. Расширение возможностей и эксплуатации в мировой автомобильной промышленности. Детройт: Уэйнский Университет пресс, 1995: 41 - 53.
24. Ландсбергис А.П., Кэхилл Дж. Влияние бережливого производства и связанное с ним Новые системы организации труда и здоровье работника. Журнал о профессиональной психологии здоровья. 1999; 4 (2): 108 - 130.
References
1. Adler N. Vvedenie. V Fisher, Miha'eli N (redakciya). Izmeneniya i sovershenstvovaniya sistemy obrazovaniya: 'esse. lerusalim, 2010.
2. Bl'ez Zh. 'Effektivnoe uchebnoe rukovodstvo uchitelyam o principah prodvizheniya prepodavaniya i obucheniya v shkolah. Vestnik obrazovaniya. 2000; 38 (2): 130 - 141.
3. Lokk A.E., Shvajger D.M. Uchastie v reshenii. Issledovaniya v oblasti organizacionnogo povedeniya. 1979; 1: 265 - 339.
4. Shahar N. Posledstviya izmeneniya proektom shkoly na udovletvorennost' uchitelej svoim trudom vospriyatie trudnostej obucheniya. Obuchenie i vospitanie. 1997; 13: 43.
5. Vinkler D. Vyyavlenie vliyaniya decentralizacii obrazovaniya na kachestvo obrazovaniya. Vashington, okrug Kolumbiya: obrazovatel'naya programma po uluchsheniyu kachestva 2, agentstvo SShA po mezhdunarodnomu razvitiyu (AMR SShA). Akademiya razvitiya obrazovaniya, 2005.
6. Ko'en Zh. Svyaz' decentralizacii i shkoly po povysheniyu kachestva. Akademiya razvitiya obrazovaniya SShA, 2004.
7. Dzhemison, E., Dzhemison. Vliyanie kachestva obrazovaniya na rost dohodov i snizhenie smertnosti. 'Ekonomika obrazovaniya 2007, (26) 6: 758 - 770.
8. Gaziel G. Samoupravlyaemaya shkola: teoriya, issledovaniya ipraktika. Ramota: Tel'-Avivskij Universitet, 2002.
9. Shahar H. & Magen-nagar N. Uchastie v prinyatii reshenij i chuvstvo avtonomii i stepeni udovletvorennosti pedagogov, kommentarij v upravlenie i organizaciyu obrazovaniya. 2010.
10. Chabb Dzh. Dolzhen li rynok kontrolirovat' obrazovatel'nyj process prinyatiya reshenij? Amerikanskie Politicheskie Nauki: obzor; 1998, Jun 90, ch. 84; Vypusk 2.
11. Ndo A., Miran M. Posledstviya shkol'nogo upravleniya. Mezhdunarodnyj zhurnal obrazovaniya Administracii. 2006; (20) 2: 126 - 116.
12. Apodaka-Taker M. Na baze shkoly menedzhmenta: vzglyad iz gosudarstvennyh i chastnyh nachal'nyh shkol. Analiz Obrazovatel'noj Politiki Arhivov, 10 (23). Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v10n23.html. 2002
13. Roznozer N., Shimron S. Delegirovanie polnomochiji vozmozhnostej. Centr Haim Zipri obschinnogo obrazovaniya, kompaniya obschinnyh centrov v Izraile LTD, 2000.
14. Peters. Politika obrazovaniya, blagosostoyanie i yazyk rynka. Avstralijskij Issledovatel' v oblasti obrazovaniya. 2002, (27) 2: 63 - 86.
15. Shahar N. Posledstvij izmeneniya proekta shkoly na udovletvorennost' uchitelej svoim trudom i svoim vospriyatiem trudnosti obucheniya. Obuchenie i vospitanie. Uchitel'. 1997; 13: 43 - 57.
16. Lam S.S. K., Chen h. P. Podhody k kollektivnomu vzaimodejstviyu i rabotosposobnosti rabotnikov v raznyh kul'turah. Akademicheskij zhurnal menedzhmenta. 2002; Vyp. 45: 905 - 914.
17. Tejlor L.D. Uchastie pedagoga v prinyatii reshenij. Obrazovatel'naya ocenka i strategicheskij analiz. 1994; 16: 302 - 319.
18. Leitvud K. Vliyanie transformacionnogo liderstva na organizacionnye usloviya i vzaimodejstvie studenta s uchebnym zavedeniem. Zhurnal Upravlenie obrazovaniem. 2000; 38 (2): 112 - 129.
19. Marks M.H. & Luis S.K. Vprave li uchitel' povliyat' na zanyatiya? Posledstviya vliyaniya pedagoga na uchebnuyu praktiku i uspevaemost'. Obrazovatel'naya ocenka i strategicheskij analiz. 1997; 19 (3): 245 - 275.
20. Elboim - Dror R. Tri shkoly v menedzhmente i teorii upravleniya. Teoriya i ee primenenie vobrazovanii. lerusalim: Evrejskij Universitet, 1987: 63 - 80.
21. Ganster D.S., Fuzilery M.R. Kontrol' na rabochem meste. Mezhdunarodnyj obzor promyshlennoj i organizacionnoj psihologii. 1989: 236 - 280.
22. Dzhonson M., Ledbetter L. Rol' prepodavatelej v obschem processe prinyatiya reshenij v shkole: kriticheskie tochki zreniya. Dokument, predstavlennyj na ezhegodnom zasedanii amerikanskoj nauchno-pedagogicheskoj Associacii, Atlanta, SShA. 1993.
23. Parker Majk i Dzhejn Sloter. Soyuz i upravleniya stressom. Rasshirenie vozmozhnostej i 'ekspluatacii v mirovoj avtomobil'noj promyshlennosti. Detrojt: U'ejnskij Universitet press, 1995: 41 - 53.
24. Landsbergis A.P., K'ehill Dzh. Vliyanie berezhlivogo proizvodstva i svyazannoe s nim Novye sistemy organizacii truda i zdorov'e rabotnika. Zhurnal o professional'noj psihologii zdorov'ya. 1999; 4 (2): 108 - 130.
Статья поступила в редакцию 28.11.16
УДК 37.02
Zueva T.N., senior teacher, Novosibirsk Institute of Training and Further Training of Specialists in Education (Novosibirsk, Russia),
E-mail: tfk_sport@mail.ru
THE INFLUENCE OF COMPLEX EXPERIMENTAL WORK ON FUNCTIONAL AND PHYSICAL FITNESS OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN. The article shows that an early use of socio-pedagogical flexibility ensures the timely and effective development of mental and physical work of children based on innovative integrated work in a kindergarten. The work establishes measuring of the influence of the applied traction mode on the studied parameters in connection with the age, sex and individual characteristics of children. Thus, specific values are determined by morphological and functional and motor activity. The author explores ways of solution of the problem of speech disturbances (in 68-70% of cases) of preschool children aged from 4 to 7. In other words, it shows the effectiveness of the complex socio-pedagogical work in accordance with the sensitive period of development of certain motor characteristics in the first period of childhood.
Key words: innovative complex work, model of physical activity, physical education of children of preschool age, psychophysical readiness.
Т.Н. Зуева, ст. преп., Новосибирский институт повышения квалификации и переподготовки работников
образования, г. Новосибирск, E-mail: tfk_sport@mail.ru
ВЛИЯНИЕ КОМПЛЕКСНОЙ ОПЫТНО-ЭКСПЕРИМЕНТАЛЬНОЙ РАБОТЫ НА ФУНКЦИОНАЛЬНУЮ И ФИЗИЧЕСКУЮ ПОДГОТОВЛЕННОСТЬ ДОШКОЛЬНИКОВ
В статье показано, что раннее применение социально-педагогической гибкости обеспечивает своевременное и эффективное развитие психофизических показателей детей на базе инновационной комплексной работы в условиях детского сада. Установлена мера влияния примененных двигательных режимов на изучаемые показатели в связи с возрастом, полом и индивидуальными особенностями детей. Так, определены конкретные величины морфофункциональных и двигательных
