Стратегии на образователната и научната политика

2015/2, стр. 127 - 137

EFFECTIVE SCHOOLS: REALITY OR UTOPIA?

Elena Thoukididou

Резюме: What makes a school effective? In particular, what are the characteristics of effective schools as perceived by researchers? Research studies (e.g., Purkey and Smith, 1983; Heck, Larsen and Marcoulides, 1990; Scheurich and Skrla, 2003) on effective schools have yielded lists of characteristics on effective schools. However the characteristics are not absolute, but are directly related to the social-cultural framework and the values that reflect the school, the educational staff, the students and the general social-economical frame of the school. The critical questions to be addressed in this study are: 1.The effective school, occupying by effective teachers is a utopia or can be accomplished? 2. Which are the key factors that affect effectiveness of a school? 3. How the finding of studies for effective schools can be adapted to the demands and needs of each school? In these questions the present article tries to give answers.

Ключови думи: effective schools, effectiveness, characteristics of effective schools, effective school studies

Introduction

The request for the improvement of education is today equally important as it was in the beginning of the century. The social and political changes that occurred during the last four decades have effected, some in greater extent and others in smaller the educational system of divert societies, since the educational system of a society is a reflection of the social system which is applied and at the same time is the same power that evolves it and refreshes it. In this changing social environment each social educational system attempts to fulfi l its mission in order to help the effectiveness of the school units. But, which is the school that can be accepted as effective and survive in the open and complicated social environment as it is evolving around us?

School effectiveness: a controversial issue

Effectiveness is generally assumed as the capability of producing a desired effect (American Heritage, 2000) and as the quality of the ability to bring about a desired effect. As the keyword here is “desired effect” it clearly implies that it involves the fulfillment of criteria based on a term of reference. Schreens (2000) however argues that the literary meaning of effectiveness is goal attainment and hence the criteria used to measure performance reflect important educational objectives.

The complexity of defining effectiveness will invariably result in the diffi culty in defining or understanding school effectiveness. Researchers give different defi nition or meaning to this term.

Reynolds et al. (1994: 93) reported that “The lack of a common operational definition of an effective school may cause problems in comparing results across a variety of studies ranging in such operational defi nitions”. If every researcher is searching for different things or gives a different meaning to school effectiveness then the results of the various school effectiveness studies cannot be compared or discussed in a manner that will promote school effectiveness research in a productive way.

Edmonds (1979: 16) defi ned school effectiveness as the ability of the school to “Bring the children of the poor to those minimal masteries of basic school skills that now describe minimally successful pupil performance for the children of the middle class”. This definition implies that poor children are less able than those of the middle or the upper class and that are in a worse position as far as their development. This assumption however cannot be accepted. It is very diffi cult to determine the levels of minimally successful pupil performance for children of the middle class in order for the poor children to be able to try to reach them. Also, the school must have the ability to recognize the needs of its pupils and environment’s needs, and work under those given conditions in promoting its goals. In addition, the school must have the ability to maximize all pupils’ development. A school should be effective for all its pupils and for all aspects of schooling and not only those of the poor, middle or upper class.

Mortimore (1991a) defined a school as effective when students’ progress, in consideration of its intake, is further than might be expected. It is a school that adds extra value to the outcomes of its student in comparison with other schools serving similar intakes. In other words if a school is expected to achieve 70% of the predetermined goal, due to its intake, and it in fact achieves more, then this school is considered as effective. Analysing Mortimore’s definition one can recognize that in order to make judgments on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a school, one must then compare it with schools serving similar intakes. But we also need to look for specific goals and objectives that the school can achieve, and if those are possible to achieve then one can compare it with schools that have the same goals and objectives. Levine and Lezotte (1990) defined effectiveness as the production of a desired result or outcome. This definition, even though it is not complete, sets the direction that school effectiveness must be judged according to its goals and objectives.

Sammons (1994) argued that the definitions of school effectiveness depend upon a variety of factors such as the sample of schools examined, choice of outcome measures, adequate control for differences between schools in intakes to ensure that “like is compared with like”, methodology, timescale et cetera. Although Sammons set the directions of a definition of school effectiveness, in the end she did not propose a specifi c defi nition encompassing all those characteristics and directions that could form complete definition. Likewise, Stoll and Fink (1996) identifi ed four aspects that should be investigated in order to define a school as effective:

If it promotes progress for all its pupils beyond what would be expected.

If it ensures that each pupil achieves the highest standards possible.

If it enhances all aspects of pupil achievement and development.

If it continues to improve from year to year.

Their identification of the four aspects is very important because they set at the center of school effectiveness research the pupil, and yet they do not neglect the role of the school as a learning organization that must continue to improve from year to year.

Morley and Rasool (1999) view school effectiveness as a change being brought about by a greater focus on the school as an entity that is to be managed. School effectiveness is also argued as an example of a new managerialism in education where there is a combination of culture management (the creation of purposes and meaning) with performance management i.e. measuring what really matters (Morley and Rasool, 1999: 59 – 60). Hence a managerial perspective of school effectiveness is evolved here adding a new dimension to the perspective of school effectiveness.

Though studies give various perspectives of what constitutes school effectiveness or what an effective school is, the diversified views lead as to cohere with the conclusion that: ‘…while all reviews assume that effective schools can be differentiated from ineffective ones, there is no consensus yet on just what constitutes an effective school’(Reid, Hopkins and Holly, 1987: 22).

Schreerens (2000) in presenting a paper to the International Institute of Educational planning under UNESCO adds that ‘School effectiveness is a diffi cult concept to define and once defined is of a nature difficult to reason’. He adds further that school effectiveness is a field characterized by many approaches, concepts and models. It is diffi cult even to have a clear grasp of the pros and cons of each (Schreerens, 2000: 7 – 9). Hence the concept of school effectiveness has various approaches and is a complex issue and hence the lack of consensus on what exactly constitutes as school effectiveness is not a surprise.

In reviewing early School Effectiveness Research in the USA, Firestone (1991: 2) noted that ‘Effectiveness is not a neutral term. Defining the effectiveness of a particular school always requires choices among competing values’. Hence he further adds that ‘the criteria of effectiveness will be a subject of political debate’.

An overall perspective that emerges here is that school effectiveness involves a focus on outcomes and whether it exceeded its desired goals. The outcomes could be purely measures of academic achievement (Willims, 1992; Hoy and Miskel, 2001) theought to be consistently positive. They are argued from an input-output perspective and in a broader perspective, the product of ‘value added’ to schooling or the overall personal development of students. The arguments of a multi-dimensional facet of school effectiveness (Morley and Rasool, 1999) refl ect the complexity of the concept of school effectiveness. Hence school effectiveness needs to rest on a broad perspective that it is the ability of a school to exceed its desired goals, taking into consideration of differences between students in its intake. It may be in line with Mortimore’s widely accepted view of an effective school (Mortimore, 1991a) but it differs from the viewpoint that the goals need not be purely academic in nature as broader ‘value-added’ functions of schooling emerge.

In a few words, “effectiveness” in the area of school units is a multi-dimensional concept since no absolute criteria can include the complex nature of it, nor some of the targets of the school unit like the “creating of conceptions”, the “believes”, the “creation of consciousness” of the students etc. can be counted. Besides, from researches of the part decades regarding the effectiveness of the school units there is no specific theory, which explains what is that, which identifies the effective school. Besides all that, the researches brought to the light factors important to the effective functions of the school units.

Effective school studies

What makes a school effective? What factors are responsible for making some schools more effective than others? Research on school effectiveness has yielded an impressive number of factors related to school effectiveness. The vast majority of this research, beginning with the Coleman Report published in the U.S. in 1966 in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has dealt with high poverty schools. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration released the two-volume report, On Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman et al., 1966) that is widely regarded as the one of the most important education studies of the 20th century. In 1999, Dr. Albert Beaten stated, when speaking about the Coleman Report, “I don’t think there’s anything close to it. It changed the way we thought about the whole issue of equality of educational opportunity” (Hoff, 1999: 33). Beaton helped analyze the date for the Educational Testing Service. This seminal and controversial work, written by the sociologist James S. Coleman (1966) of Johns Hopkins University, proposed that family background and the socioeconomic makeup of the student body are the principle, and possibly the only, predictors of successful schools.

Coleman’s et al. (1966) research followed the diatribes of Admiral H.G.Rickover against the spirit of Dewey’s progressive education and the perceived failures of the American education system after the launch of Sputnik in 1957. Rickover was deeply concerned that the Soviets were going to overwhelm the “Free World” after their technological feat of beating the U.S. into space. Rickover believed that the math and science courses of the 1950’s had failed to provide the U.S. industrial and military complex with competent engineers. He particularly blamed Dewey’s progressive education model for what he believed was the steady deterioration of secondary-school curricula.

In Britain, the public debate of the 1950’s and 1960’s pointed to the overwhelming restrictions placed on the population by the ingrained social order. The divided public education system that had taken shape in the nineteenth century seemed to clearly limit educational opportunities based on class. The subsequent fi ght by British educators and politicians to recognize schools reinforced the logic that schooling practices must be important in determining the social and economic future of children. The Plowden Committee Report (1967), “Children and Their Primary Schools”, stressed the powerful impact of parental background, expectations and attitudes on children’s educational performance, but the report did not undermine the British school systems as significantly as Coleman’s conclusions had in the U.S. the year previously (Silver, 1994). In the shades of Admiral Rickover, a series of ‘Black Papers’ written by C.B. Cox and others during the late 60’s through the mid ’70’s, held ‘progressive education’ responsible for the lowering of educational standards in the U.K. (Cox, Boyson, and Amis, 1975; Cox, Dyson and Amis, 1968).

Coleman’s paper, “Equality of Educational Opportunity”, examined the concept of education in terms of its meaning to society. This federally sponsored ground breaking report involved 4000 randomly selected elementary and secondary schools, 570,000 pupils, and 60,000 teachers from across the United States. His research conclusions stated that schools did not really make a large difference in the educational success of its pupils. He stated that the socio-economic status of the family was the key indicators of school success. Using regression analysis, Coleman (1966:325) determined that “schools bring little inuence to bear on a child’s achievement that is independent of his background and general social context”. In his analysis he contended that only 5 – 9 per cent of the total variance in individual student achievement was uniquely accounted for by conditions in the school while almost 35 percent of the variance in individual achievement was attributable to the differences between the schools. Coleman stated that the large variation range was due to disparity in the between schools effect for different cultural groups: there was more variance between schools in the achievement scores of Mexican-American, American Indians, Puerto Ricans and Afro-Americans in the southern states. While Afro-American in the northern states had less variance between schools in their scores (Coleman et al., 1966).

Coleman (1967: 193) summarized the learning problems of urban schools by concluding, “Minority groups are consistently exposed to schools with a greater average number of problems than are whites, including property destruction, impertinence to teachers, racial tension, stealing, physical violence, drinking and the use of narcotics.” He asked the question, “Whose obligation is it to provide equal educational opportunities or does it have inherent contradictions and con icts with the prevailing social organization of the population”.

The Plowden Committee Report (1967: 35) produced by the Central Advisory Council for Education in England and offi cially titled ‘Children and their Primary Schools’, was the United Kingdom’s counterpart to the Coleman Report. The Plowden Report reached a similar conclusion as to the importance of schooling when compared to the influences of the family structure and socio-economic status. The report stated, ‘Differences between parents will explain more of the variation in the children than differences between schools’. Parental attitudinal factors, in fact, accounted for 58 percent of the variance in student achievement in this study. (Teddie and Reynolds, 2000).

In 1972 Jencks combined the data from the Coleman report with data from several other research studies and concluded that student achievement or economic success in later life did not depend on schools. In support of Coleman’s fi ndings they states that the research lead them to the conclusion that success in school and success in their future economic life was largely determined by the characteristics of their home environment (Jencks, 1972).

A number of educational researchers cried foul and sought to counter the findings of Coleman (1967) and Jencks (1972). They believed that the estimation of the size of effects of the school was questionable and that the statistical analysis was flawed. Researchers subsequent to the Coleman Report tried to improve their research design and analytical processes in order to obtain more reliable results, and to show that schools were more effective than the Coleman Report concluded.

In his book entitled ‘The Impact of School Resources on the Learning of Inner City Children’, Murnane (1975) concluded that both classroom and school assignment had a major effect on student achievement. He found in his research that the reported student achievement scores increased significantly when classroom and school assignment were added to the effect of prior achievement and student background variables. Murnane believed that Coleman’s decision to enter the variables of the home situation into the regression equation before the school variable ‘biased the analysis against fi nding the school variables important’ (Murnane, 1975: 9).

Summers and Wolfe (1977: 652) in their study of elementary students in Philadelphia concluded “the empirical investigations have failed to fi nd potent school effects because the aggregative nature of the data used disguised the school’s true impact”. Others believed that the using of norm referenced tests to measure school achievement was less sensitive to the school’s overall effect on student achievement. Madaus and his colleagues instead used criterion referenced tests and concluded that school and classroom factors explained a larger proportion of the variance (Madaus et al., 1980). Payne and Biddle (1999: 5) contended that the Coleman Report “used awed procedures for statistical analysis, and these had generated falsely in ated estimates for the effects of home-background factors and falsely de ated estimates for school effects”.

Brookover and Erickson (1975) believed that school climate could be a powerful predictor of student achievement. In their study of a random sample of elementary schools in Michigan (n=68) they were the first to use simultaneous principal, teacher, and student questionnaires that looked at a number of climate variables. They found a significant correlation between climate factors and student achievement leading to their conclusion that the school does have a significant effect on student achievement when the actual school variables that have the greatest effect are studied.

Twenty years after the Coleman Report however, economist Erik Hanushek (1986) summarized the results of 112 research studies which investigated school inputs comparable to those Coleman considered, i.e. per pupil expenditure, school facilities, teacher years of experience, and their correlation to student achievement on standardized tests. In a report more than two decades later, his conclusions were similar to Coleman’s. He found that there is little verifiable evidence that increases in expenditure at the school level has a dependable influence on student achievement.

The head teacher’s role was identified as one of the most important factors for school effectiveness (e.g. Edmonds, 1979; Levine and Lezotte, 1990; Mortimore et al., 1988). Cheng (1986) investigated how school effectiveness is related to the principal; s style and organizational climate and the importance of organizational factors in determining school performance. He found that the organizational factors were very important in determining school performance. On the other hand, Brown (1987) studied the role of school – based management in students’ achievements finding that school based management did not appear to produce higher – grade scores. Most of these studies found that the role of head teacher is essential in promoting effectiveness at school and classroom level on various elements such as pupils’ achievements, school climate, parental involvement et cetera. This recognition show that organizational factors are very important in determining school effectiveness and that a school must be effective both at school and at classroom level.

Characteristics that contribute to effective schools

An important part of school effectiveness research was the identifi cation of certain characteristics in schools that showed more effectiveness than did other schools with similar status. In other words, the studies produced a list of all those characteristics that seemed to describe those schools that could be recognized as « effective » due to their outstanding work in comparison to other schools with similar status. The school effectiveness studies used various methods, different samples and investigated different countries or different areas of the same country (e.g., Edmonds, 1979; Purkey and Smith, 1983; Mortimore et al., 1988). One may acknowledge that many of those factors have common features even though they were identified in different periods of time, using different methods in various part of the world or even in different areas of the same country. This recognition adds to the validity of the school effectiveness research. The conditions under which any educational research is applied are different for many reasons, such as the context, the time, the methodology and the methods used, the culture of those doing the research, the culture of those taking part in the research et cetera. Looking at the lists of the above studies we can see some common or similar characteristics:

1. The process of effective leadership

2. The process of effective teaching

3. Developing a pervasive focus on learning

4. Developing staff skills at the school site

5. Creating high expectations for all

6. Monitoring progress at all levels

7. Involving parents in productive and appropriate ways

8. Producing a positive school climate

Furthermore, after examining the development of school effectiveness research, it is clear that there is no defi nite and fixed combination of variables leading to school effectiveness, and by no means can the examination of various variables reveal the whole picture of school effectiveness. We may somehow conclude at this stage that several concepts have to be considered in the process of the examination of effectiveness.

Although some arguments are formulated against the use of all kinds of criteria, it is important to use more criteria than before in future research to determine effectiveness, especially in the areas of academic outcomes such as higher-order skills and meta-cognitive knowledge and skills.

Effectiveness levels themselves are not stable. For the purpose of school improvement, but also for the development of a theory on the question of what induces effective education, we need studies about schools in transition (Teddlie & Stringfield 1993). As stated by McPherson (1997: 186) ‘any pupil can have a bad day, any school a bad year. Sensible judgments will therefore be based, not on snapshots, but on repeated measures of pupils and schools’.

The method of studying effectiveness in school is seen to rest in a pragmatic challenge to researchers to integrate aspects of methodology, qualitative and quantitative, in order “to defi ne attainment…find ways of measuring it, …provide estimates of improved school effectiveness with school-based activities studies, … make clear the processes within schools which ow from the selected activities, and demonstrate how these processes impinge on the wider school community” (Reynolds et al. 1993: 156).

However these characteristics are not absolute, but are directly related to the social and cultural frame and the values represented by the school, the educational staff, students and the more general social and economy frame of it.

Thus, a school, which is considered result full in a frame, can be considered result full in another. In general the results of the research related to the effectiveness of a school have substance and are applicable only when implemented within the certain social-cultural frame since the factors of effectiveness are not translations but influences (MacBeath, 2001: 38).

It must be understood in depth that the school is not a homogenous substance, and this is the reason that we refer to the uniqueness of each school culture. Due to the uniqueness of the school organizations and of their sub-systems the term “the difference of effectiveness” has occur which is mentioned by MacBeath (2001: 39), confi rming that in most successful schools there is also failure, and also some students are better than others. For this reason researchers consider that this matter has to be further studied in order to be clear how the school culture is working in schools and how this is connected with the broader social and cultural framework of the school.

Moreover, the issue of effectiveness is directly related to how each one of us is translating effectiveness. There is a different meaning of effective school in African countries than in European countries. There is a different opinion of a student for the effectiveness of a school than the opinion of the teachers or the head master of the same school. Thus, effectiveness includes the term of personal opinion and perspective.

The composition of a frame of effectiveness for a school will be applicable, not from the moment that is organized in papers but from the moment it becomes a subject of discussion within people that are directly related, which are no others than the teachers, the parents and even the students of a school. Maybe this is an important reason for the people making the suggestion, the designers and also the researchers to think that the school must – and is logical – to have different characteristics of effectiveness, based on the sub-systems that consist it and the broader social-cultural framework.

Conclusions

All that had been said consist the theoretical framework, which is based on researches of several years that define the special characteristics of the effective school and suggest models of school effectiveness. It is logical to have the question if the theories have been set during time can be applied.

We are in the society of knowledge and information. The same pace with which the knowledge is developed is the same with which is getting old (Mavrogiorgos, 1993). School, open in evolution and challenges of the modern era can overcome the crisis and the issues that characterize it and with long term, logical educational programming and optimize it in essence. Certainly a fully scientific and educationally full teacher is not enough in order to transform a school from an effective to effective. Each participant in the school unit has an important role in order to ensure the effectiveness of the system.

Quality effective school, with effective teachers must not be a utopia or a myth for the Cypriot status quo. It can be accomplished, if educational tactic and a system with values, product of a social dialog with all participants, take place.

REFERENCES

American Heritage, (2000). Dictionary of the English Language 4th edition, Boston, Houghton Miffi n Co.

Brookover, W.B. and Erickson, E.L. (1975). Sociology of Education. Homewood: Dorsey Press.

Coleman, J.S. (1967). The concept of Equality of Educational Opportunity. Baltimore, MD.

Coleman, J.S., Campell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McParland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., et al. (1966). Equality of Educational opportunity. Washington, DC: u.s. Government Printing Offi ce.

Cox, C.B., Boyson, R. & Amis, K. (1975). Black paper 1975: the fight for education. London: Dent.

Cox, C.B., Dyson, A.E & Amis, K. (1968). Fight for education: a black paper. London: Critical Quarterly Society.

Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15 – 24.

Firestone, W.A. (1991). Introduction: Chapter 1 in J.R. Bliss, W.A.

Firestone & C.CE. Richards (Eds). Rethinking Effective Schools: Research, Police and Practise, Englewood Cliffs.

Heck, R. H., Larsen, T.J., & Markoulides, G.A. (1990). Instructional leadership and school achievement: Validation of a casual model. Education Administration Quarterly, 26 (2), 94 – 125.

Hoff, D.J. (1999). Echoes of the Coleman Report. Education Week, 18, 33.

Hoy, W.K. & Miskel, C.G. (2001). Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practise, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jencks, C. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.

Levine, D.U. and Lazotte, L.W. (1990). Unusually Effective Schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: The National Center for effective schools research and development.

MacBeath, J. (2001). Self-assessment in school. Utopia and Action Athens: Ellinika Grammata.

Madaus, G.F., Airasian, P.W. and Kellagham, T. (1980). School effectiveness: a reassessment of the evidence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mavrogiorgos,G. (1993). Teachers and Evaluation. Athens, Contemporary Education.

McPherson, A. (1997). Measuring added value in schools. In Harris, A., Benett, N., and Preedy, M. (Eds). Organizational effectiveness and improvements in education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Morley, Louidr and Rassool, Naz. (1999). School Effectiveness: Fracturing the Discourse. London: Palmer Press.

Mortimore, P. (1991a). The nature and findings of school effectiveness research in the primary sector. In Riddeli, S. and Brown, S. (Eds). School Effectiveness Research: Its messages for school improvement. London: HMso.

Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., D. and Ecob, R. (1988). School matters. London: Open Books.

Murname, R.J. (1975). The impact of school resources on the learning of inner city children. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger Pub. Co.

Payne, K.J. and Biddle, B.J. (1999). Poor school funding. Child poverty and mathematics achievement. Educational Research, 28 (6), 4 – 13.

Purkey, S.C. and Smith, M.S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427 – 452.

Reid, K., Hopkins, D. & Holly, P. (1987). Towards the Effective School. Oxford: Blachwell.

Reynolds, D. & Creemers, P.M.B., Nesselrodt, S.P., Schaffer, C.E., Stringfi eld, S. and Teddlie, C. (1994). Advances in school Effectiveness Research and Practice. Oxford: Pergamon.

Sammons, P. (1994). Findings from school effectiveness research: some implications for improving the quality of schools. In Ribbins, P. and Burridge, E. (Eds), Improving Education: The issue in quality. London: Cassell.

Scheerens, J. (2000). Improving School Effectiveness. Paris, UNESCO.

Scheurich, J.J., & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for equality and excellence: Creating high achievement classrooms, schools and districts. (1st Ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, Inc.

Silver, H. (1994). Good schools, effective schools: judgements and their histories. London: New York, Cassell.

Stoll, L. and Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Summers, A.A. and Wolfe, B.L. (1977). Do schools make a difference? American Economic Review, 67, 639 – 652.

Teddie, C. & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: lessons learned from a 10-year study of school effects. New York: Teachers College Press.

Willms, J.D. (1992). Monitoring School Performance: A guide for educators. London: Falmer Press.

2025 година
Книжка 4
ТРАНСФОРМАЦИИ НА ПАЗАРА НА ТРУДА И НУЖДАТА ОТ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНИ РЕФОРМИ

Ваня Иванова, Андрей Василев, Калоян Ганев, Ралица Симеонова-Ганева

Книжка 3
FORMING ENTREPRENEURIAL CULTURE THROUGH EDUCATION

Prof. Dr. Milena Filipova, Adriana Atanasova, PhD student

Книжка 2s
THE STATE OF INCLUSION IN ADAPTED BASKETBALL

Dr. Stefka Djobova, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Ivelina Kirilova, Assist. Prof.

THE IMPACT OF AGE ON ADULT’S PARTICIPATION IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES DURING LEISURE TIME

Dr. Despina Sivevska, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Biljana Popeska, Assoc. Prof.

Книжка 2
MODEL OF PROFESSIONALLY DIRECTED TRAINING OF FUTURE ENGINEER-TEACHERS

Prof. Ivan Beloev, Dr. Valentina Vasileva, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Іnna Savytska, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Oksana Bulgakova, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lesia Zbaravska, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Olha Chaikovska, Assoc. Prof.

QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN BULGARIA: COMMUNICATION AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY TRAINING

Prof. Rositsa Doneva, Dr. Silvia Gaftandzhieva, Assoc. Prof.

ВЛИЯНИЕ НА ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО И ЧОВЕШКИЯ КАПИТАЛ ВЪРХУ ФОРМАЛНАТА И НЕФОРМАЛНАТА ИКОНОМИКА

Проф. д-р Стефан Петранов, доц. д-р Стела Ралева, доц. д-р Димитър Златинов

DETERMINANTS AFFECTING ACADEMIC STAFF SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE LEARNING IN HIGHER MEDICAL EDUCATION

Dr. Miglena Tarnovska, Assoc.Prof.; Dr. Rumyana Stoyanova, Assoc.Prof.; Dr. Angelina Kirkova-Bogdanova; Prof. Rositsa Dimova

Книжка 1s
CHALLENGES FACED BY THE BULGARIAN UNIVERSITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE – INDUSTRY RELATIONS

Dr. Svetla Boneva, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Nikolay Krushkov, Assoc. Prof.

INVENTING THE FUTURE: CAN BULGARIAN UNIVERSITIES FULFILL THEIR MISSION AS CATALYSTS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND SUSTAINABILITY?

Dr. Ralitsa Zayakova-Krushkova, Assist. Prof., Dr. Alexander Mitov, Assoc. Prof.

AN INNOVATIVE MODEL FOR DEVELOPING DIGITAL COMPETENCES OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Prof Dr. Lyudmila Vekova, Dr. Tanya Vazova, Chief Assist. Prof., Dr. Penyo Georgiev, Chief Assist. Prof., Dr. Ekaterina Uzhikanova-Kovacheva

BUSINESS ASPECTS OF ACADEMIC PUBLISHING

Dr. Polina Stoyanova, Chief Assist. Prof.

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MUSIC STREAMING

Dr. Dimiter Gantchev, Assist. Prof.

FILM INCENTIVE SCHEME IN THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

Dr. Ivan Nachev, Assist. Prof.

PATENT PROTECTION OF DIGITAL TWINS

Dr. Vladislava Pаcheva, Chief Assist. Prof.

Книжка 1

МНОГОСТРАНЕН ПОДХОД ЗА ИЗСЛЕДВАНЕ РАВНИЩЕТО НА ДИГИТАЛИЗАЦИЯ В ПОДГОТОВКАТА НА БЪДЕЩИ УЧИТЕЛИ

Доц. д-р Бистра Мизова, проф. д-р Румяна Пейчева-Форсайт Проф. д-р Харви Мелър

2024 година
Книжка 6s
DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES RISK MANAGEMENT

Dr. Miglena Molhova-Vladova, Dr. Ivaylo B. Ivanov

THE DUAL IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: CATALYST FOR INNOVATION OR THREAT TO STABILITY

Prof. Diana Antonova, Dr. Silvia Beloeva, Assist. Prof., Ana Todorova, PhD student

MARKETING IN TOURISM: PRACTICAL EVIDENCES

Dr. Fahri Idriz, Assoc. Prof.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE INFORMATION ECONOMY CONCEPT AND THE TRANSITION TO INDUSTRY 5.0

Dr. Dora Doncheva, Assist. Prof., Dr. Dimitrina Stoyancheva, Assoc. Prof.

THE GLOBAL MARKET AS A PROJECTION OF THE INFORMATION ECONOMY

Dr. Vanya Hadzhieva, Assist. Prof. Dr. Dora Doncheva, Assist. Prof.

ACADEMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP: PRACTICAL RESULTS AND TRAINING

Prof. Nikolay Sterev, DSc., Dr. Daniel Yordanov, Assoc. Prof.

Книжка 6
AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH TO ORGANIZING THE FORMATION OF STUDENTS’ COGNITIVE INDEPENDENCE IN CONDITIONS OF INTENSIFICATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Dr. Albina Volkotrubova, Assoc. Prof. Aidai Kasymova Prof. Zoriana Hbur, DSc. Assoc. Prof. Antonina Kichuk, DSc. Dr. Svitlana Koshova, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Svitlana Khodakivska, Assoc. Prof.

ИНОВАТИВЕН МОДЕЛ НА ПРОЕКТНО БАЗИРАНО ОБУЧЕНИЕ НА ГИМНАЗИАЛНИ УЧИТЕЛИ: ДОБРА ПРАКТИКА ОТ УниБИТ

Проф. д-р Жоржета Назърска, доц. д-р Александър Каракачанов, проф. д-р Магдалена Гарванова, доц. д-р Нина Дебрюне

Книжка 5s
КОНЦЕПТУАЛНА РАМКА ЗА ИЗПОЛЗВАНЕ НА ИЗКУСТВЕНИЯ ИНТЕЛЕКТ ВЪВ ВИСШЕТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Акад. д.н. Христо Белоев, проф. д.н. Валентина Войноховска, проф. д-р Ангел Смрикаров

ИЗКУСТВЕНИЯТ ИНТЕЛЕКТ В БИЗНЕСА – ФИНАНСОВИ, ИКОНОМИЧЕСКИ И МАРКЕТИНГОВИ АСПЕКТИ

Проф. д-р Андрей Захариев, доц. д-р Драгомир Илиев Гл. ас. д-р Даниела Илиева

RECENT TRENDS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE EDUCATION

Prof. Dr. Plamen Zahariev, Prof. Dr. Georgi Hristov, Prof. Dr. Ivan Beloev

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF UTILIZING POPULAR INTELLIGENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS IN EDUCATION

Dr. Galina Ivanova, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aleksandar Ivanov, Assoc. Prof.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF TRAINING IN REMOTE VIRTUAL SUPERVISION IN SOCIAL WORK

Dr. Silviya Beloeva, Assist. Prof. Dr. Nataliya Venelinova, Assist. Prof.

ИЗСЛЕДВАНЕ ПРИЛОЖИМОСТТА НА БЛОКОВИ ВЕРИГИ ОТ ПЪРВО НИВО (L1) В СИСТЕМА ЗА ЕЛЕКТРОННО ОБУЧЕНИЕ

Андриан Минчев, проф. Ваня Стойкова, гл. ас. д-р Галя Шивачева Доц д-р Анелия Иванова

DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION RISKS IN THE TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Dr. Silviya Beloeva, Assist. Prof. Dr. Nataliya Venelinova, Assist. Prof.

OPPORTUNITIES, CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS FOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES THROUGH 3D TECHNOLOGIES

Prof. Georgi Hristov, Prof. Plamen Zahariev, Dr. Diyana Kinaneva, Assist. Prof., Georgi Georgiev, Assist. Prof.

ДИГИТАЛНОТО ПОКОЛЕНИЕ VS. СЛЯТОТО, ПОЛУСЛЯТОТО И РАЗДЕЛНОТО ПИСАНЕ

Доц. д-р Владислав Маринов, ас. Анита Тодоранова

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR THE EDUCATION OF STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT: THE NEW NORMAL

Prof. Julia Doncheva, DSc., Dr. Galina Ivanova, Assoc. Prof. Dilshod Tojievich Oblokulov

ИЗГРАЖДАНЕ НА КОМПЕТЕНЦИИ ЗА РАЗРАБОТВАНЕ НА STEM ОБУЧИТЕЛНИ РЕСУРСИ У БЪДЕЩИ УЧИТЕЛИ ПО ПРИРОДНИ НАУКИ

Доц. д-р Евгения Горанова, проф. д.н. Валентина Войноховска, проф. д-р Ангел Смрикаров

APPLICATION OF ZSPACE TECHNOLOGY IN THE DISCIPLINES OF THE STEM CYCLE

Boyana Ivanova, Assist. Prof. Dr. Kamelia Shoilekova, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Desislava Atanasova, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Rumen Rusev, Assoc. Prof.

TEACHERS' ADAPTATION TO CHANGES IN AN INCREASINGLY COMPLEX WORLD THROUGH THE USE OF AI

Prof. Zhanat Nurbekova, Kanagat Baigusheva, Kalima Tuenbaeva, Bakyt Nurbekov Prof. Tsvetomir Vassilev

АТОСЕКУНДНОТО ОБУЧЕНИЕ – МЕТАФОРА НА ДНЕШНОТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Проф. д.н. Юлия Дончева, Денис Асенов, проф. д-р Ангел Смрикаров проф. д-р Цветомир Василев

APPLICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF DIGITAL RESOURCES IN THE EDUCATION OF FUTURE PEDAGOGUES

Dr. Galina Ivanova, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Milena Velikova, Assist. Prof.

IDENTIFYING PLAYER TYPES IN THE CLASSROOM FOR EFFECTIVE GAMIFICATION

Dr. Desislava Atanasova, Assoc. Prof., Viliana Molnar

DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION OF AUDIO AND VISUAL MICRO-RESOURCES IN THE LEARNING PROCESS THROUGH THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS

Dr. Petya Stefanova, Assist. Prof., Dr. Assist. Elitsa Ibryamova, Assist. Prof., Prof. Angel Smrikarov, Dr. Galina Ivanova, Assoc. Prof.

АНАЛИЗ НА ПРОГРАМНИТЕ МОДЕЛИ ЗА АВТОМАТИЗИРАНЕ НА КОГНИТИВНИ ПРОЦЕСИ

Доц. д-р Валентин Атанасов Доц. д-р Анелия Иванова

Книжка 5
MANAGING A POSITIVE AND LIFE-SKILLS DEVELOPMENT IN THE SCHOOL-BASED CURRICULA: A LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION

Dr. Lindita Durmishi, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Ardian Durmishi Prof. Milena Filipova Dr. Silva Ibrahimi

APPLICATION OF THE COMPETENCY MODEL IN BUSINESS ADMINISTARATION HIGHER EDUCATION IN HORIZON 2030

Prof. Nadya Mironova, Dr. Tatyana Kicheva, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Miglena Angelova, Assoc. Prof.

Книжка 4s
THE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH IN THE QUADRUPLE HELIX AND THE REGIONAL INNOVATION PROSPECTS

Prof. Dr. Milen Baltov Dr. Stela Baltova, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vilyana Ruseva, Assoc. Prof.

Книжка 4
ATTITUDES OF STUDENTS – FUTURE TEACHERS, FOR THE APPLICATION OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Assoc. Prof. Nikolay Tsankov, DSc. Dr. Ivo Damyanov, Assist. Prof.

EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF THE JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITALIZATION

Dr. Diana Dimitrova, Dr. Darina Dimitrova, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Velina Koleva

MANAGERIAL ASPECTS OF COOPERATION AMONG HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR STAKEHOLDERS

Prof. Olha Prokopenko, DSc. Dr. Svitlana Perova, Assoc. Prof. Prof. Tokhir Rakhimov, DSc.

APPLICATION OF EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES IN STUDYING THE DYNAMICS OF STATE POWER STRUCTURES: IMPLEMENTATION OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL MECHANISMS OF INFLUENCE

Prof. Stoyan Denchev, DSc. Dr. Miriyana Pavlova, Assist. Prof. Dr. Steliana Yordanova, Assist. Prof.

ДИАГНОСТИКА НА ФОРМИРАНАТА ПРОФЕСИОНАЛНА КОМПЕТЕНТНОСТ НА БЪДЕЩИ ИНЖЕНЕРИ ПО ЕНЕРГЕТИКА

Гл. ас. д-р Надя Илиева Доц. д-р Елена Бояджиева Ивалина Маринова

Книжка 3s
A MODEL FOR CALCULATING THE INDIRECT ADDED VALUE OF AI FOR BUSINESS

Dr. Petya Biolcheva, Assoc. Prof., Prof. Nikolay Sterev, DSc.

AI EFFECTIVENESS AND RISK ASSESSMENT OF INVESTMENTS IN HIGH-RISK START-UPS

Sotir Ivanov, PhD Student, Dr. Petya Biolcheva, Assoc. Prof.

COMPETITIVENESS OF TEXTILE PRODUCERS IN DIGITAL BUSINESS ERA

Prof. Nikolay Sterev, DSc., Dr. Vyara Milusheva, Assoc. Prof.

CHALLANGES OF USING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING

Dr. Bozhana Stoycheva, Assist. Prof. Dr. Pavel Vitliemov, Assoc. Prof.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ERASMUS+ MOBILITY IN BUSINESS EDUCATION: AN EXAMINATION OF A SUCCESSFUL BULGARIAN-MEXICAN COLLABORATION

Dr. Lyudmila Mihaylova, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Emil Papazov, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Diana E. Woolfolk Ruiz

Книжка 3
ИГРОВИ ПОДХОДИ В ОБУЧЕНИЕТО: УНИВЕРСИТЕТСКИ КОНТЕКСТ

Проф. д.н. Цветан Давидков Силвия Тонева, докторант

Книжка 2
FORMATION OF PROFESSIONAL SKILLS OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS DURING LABORATORY PRACTICE WHEN STUDYING FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE

Dr. Ivan Beloev, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Oksana Bulgakova, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Oksana Zakhutska, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Maria Bondar, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lesia Zbaravska, Assoc. Prof.

ИМИДЖ НА УНИВЕРСИТЕТА

Проф. д.п.н. Галя Христозова

Книжка 1s
COMPETITIVENESS AS A RESULT OF CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION

Dr. Nikolay Krushkov, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ralitza Zayakova-Krushkova

INNOVATION, TECHNICAL PROGRESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Dr. Aleksandar Aleksandrov, Assist. Prof.

ENHANCING ECONOMIC SECURITY THROUGH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Dr. Dimiter Gantchev, Assist. Prof.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND SECURITY IN THE INTEGRATED CIRCUITS INDUSTRY

Dr. Ivan Nachev, Dr. Yuliana Tomova, Iskren Konstantinov, PhD student, Marina Spasova, student

GREEN TRADEMARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY

Dr. Silviya Todorova, Assist. Prof.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ITS PROTECTION AS AN INVENTION

Dr. Vladislava Pаcheva, Assist. Prof.

Книжка 1
PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES FOR SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Prof. Dr. Milena Filipova Prof. Dr. Olha Prokopenko Prof. Dr. Igor Matyushenko, Dr. Olena Khanova, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Olga Shirobokova, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ardian Durmishi

RESEARCH OF USING THE SYSTEM APPROACH TO INCREASE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE OF STUDENTS IN THE PROCESS OF STUDYING NATURAL SCIENCES

Dr. Ivan Beloev, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Іnna Savytska, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Oksana Bulgakova, Assoc. Prof. Prof. Iryna Yasinetska, Dr. Lesia Zbaravska, Assoc. Prof.

2023 година
Книжка 6s
TRANSFORMING MARITIME EDUCATION FOR A DIGITAL INDUSTRY

Dr. Christiana Atanasova, Assist. Prof.

DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMON INFORMATION SYSTEM TO CREATE A DIGITAL CAREER CENTER TOGETHER WITH PARTNER HIGHER SCHOOLS

Prof. Dr. Yordanka Angelova, Dr. Rossen Radonov, Assoc. Prof. Vasil Kuzmov, Assist. Prof. Stela Zhorzh Derelieva-Konstantinova

DRAFTING A DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION STRATEGY FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SECTOR – EMPIRICAL STUDY ON UAE

Mounir el Khatib, Shikha al Ali, Ibrahim Alharam, Ali Alhajeri Dr. Gabriela Peneva, Assist. Prof., Prof. Jordanka Angelova, Mahmoud Shanaa

VOYAGE OF LEARNING: CRUISE SHIPS WEATHER ROUTING AND MARITIME EDUCATION

Prof. Svetlana Dimitrakieva, Dr. Dobrin Milev, Assist. Prof., Dr. Christiana Atanasova, Assist. Prof.

RESEARCH ON THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMPETENCES OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN PRACTICE

Land. arch. Elena Dragozova, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Stanislava Kovacheva, Assoc. Prof.

STUDY OF THE KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTIVE PLANNING AND UTILIZATION OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE

Dr. Tanya Panayotova, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Krasimira Dimitrova, Assoc. Prof., Neli Veleva, PhD student

SIMULATOR TRAINING – UNIQUE POWERFUL INSTRUMENT FOR EDUCATING, SKILLS CREATING, MITIGATING SKILLS AND RESILIENCE CREATING

Prof. Dimitar Dimitrakiev, Vencislav Stankov, Assist. Prof., Dr. Christiana Atanasova, Assist. Prof.

СТРУКТУРНИ ПРОМЕНИ В ОБУЧЕНИЕТО НА МЕНИДЖЪРИ ЗА ИНДУСТРИЯ 5.0

Доц. д-р Недко Минчев, доц. д-р Венета Христова, гл. ас. д-р Иван Стоянов

RESEARCH OF THE INNOVATION CAPACITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS

Dr. Siya Veleva, Assoc. Prof.; Prof. Dr. Eng. Margarita Mondeshka Dr. Anka Tsvetanova, Assoc. Prof.,

Книжка 6
Книжка 5s
ПРЕСЕЧНАТА ТОЧКА НА СПОРТА, СИГУРНОСТТА И КРИПТО ФЕН ТОКЕНИТЕ

Полк. доц. Георги Маринов Доц. Милена Кулева

ВИДОВЕ ТРАВМИ В ПАРАШУТИЗМА И ПРЕВЕНЦИЯТА ИМ

Капитан III ранг Георги Калинов

ОБУЧЕНИЕ В ХОДЕНЕ С ПОМОЩНИ СРЕДСТВА – РИСКОВЕ И СИГУРНОСТ ЗА ПАЦИЕНТА

Атанас Друмев Доц. д-р Данелина Вачева, доц. д-р Искра Петкова

Книжка 5
ПОДХОДИ ЗА ПСИХОСОЦИАЛНА ПОДКРЕПА НА УНИВЕРСИТЕТСКИ ПРЕПОДАВАТЕЛИ В УСЛОВИЯ НА КРИЗА

Доц. д.н. Цветелина Търпоманова, доц. д.н. Веселина Славова

Книжка 4s
DETERMINING THE DEGREE OF DIGITALIZATION OF A HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION

Acad. DSc. Hristo Beloev, Prof. Dr. Angel Smrikarov, Assoc. Prof. DSc. Valentina Voinohovska, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Galina Ivanova

A STUDY ON THE POSSIBILITIES TO INTEGRATE THE MODERN 3D TECHNOLOGIES IN THE SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Prof. Dr. Georgi Hristov, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ivan Beloev, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Plamen Zahariev, Assist. Prof. Dr. Diyana Kinaneva, Assist. Prof. Georgi Georgiev

THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITIES AS ACCELERATORS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE STEM LEARNING METHODS IN THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Prof. Dr. Georgi Hristov, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ivan Beloev, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Plamen Zahariev, Assist. Prof. Georgi Georgiev

ОТ STEM КЪМ BEST: ДВА СТАНДАРТА, ЕДНА ЦЕЛ

Проф. д-р Андрей Захариев, проф. д-р Стефан Симеонов, гл. ас. д-р Таня Тодорова

ВЪЗМОЖНОСТИ ЗА ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ НА БЛОКЧЕЙН ТЕХНОЛОГИЯТА В ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО

Докторант Андриан Минчев, доц. д-р Ваня Стойкова

ПРЕДИЗВИКАТЕЛСТВА НА ДИГИТАЛНАТА ТРАНСФОРМАЦИЯ В ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО – СРАВНИТЕЛЕН АНАЛИЗ НА СТУДЕНТСКОТО МНЕНИЕ

Гл. ас. д-р Мирослава Бонева, доц. д-р Антон Недялков, проф. д.н. Милена Кирова

CHALLENGES, REQUIREMENTS, OPPORTUNITIES AND SOLUTIONS FOR THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE TRANSPORT EDUCATION

Prof. Dr. Georgi Hristov, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ivan Beloev, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Plamen Zahariev

Книжка 4
EFFECT OF RESILIENCE ON BURNOUT IN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Dr. Radina Stoyanova, Prof. Sonya Karabeliova, Petya Pandurova, Dr. Nadezhda Zheckova Dr. Kaloyan Mitev

STATE AND PROSPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF ACADEMIC MOBILITY IN THE SYSTEM OF TRAINING A SPECIAL EDUCATION SPECIALIST

Dr. Tetiana Dokuchyna, Assoc. Prof., Prof. Dr. Svitlana Myronova, Dr. Tetiana Franchuk, Assoc. Prof.

Книжка 3s
STRATEGIES AND POLICIES TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF AI TECHNOLOGIES IN EUROPE

Assoc. Prof. Miglena Molhova, Assoc. Prof. Petya Biolcheva

BULGARIA'S TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE PRISM OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICIES

Assoc. Prof. Ivaylo B. Ivanov, Assoc. Prof. Miglena Molhova

INTELLIGENT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: FARMER ATTITUDES AND A ROADMAP FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Prof. Dr. Dimitrios Petropoulos, Koutroubis Fotios Assoc. Prof. Petya Biolcheva Evgeni Valchev

EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN TOURISM THROUGH MOTIVATION

Assoc. Prof. Fahri Idriz Assoc. Prof. Marin Geshkov

Книжка 3
САМООЦЕНКА НА ОБЩООБРАЗОВАТЕЛНИТЕ И РЕСУРСНИТЕ УЧИТЕЛИ ЗА РАБОТА В ПАРАДИГМАТА НА ПРИОБЩАВАЩОТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Проф. д.н. Милен Замфиров, проф. Емилия Евгениева, проф. Маргарита Бакрачева

STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE USE OF COMMUNICATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS OF ENGINEERS TRAINING

Assoc. Prof. Ivan Beloev, Assoc. Prof. Valentina Vasileva Assoc. Prof. Sergii Bilan, Assoc. Prof. Maria Bondar, Assoc. Prof. Oksana Bulgakova, Assoc. Prof. Lyubov Shymko

SAFETY THROUGH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

Assoc. Prof. Petya Biolcheva Evgeni Valchev, PhD student

Книжка 2
РАЗПОЛОЖЕНИЕ НА ВИСШИТЕ УЧИЛИЩА В БЪЛГАРИЯ В КОНТЕКСТА НА ФОРМИРАНЕ НА ПАЗАРА НА ТРУДА

Гл. ас. д-р Цветелина Берберова-Вълчева, доц. д-р Камен Петров, доц. д-р Николай Цонков

CHARACTERISTICS AND COMPONENTS OF THE CYBER HYGIENE AS A SUBCLASS OF CYBER SECURITY IN MILITARY ENVIRONMENT AND EDUCATIONAL ISSUES

Prof. Boyan Mednikarov, DSc. Prof. Yuliyan Tsonev Dr. Borislav Nikolov, Prof. Andon Lazarov, DSc.

Книжка 1
MODERNIZATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE LECTURE COURSE IN PHYSICS FOR TRAINING FUTURE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS

Dr. Ivan Beloev, Assoc. Prof., Dr. Valentina Vasileva, Assoc. Prof. Prof. Vasyl Shynkaruk, DSc., Assoc. Prof. Oksana Bulgakova, Assoc. Prof. Maria Bondar Assoc. Prof. Lesia Zbaravska, Assoc. Prof. Sergii Slobodian

THE NEW PANDEMIC NORMAL THROUGH THE EYES OF BULGARIAN STUDENTS

Prof. Vyara Stoilova, Assoc. Prof. Todorka Kineva

2022 година
Книжка 6
ORGANIZATION OF AN INCLUSIVE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Prof. Halyna Bilavych Prof. Nataliia Bakhmat Prof. Tetyana Pantiuk, Prof. Mykola Pantiuk Prof. Borys Savchuk

ДИГИТАЛИЗАЦИЯ НА ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО В БЪЛГАРИЯ: СЪСТОЯНИЕ И ОБЩИ ТЕНДЕНЦИИ

Д-р Теодора Върбанова, проф. д-р Албена Вуцова, доц. д-р Николай Нетов

СКРИНИНГ НА ЗРЕНИЕТО – ПРОФИЛАКТИКА И ЕЛЕМЕНТ ОТ ПРАКТИКАТА НА СТУДЕНТИ И ОБУЧЕНИЕТО НА УЧЕНИЦИ

Руска Драганова-Христова, д-р Славена Стойкова, доц. д-р Снежана Йорданова

Книжка 5
ПРАВОТО НА ИЗБОР В ЖИВОТА НА ДЕЦАТА В РЕПУБЛИКА БЪЛГАРИЯ

Проф. д.п.н. Сийка Чавдарова-Костова, гл. ас. д-р Даниела Рачева, ас. Екатерина Томова, доц. д-р Росица Симеонова

SUSTAINABLE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH COACHING: BENEFITS FOR TEACHERS AND LEARNERS

Assoc. Prof. Irina Ivanova, Assoc. Prof. Penka Kozhuharova, Prof. Rumyana Todorova

SELF-ASSESSMENT – A COMPONENT OF THE COMPETENCE-BASED TRAINING IN THE PROFESSION “APPLIED PROGRAMMER”

Assoc. Prof. Ivaylo Staribratov, Muharem Mollov, Rosen Valchev Petar Petrov

Книжка 4
BENCHMARKING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SPEED AND POWER CHARACTERISTICS

Assist. Prof. Dr. Darinka Ignatova Assoc. Prof. Dr. Alexander Iliev

DIAGNOSIS AS A TOOL FOR MONITORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ADDICTION PREVENTION IN ADOLESCENTS

Prof. O.A. Selivanova Assoc. Prof. N.V. Bystrova, Assoc. Prof. I.I. Derecha, Assoc. Prof. T.S. Mamontova, Assoc. Prof. O.V. Panfilova

Книжка 3
ПУБЛИЧНОТО РАЗБИРАНЕ НА НАУКАТА В МРЕЖОВИЯ СВЯТ

Д-р Светломир Здравков, д-р Мартин Й. Иванов, д-р Петя Климентова

ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ ЗА УСТОЙЧИВО РАЗВИТИЕ – ПРАКТИКО-ПРИЛОЖНИ АСПЕКТИ

Гл. ас. д-р Златка Ваклева Проф. д-р Тоня Георгиева

Книжка 2
PREPARATION OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS FOR COMMUNICATIVE AND RHETORICAL ACTIVITY IN SCHOOL IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR PRACTICAL TRAINING

Prof. Halyna Bilavych Prof. Nataliia Bakhmat Prof. Tetyana Pantyuk, Prof. Mykola Pantyuk Prof. Borys Savchuk

ПРОЛЕТНА КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ НА СЪЮЗА НА МАТЕМАТИЦИТЕ В БЪЛГАРИЯ

(Трявна, 5 – 9 април 2022) Гл. ас. д-р Албена Симова

Книжка 1
ДИГИТАЛНАТА ИНТЕРАКЦИЯ ПРЕПОДАВАТЕЛ – СТУДЕНТ В ОНЛАЙН ОБУЧЕНИЕТО В МЕДИЦИНСКИТЕ УНИВЕРСИТЕТИ

Д-р Миглена Търновска, д-р Румяна Стоянова Доц. Боряна Парашкевова, проф. Юлияна Маринова

2021 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
ЕДНА РЕКАПИТУЛАЦИЯ НА ИЗСЛЕДВАНИЯ ВЪРХУ ИНТЕРКУЛТУРНИТЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ. КАКВО СЛЕДВА ОТ ТОВА ЗА ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО?

Давидков, Ц., 2019. Изследвания върху културите. Културни ориентири на управлението. София: СУ „Св. Климент Охридски“, ISBN 978-954-9399-52-3 Проф. Пламен Макариев

Книжка 4s
RECOGNITION OF FAKE NEWS IN SPORTS

Colonel Assoc. Prof. Petko Dimov

SIGNAL FOR HELP

Ina Vladova, Milena Kuleva

Книжка 4
PREMISES FOR A MULTICULTURAL APPROACH TO EDUCATION

Dr. Anzhelina Koriakina, Assoc. Prof., Prof. Lyudmila Amanbaeva, DSc.

ПОЗИТИВНА ПСИХОЛОГИЯ: ПРОБЛЕМНИ ОБЛАСТИ И ФОРМИРАНЕ НА ЛИЧНОСТТА

Доц. д-р Стоил Мавродиев, Любомира Димитрова

КНИГА ЗА ИСТОРИЯТА НА БЪЛГАРСКОТО ВИСШЕ ИНЖЕНЕРНО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Сгурев, В., Гергов, С., Иванов, Г., 2019. Положителните науки с приложение към индустрията. История на висшето техническо образование в България. София: Изд. на БАН „Проф. Марин Дринов“, Изд. „Захарий Стоянов“. ISBN 978-619-245-004-5, ISBN 978-954-09-1387-2.

Книжка 3
ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INTERDISCIPLINARY EDUCATION – SEMIOTIC ASPECTS

Prof. Dr. Christo Kaftandjiev Dr. Diana Kotova

THE PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF ACCOUNTING EDUCATION FOR FUTURE MANAGERS

Nataliia Radionova, DSc. Dr. Radostina Stoyanova, Assist. Prof.

ЗА ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНАТА ИНТЕГРАЦИЯ И ЗАЛОЗИТЕ НА НАСТОЯЩЕТО

Нунев, Й., 2020. Мониторинг на процесите на приобщаване и образователна интеграция и модели за десегрегация на ромското образование. Пловдив: Астарта, ISBN 978-954-350-283-7

Книжка 2
Книжка 1
METHODOLOGY OF SAFETY AND QUALITY OF LIFE ON THE BASIS OF NOOSPHERIC EDUCATION SYSTEM FORMATION

Nataliia Bakhmat Nataliia Ridei, Nataliia Tytova, Vladyslava Liubarets, Oksana Katsero

ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ В УСТОЙЧИВО РАЗВИТИЕ И ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЕ „ДЕТЕ – СРЕДА“

Стоянова, М. (2020). Образование в устойчиво развитие и взаимодействие „дете – среда“ София: Авангард принт. ISBN 978-954-337-408-3

2020 година
Книжка 6
HIGHER EDUCATION AS A PUBLIC GOOD

Yulia Nedelcheva, Miroslav Nedelchev

Книжка 5
НАСЪРЧАВАНЕ НА СЪТРУДНИЧЕСТВОТО МЕЖДУ ВИСШИТЕ УЧИЛИЩА И БИЗНЕСА

Добринка Стоянова, Блага Маджурова, Гергана Димитрова, Стефан Райчев

Книжка 4
THE STRATEGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS STUDY IN EDUCATION

Anush Balian Nataliya Seysebayeva Natalia Efremova Liliia Danylchenko

Книжка 3
ПОМОЩНИ СРЕДСТВА И ТЕХНОЛОГИИ В ПРИОБЩАВАЩОТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Янкова, Ж. (2020). Помощни средства и технологии за деца и ученици със специални образователни потребности в приобщаващото образование.

Книжка 2
МИГРАЦИЯ И МИГРАЦИОННИ ПРОЦЕСИ

Веселина Р. Иванова

SOCIAL STATUS OF DISABLED PEOPLE IN RUSSIA

Elena G. Pankova, Tatiana V. Soloveva, Dinara A. Bistyaykina, Olga M. Lizina

Книжка 1
ETHNIC UPBRINGING AS A PART OF THE ETHNIC CULTURE

Sholpankulova Gulnar Kenesbekovna

ЗА СВЕТЛИНАТА, КОЯТО ИЗЛЪЧВА… В ПАМЕТ НА ПРОФ. Д.П.Н. АСЕМГУЛ МАЛДАЖАНОВА

Нашата редколегия загуби един все- отдаен и неповторим колега и приятел – проф. д.п.н. Асемгул Малдажанова. Пе- дагог по призвание и филолог по мисия! Отиде си от нас нашият приятел, коле- га и член на редколегията на списанието – професор д.п.н. Асемгул Малдажанова – първи заместник-ректор на Евразийския

2019 година
Книжка 6
EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE OF THE SOCIAL TEACHER

Kadisha K. Shalgynbayeva Ulbosin Zh.Tuyakova

Книжка 5
„ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНИ КИНОХОРИЗОНТИ“ В ПОЛЕТО НА МЕДИА ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО

(2018). Образователни кинохоризонти. Международен сборник с научни публи- кации по проект „Естетически и образователни проекции на кинодидактиката“. Бургас: Проф. д-р Асен Златаров. Съставител: Маргарита Терзиева. ISBN 978-954-471-496-3

Книжка 4
ВИСШЕТО МОРСКО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ В КОНКУРЕНТНА СРЕДА

Бакалов, Я. (2019). Висше морско образование. Лидиране в конкурентна среда. Варна: Стено. ISBN 978-619-241-029-2

Книжка 3
УЧИЛИЩЕТО НА БЪДЕЩЕТО

Наталия Витанова

Книжка 2
КНИГА ЗА УСПЕШНИТЕ НАУЧНИ ПУБЛИКАЦИИ

Кожухаров, А. (2018). Успешните научни публикации. Варна: Тера Балканика. ISBN 978-619-90844-1-0

Книжка 1
POST-GRADUATE QUALIFICATION OF TEACHERS IN INTERCULTURAL EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Irina Koleva, Veselin Tepavicharov, Violeta Kotseva, Kremena Yordanova

ДЕЦАТА В КОНСТИТУЦИОННИТЕ НОРМИ НА БЪЛГАРИЯ

Румен Василев, Весела Марева

СЪСТОЯНИЕ НА БЪЛГАРСКОТО ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ

Анелия Любенова Любомир Любенов

ИНТЕРКУЛТУРНИЯТ ТРЕНИНГ КАТО ЧАСТ ОТ СТРАТЕГИЯТА ЗА ГЛОБАЛИЗАЦИОННА ИНТЕГРАЦИЯ

Хубенова, М. (2018). Значение на междукултурната комуникация за направления: политически науки, право, икономика и бизнес. София: Издателски комплекс УНСС. ISBN 978-619-232-072-0

ЕДИН НОВ УЧЕБНИК

Дончева, Ю. (2018). Теоретични и методически основи на запознаване с околния свят в детската градина. Русе: Лени Ан

2018 година
Книжка 6
СТРАТЕГИИ НА ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНАТА И НАУЧНАТА ПОЛИТИКА НАУЧНО СПИСАНИЕ STRATEGIES FOR POLICY IN SCIENCE AND EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL JOURNAL ГОДИНА XXVI / VOLUME 26, 2018 ANNUAL CONTENTS / ГОДИШНО СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ СТРАНИЦИ / PAGES КНИЖКА 1 / NUMBER 1: 1 – 120 КНИЖКА 2 / NUMBER 2: 121 – 224 КНИЖКА 3 / NUMBER 3: 225 – 336 КНИЖКА 4 / NUMBER 4: 337 – 448 КНИЖКА 5 / NUMBER 5: 449 – 560 КНИЖКА 6 / NUMBER 6: 561 – 664

ДИСКУСИОННО / DISCUSSION 211 – 216: Процедурата за назначаване на ръководител на катедра като причина за вло- шаващото се качество на обучението и микроклимата във висшите учи лища у нас [The Procedure for Appointing a Head of Department as a Reason for the Deteriorating Quality of Education and the Microclimate in the Higher School] / Александър Димит- ров / Alexander Dimitrov

Книжка 5
A NEW AWARD FOR PROFESSOR MAIRA KABAKOVA

The staff of the Editorial board of the journal “Strategies for Policy in Science and Education” warmly and sincerely congratulates their Kazakhstan colleague -

ПРОДЪЛЖАВАЩАТА КВАЛИФИКАЦИЯ НА УЧИТЕЛИТЕ – НОРМАТИВЕН И ИЗСЛЕДОВАТЕЛСКИ ОБЗОР

(научно-теоретично обобщение върху проведени обучения на учители)

ЕТНОЦЕНТРИЗМЪТ И ИНЕРЦИИТЕ ОТ МИНАЛОТО – СЕРИОЗНИ ПРОБЛЕМИ В БЪЛГАРСКАТА ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНА СИСТЕМА

(Eтнопедагогически аспекти на основното и средното образование) Веселин Тепавичаров

Книжка 4
ХРИСТО БОТЕВ И ПОЗНАВАТЕЛНИЯТ КРЪГОЗОР НА СЪВРЕМЕННИТЕ СТУДЕНТИ ЗА ЕВРОПА

Изследователски разказ за един познавателен подвиг и за една познавателна недостатъчност

Книжка 3
BLENDED EDUCATION IN HIGHER SCHOOLS: NEW NETWORKS AND MEDIATORS

Nikolay Tsankov Veska Gyuviyska Milena Levunlieva

ВЗАИМОВРЪЗКАТА МЕЖДУ СПОРТА И ПРАВОТО

Ивайло Прокопов, Елица Стоянова

НАДНАЦИОНАЛНИ И МЕЖДУПРАВИТЕЛСТВЕНИ МЕТОДИ НА ИНТЕГРАЦИЯ В ОБЛАСТТА НА ПРАВОСЪДИЕТО И СИГУРНОСТТА

(Формиране на обща миграционна политика: парадигми и образователни аспекти) Лора Махлелиева-Кларксън

Книжка 2
Книжка 1
ВЪЗПРИЯТИЯ И НАГЛАСИ НА УЧЕНИЦИТЕ ПО ВАЖНИ ОБЩЕСТВЕНИ ВЪПРОСИ

(Данни от Международното изследване на гражданското образование – ICCS 2016)

2017 година
Книжка 6
ЗНАЧИМОСТТА НА УЧЕНЕТО: АНАЛИЗ НА ВРЪЗКИТЕ МЕЖДУ ГЛЕДНИТЕ ТОЧКИ НА УЧЕНИЦИ, РОДИТЕЛИ И УЧИТЕЛИ

Илиана Мирчева, Елена Джамбазова, Снежана Радева, Деян Велковски

ВЪЗПРИЯТИЯ И НАГЛАСИ НА УЧЕНИЦИТЕ ПО ВАЖНИ ОБЩЕСТВЕНИ ВЪПРОСИ

(Данни от Международното изследване на гражданското образование – ICCS 2016)

СТРАТЕГИИ НА ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНАТА И НАУЧНАТА ПОЛИТИКА НАУЧНО СПИСАНИЕ STRATEGIES FOR POLICY IN SCIENCE AND EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL JOURNAL ГОДИНА XXV / VOLUME 25, 2017 ANNUAL CONTENTS / ГОДИШНО СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ

СТРАНИЦИ / PAGES КНИЖКА 1 / NUMBER 1: 1 – 112 КНИЖКА 2 / NUMBER 2: 113 – 224 КНИЖКА 3 / NUMBER 3: 225 – 336 КНИЖКА 4 / NUMBER 4: 337 – 448 КНИЖКА 5 / NUMBER 5: 449 – 552 КНИЖКА 6 / NUMBER 6: 553 – 672

Книжка 5
ОРГАНИЗАЦИОННА КУЛТУРА В УЧИЛИЩЕ

Ивайло Старибратов, Лилия Бабакова

Книжка 4
КОУЧИНГ. ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЕН КОУЧИНГ

Наталия Витанова, Нели Митева

Книжка 3
ТЕХНОХУМАНИЗМЪТ И ДЕЙТЪИЗМЪТ – НОВИТЕ РЕЛИГИИ НА БЪДЕЩЕТО

Harari, Y. N. (2016). Homo Deus. A Brief History of Tomorrow. Harvill Secker. ISBN-10: 1910701874

Книжка 2
Книжка 1
РЕФОРМИТЕ В ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО – ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ И ПРЕДИЗВИКАТЕЛСТВА

Интервю с Габриела Миткова, началник на Регионалното управление на образованието – Силистра

ЕМПАТИЯ И РЕФЛЕКСИЯ

Нели Кънева, Кристиана Булдеева

2016 година
Книжка 6
СТРАТЕГИИ НА ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНАТА И НАУЧНАТА ПОЛИТИКА НАУЧНО СПИСАНИЕ STRATEGIES FOR POLICY IN SCIENCE AND EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL JOURNAL ГОДИНА XXIV / VOLUME 24, 2016 ANNUAL CONTENT / ГОДИШНО СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ

СТРАНИЦИ / PAGES КНИЖКА 1 / NUMBER 1: 1 – 120 КНИЖКА 2 / NUMBER 2: 121 – 232 КНИЖКА 3 / NUMBER 3: 233 – 344 КНИЖКА 4 / NUMBER 4: 345 – 456 КНИЖКА 5 / NUMBER 5: 457 – 568 КНИЖКА 6 / NUMBER 6: 569 – 672

Книжка 5
Книжка 4
Книжка 3
Книжка 2
Книжка 1
2015 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
Книжка 4
Книжка 3
Книжка 2
Книжка 1
2014 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
КОХЕРЕНТНОСТ НА ПОЛИТИКИ

Албена Вуцова, Лиляна Павлова

Книжка 4
ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО ПО ПРАВАТА НА ЧОВЕКА ПРЕЗ ПОГЛЕДА НА ДОЦ. ЦЕЦКА КОЛАРОВА

Цецка Коларова. (2013). Образование по правата на човека. София: Авангард Прима. ISBN 978-619-160-234-6

USING THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Thomas Kellaghan Vincent Greaney T. Scott Murray Chapter 4 Translating Assessment Findings Into Policy And Action Although the primary purpose of a system of national assessment is to describe students’ learning, its role is not limited to description. To justify the effort and expenditure involved, the information that an assessment provides about the achievements of students, their strengths and weaknesses, and how they are distributed in the population (for example, by gender or location

Книжка 3
Книжка 2
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY: А SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Gulnar Toltaevna Balakayeva Alken Shugaybekovich Tokmagambetov Sapar Imangalievich Ospanov

ЗА ПО-ХУМАНИСТИЧНА ТРАДИЦИОННО- ИНОВАЦИОННА ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛНО-ВЪЗПИТАТЕЛНА СТРАТЕГИЯ У НАС

(КОНЦЕПТУАЛНА РАЗРАБОТКА В ПОМОЩ НА ПОДГОТОВКАТА НА НОВ ЗАКОН ЗА ОБРАЗОВАНИЕТО)

Книжка 1
РЕФЛЕКСИЯТА В ИНТЕГРАТИВНОТО ПОЛЕ НА МЕТОДИКАТА НА ОБУЧЕНИЕТО ПО БИОЛОГИЯ

Иса Хаджиали, Наташа Цанова, Надежда Райчева, Снежана Томова

USING THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

Thomas Kellaghan Vincent Greaney T. Scott Murray Chapter 1 Factors affecting the use and nonuse of national assessment fi ndings The main objectives of a national assessment, as set out in volume 1 of this series, Assessing National Achievement Levels in Education, are to determine (a) how well students are learning in the education system (with reference to general expectations, aims of the curriculum, and preparation for further learning and for life); (b) whether there is evidence of par

2013 година
Книжка 6
Книжка 5
Книжка 4
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎ

РОССИЙСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ОЦЕНКИ КАЧЕСТВА ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ: ГЛАВНЫЕ УРОКИ

В. Болотов / И. Вальдман / Г. Ковалёва / М. Пинская

Книжка 3
MASS MEDIA CULTURE IN KAZAKHSTAN

Aktolkyn Kulsariyeva Yerkin Massanov Indira Alibayeva

РОССИЙСКАЯ СИСТЕМА ОЦЕНКИ КАЧЕСТВА ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ: ГЛАВНЫЕ УРОКИ

В. Болотов / И. Вальдман / Г. Ковалёва / М. Пинская

Книжка 2
ОЦЕНЯВАНЕ НА ГРАЖДАНСКИТЕ КОМПЕТЕНТНОСТИ НА УЧЕНИЦИТЕ: ПРЕДИЗВИКАТЕЛСТВА И ВЪЗМОЖНОСТИ

Светла Петрова Център за контрол и оценка на качеството на училищното образование

Книжка 1
Уважаеми читатели,

вет, както и от международния борд за предоставените статии и студии, за да могат да бъдат идентифицирани в полето на образованието пред широката аудитория от педа- гогически специалисти във всички степени на образователната ни система. Благодаря за техния всеотдаен и безвъзмезден труд да създават и популяризират мрежа от научни съобщества по профила на списанието и да насърчават научните изследвания. Благодаря на рецензентите от национално представените висши училища, на- учни институции и

METHODS FOR SETTING CUT SCORES IN CRITERION – REFERENCED ACHIEVEMENT TESTS

ÎÖÅÍßÂÀÍÅÒÎ COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE QUALITY OF THE SEPARATE METHODS

ПУБЛИКАЦИИ ПРЕЗ 2012 Г.

СПИСАНИЕ „БЪЛГАРСКИ ЕЗИК И ЛИТЕРАТУРА“

2012 година
Книжка 6
DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE IN KAZAKHSTAN IN THE PERIOD OF INDEPENDENCE

Aigerim Mynbayeva Maira Kabakova Aliya Massalimova

Книжка 5
Книжка 4
Книжка 3
СИСТЕМАТА ЗА РАЗВИТИЕ НА АКАДЕМИЧНИЯ СЪСТАВ НА РУСЕНСКИЯ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ „АНГЕЛ КЪНЧЕВ“

Христо Белоев, Ангел Смрикаров, Орлин Петров, Анелия Иванова, Галина Иванова

Книжка 2
ПРОУЧВАНЕ НА РОДИТЕЛСКОТО УЧАСТИЕ В УЧИЛИЩНИЯ ЖИВОТ В БЪЛГАРИЯ

* Този материал е изготвен въз основа на резултатите от изследването „Parental Involvement in Life of School Matters“, проведено в България в рамките на проек- та „Advancing Educational Inclusion and Quality in South East Europe“, изпълняван

ВТОРИ ФОРУМ ЗА СТРАТЕГИИ В НАУКАТА

Тошка Борисова В края на 2011 г. в София се проведе второто издание на Форум за страте- гии в науката. Основната тема бе повишаване на международната видимост и разпознаваемост на българската наука. Форумът се организира от „Elsevier“ – водеща компания за разработване и предоставяне на научни, технически и медицински информационни продукти и услуги , с подкрепата на Министер- ството на образованието, младежта и науката. След успеха на първото издание на Форума за стратегии в науката през

Книжка 1
РЕЙТИНГИ, ИНДЕКСИ, ПАРИ

Боян Захариев