Abstract:

This article provides a comprehensive theoretical justification of the essence of a teacher’s personal brand and identifies strategies for pedagogical interaction as key mechanisms for its design and implementation. The relevance of this study stems from the digital transformation of education and the shifting role of the teacher from a mere transmitter of knowledge to a moderator of educational meanings and a facilitator.

The purpose of the article is to provide a theoretical justification of the essence of a teacher’s personal brand and to identify strategies for pedagogical interaction as key mechanisms for its formation. The concept of «teacher’s personal brand» is clarified as an integrative system of professional characteristics (expertise, ethics, communication, digital identity) that ensure the sustained trust of the academic community.

Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the professional training of master’s students in the «Technological Education» program. Empirical evidence reveals an asymmetry in the brand development profile: a high level of readiness for partnership (9 points) was found against the backdrop of critically low indicators of professional expertise (2 points) and a fragmented digital presence. It has been established that only 35% of students perceive a brand as a strategic asset. Strategies for pedagogical interaction (partnership, mentoring, digital facilitation) have been identified as tools for capitalizing on reputation. It has been demonstrated that the subject-subject model of interaction serves as an environment where a brand is transformed into tangible pedagogical influence.

A conclusion has been drawn regarding the necessity of targeted support for brand development through the integration of STEM technologies and individual self-marketing trajectories. Prospects for further research are linked to the development of a comprehensive methodological system for supporting the professional image of future technology teachers.

Keywords: educator’s personal brand, pedagogical interaction, partnership strategy, mentoring, digital identity, technology education, students.

References:

1. Bandura, A. (2007). Teoriya sotsialʹnoho navchannya. [Teoriya sotsialnoho navchannya]. Kyiv.

2. Braun, B. (2019). Smilivost liderstva. Yak zbudyvaty doviru ta buty vidvertym na robitzi. [The charm of leadership. How to build trust and become a responsible person on the job]. Kyiv.

3. Burd’ie, P. (2013). Formy kapitalu. [Forms of capital]. Kyiv.

4. Denysova, T. F. (2022). Formuvannia profesiinoho imidzhu maibutnoho vyklyadacha v umovakh tsyfrovoi transformatsii osvity. [Formation of the professional image of the future teacher in the conditions of digital transformation of education].

5. Hofman, Ye. (2004). Analiz ramok. [Analysis of the framework]. Kyiv.

6. Kremen, V. H. (2010). Filosofiia liudynotsentryzmu v osvytnomu prostori. [Philosophy of people-centeredness in the educational space]. Kyiv.

7. Lytvynova, S. H. (2021). Proiektuvannia khmarooriientovanoho navchalnoho seredovy-shcha zakladu zahalnoi serednoi osvity. [rojection of the Khmarooriientovanoho navchalnoho sredovyshcha zakladu zahalnoi srednoi osvity]. Kyiv.

8. Makarenko, A. S. (1989). Pedahohichna poema. [Pedagogical poem]. Kyiv.

9. Osoblyvosti formuvannia osobystoho brendu vyklyadacha. (2025). [Peculiarities of formation of the teacher’s personal brand].

10. Personalnyi brend uchytelia: yak pedahohu vplyvaty na osvytniu haluz. (2023). [Personal brand of teacher: how a teacher can influence the educational sector].

11. Rozhers, K. (2001). Stanovlennia osobystosti. [The formation of personality]. Kyiv.

12. Sukhomlynskyi, V. O. (1974). Sertse viddaiu ditei. [I give my heart to children]. Kyiv.

13. Bourdieu, P. (1986). Formy kapitalu. [The forms of capital]. New York.

14. Peters, T. (1977). Brend poklykav tebe. [The brand called you].

15. Rogers, C. R. (1983). Svoboda navchannya dlya 80-kh. [Freedom to learn for the 80’s.].

16. Selwyn, N. (2020). Osvita ta tekhnolohiyi: klyuchovi pytannya ta debaty. [Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates]. London.