Ministry of higher and secondary special education of the republic of uzbekistan

5. "Man - an artistic image" Animator is an artist who creates animation; artist at various events.A brader is a person who is professionally engaged in weaving (braids). [7].A web designer is a specialist engaged in artistic and design activities aimed at creating and ensuring the usability of web resources. A makeup artist is a makeup artist. [13]. The designer is an artist-constructor, a design specialist. An image maker is a psychologist who develops a strategy and technique for effectively forming the image (image) of an artist, public figure or statesman in order to increase his reputation, influence and popularity. [13]. Copywriter - a person who creates a condensed text or slogan for an advertisement, material for an article, note, book, publication. A couturier is a fashion designer who creates fashion collections. TV buyers choose from the collections of famous designers those things that then appear in fashion boutiques.
A handmaker is someone who is engaged in manual work, creates high-quality and original things.[8,9]. We came to the conclusion that the vocabulary of the modern Russian language is replenished with the names of new professions, borrowed from Western European languages. Most of the new words are taken from the English language. Borrowing method - tracing.
1.3 Study of professionalism in English and Uzbek
The concept of professionalism. As Freidson (1994, p. 169) suggests, ‘much of the debate about professionalism is clouded by unstated assumptions and inconsistent and incomplete usages. Indeed, Hargreaves and Goodson (1996, p. 4) refer to the lack of consensus relating to the meaning of professionalism, and Fox (1992, p. 2) makes the rather obvious point: ‘Professionalism means different things to different people. Without a language police, however, it is unlikely that the term professional(ism) will be used in only one concrete way’. Englund (1996, p. 75) similarly refers to the lack of conceptual clarity and consensus relating to ‘teaching as a profession’.
In 1975, Hoyle explained professionalism as ‘those strategies and rhetorics employed by members of an occupation in seeking to improve status, salary and conditions’ (p. 315). More recent interpretations of professionalism incorporate recognition of the transposition within the political arena of public sector professions. In relation to locus of control, Hoyle’s interpretation, whilst it lies within the parameters of it, is distinct from that of Ozga, who analyses the concept of professionalism as a form of occupational control of teachers (1995, p.35). She contends (p.22): ‘Professionalism is best understood in context, and particularly in policy context. Critical analyses of professionalism do not stress the qualities inherent in an occupation but explore the value of the service offered by the members of that occupation to those in power.’ Troman (1996, p. 476) similarly perceives professionalism not as an absolute or an ideal, but as ‘a socially constructed, contextually variable and contested concept … defined by management and expressed in its expectations of workers and the stipulation of tasks they will perform’. Congruent with this are Gleeson et al’s (2005, pp. 445-6) highlighting of contextual relevance to conceptualization, and Holroyd’s (2000, p. 39) interpretation: ‘professionalism is not some social-scientific absolute, but a historically changing and socially constructed concept-in-use’ – a point both illustrated by Evetts’s examination of the changing nature of discourse of professionalism (2006, p. 523), and supported by Helsby (1999, p. 93) in relation to teacher professionalism: ‘There is nothing simple or static about the concept of teacher professionalism in England: it is constantly changing and constantly being redefined in different ways and at different times to serve different interests’.
Hoyle’s more recent (2001, p. 146) explanation of professionalism as a term used ‘to describe enhancement of the quality of service’ seems to align more closely with these interpretations than does the one he employed over thirty years ago. Sockett (1996, p. 23) follows the same ‘quality’ line: ‘Professionalism is about the quality of practice’, and adds, ‘and the public status of the job’, though Hoyle questions the inclusion of status as a dimension of new professionalism: ‘Sometimes intentionally, but more often unintentionally, “professionalism” has the same connotation in the phrase “the new professionalism” as that adopted in this article, that is, improvement in the quality of service rather than the enhancement of status’ (2001, p. 148).
Many interpretations – perhaps representing a broad consensus - seem to focus on professionalism’s being an externally imposed, articulated perception of what lies within the parameters of a profession’s collective remit and responsibilities. In setting the positions of these parameters – and, hence, in defining the boundaries of the profession’s actual and potential authority, power and influence – external agencies appear to have the capacity for designing and delineating professions. In one sense, then, professionalism may be interpreted as what is effectively a representation of a service level agreement, imposed from above.
Yet some interpretations lie outside this broad consensual one. Boyt, Lusch and Naylor’s (2001, p. 322) emphasis, for example, is on the influential capacity of the professional her/himself: ‘Professionalism consists of the attitudes and behavior one possesses toward one’s profession. It is an attitudinal and behavioral orientation that individuals possess toward their occupations.’ Helsby (1995, p. 320) makes the same point about teacher professionalism: ‘If the notion of “professionalism” is socially constructed, then teachers are potentially key players in that construction, accepting or resisting external control and asserting or denying their autonomy.’
In the UK education professions across all sectors have been subject to increased control from outside the professions themselves – most notably from the government, and mostly during the 1980s and 90s. This, indeed, was the catalyst for the evolution or imposition of what have been presented as, variously, prescriptions (Hargreaves and Fullan, 1998) or descriptions (David Hargreaves, 1994) of new professionalisms, particularly in relation to the teaching profession.
A common feature of many conceptions of new professionalism in an education context is a focus on practitioner control and proactivity. Hargreaves and Goodson’s (1996) and, to a rather lesser extent, Sachs’ (1999) principles of teacher professionalism incorporate a focus on teachers’ taking greater responsibility for defining the nature and content of their work. This, in part, is consistent with Freidson’s (1994, p. 10) interpretation of professionalism:
I use the word ‘profession’ to refer to an occupation that controls its own work, organized by a special set of institutions sustained in part by a particular ideology of expertise and service. I use the word ‘professionalism’ to refer to that ideology and special set of institutions.
But this interpretation is of the ‘old school’. It is a traditional conception of a pre-renovated professionalism. Despite the bravado reflected in prescriptive conceptions of teacher professionalism that incorporate rally calls to preserve, or regain, professionals’ power over their own destiny, the advent of new professionalisms is often seen – as I discuss below – as a professional development initiative which has, to all intents and purposes, swept away such conceptions of professionals’ autonomy and control over their work-related remits and roles. In order to move towards this discussion of the potential nature and extent of changes that constitute professional development I first examine what I refer to as the ‘substance’ of professionalism.