IMPROVING THE METHODOLOGY OF LESSON DESIGN BY FUTURE TEACHERS OF ENGLISH ON THE BASIS OF MODERN PEDAGOGICAL TECHNOLOGIES
Keywords:
lesson design, backward design, constructive alignment, learning outcomes, taxonomy of educational objectives, instructional events, formative assessment, TPACK, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical technologies, future teacher of English, design competence.Abstract
The article substantiates directions for improving the methodology by which future teachers of English are prepared to design lessons on the basis of modern pedagogical technologies. The author proceeds from the thesis that the prevailing practice of teaching lesson planning as the completion of a prescribed template produces a characteristic professional deformation: the plan is constructed as a sequence of attractive activities or as a route through the content of the textbook, while the learning outcome, the evidence of its attainment and the internal logic connecting them remain undefined. Lesson design is accordingly interpreted as a projective activity that proceeds in the reverse direction — from the intended result, through the evidence that would demonstrate it, to the selection of technologies and the construction of the sequence of stages. Relying upon theoretical analysis, the comparative method, pedagogical modelling and the systemic approach, the study correlates L. Shulman’s conception of pedagogical content knowledge, the backward design of G. Wiggins and J. McTighe, J. Biggs’s principle of constructive alignment, the revised taxonomy of educational objectives, R. Gagné’s theory of instructional events, the findings of P. Black and D. Wiliam on formative assessment and the TPACK framework of P. Mishra and M. Koehler. A four-component model of design competence, a seven-step design algorithm and an alignment matrix as a diagnostic instrument are proposed, and the conditions of implementation in the pedagogical higher education of Uzbekistan are determined.
References
1.A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives / ed. by L.W. Anderson, D.R. Krathwohl. – Complete ed. – New York: Longman, 2001. – XXIX, 352 p.
2.Biggs J. Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment // Higher Education. – 1996. – Vol. 32, № 3. – P. 347–364.
3.Black P., Wiliam D. Assessment and Classroom Learning // Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. – 1998. – Vol. 5, № 1. – P. 7–74.
4.Ergashbaev S. O‘zbekiston sharoitida uzluksiz ta’lim tizimi orqali yoshlarning ma’naviy dunyoqarashini rivojlantirish // Объединяя студентов: международные исследования и сотрудничество между дисциплинами. – 2025. – Т. 1, № 1. – С. 314–316.
5.Ergashbayev S. Uzluksiz ta’lim tashkil etish orqali yoshlarning ma’naviy-falsafiy dunyoqarashini yuksaltirish // Bulletin of Contemporary Researches: Multidisciplinary. – 2025. – Vol. 1, № 1. – P. 10–13.
6.Gagné R.M., Briggs L.J., Wager W.W. Principles of Instructional Design. – 4th ed. – Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1992. – XIII, 365 p.
7.Mirzaolimjon o‘g‘li M.M., Shohbozbek E. Yangi O‘zbekistonning ta’lim siyosati va universitetlarning yangi modellari // Pedagogik islohotlar va ularning yechimlari. – 2025. – Vol. 16, № 01. – B. 325–328.
8.Mishra P., Koehler M.J. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge // Teachers College Record. – 2006. – Vol. 108, № 6. – P. 1017–1054.
9.Shulman L.S. Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching // Educational Researcher. – 1986. – Vol. 15, № 2. – P. 4–14.
10.Wiggins G., McTighe J. Understanding by Design. – Expanded 2nd ed. – Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2005. – XI, 370 p.
