umjУниверситетское управление: практика и анализUniversity Management: Practice and Analysis1999-66401999-6659Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N.Yeltsin»; Non-Commercial Partnership “University Management: Practice and10.15826/umpa.2020.02.017umj-1200Research ArticleУПРАВЛЕНИЕ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНЫМ ПРОЦЕССОМMANAGING EDUCATIONAL PROCESSМодели организации обучения студентов в университете: основные представления, преимущества и ограниченияModels of Organization of Teaching Students at the University: Basic Assumptions, Advantages and LimitationsМалошонокН. Г.MaloshonokN. G.

Малошонок Наталья Геннадьевна – кандидат социологических наук, старший научный сотрудник и директор Центра социологии высшего образования

101000, Москва, Потаповский переулок, 16, стр. 10

Natalia G. Maloshonok – PhD (Sociology), Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Centre for Sociology of Higher Education

Potapovky 16, Bld.10, Moscow 101000

nmaloshonok@hse.ruЩегловаИ. А.ShcheglovaI. A.

Щеглова Ирина Александровна – младший научный сотрудник Центра социологии высшего образования

101000, Москва, Потаповский переулок, 16, стр. 10

Irina A. Shcheglova – Junior Research Fellow of the Centre for Sociology of Higher Education

Potapovky 16, Bld.10, Moscow 101000

ishcheglova@hse.ruНациональный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»РоссияNational Research University «Higher School of Economics»Russian Federation202001082020242107120Copyright © Малошонок Н.Г., Щеглова И.А., 20202020Малошонок Н.Г., Щеглова И.А.Maloshonok N.G., Shcheglova I.A.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.umj.ru/jour/article/view/1200

Оценка качества высшего образования и управления им невозможна без четких ответов на три вопроса: чему университет должен учить студентов; как должен быть устроен учебный процесс для достижения образовательных результатов; какую роль в образовательном процессе играет студент. Некоторые исследователи предпринимали попытки ответить на указанные вопросы путем разработки концептуальных положений о том, как следует выстраивать процесс обучения в университете. Однако на сегодня так и не представлено комплексного анализа предлагаемых концептуальных моделей организации учебного процесса, что затрудняет их сравнение и выбор оптимальной для вуза модели исходя из его внешних условий и ресурсов. Данная обзорная статья посвящена анализу моделей организации обучения в университете и выстраивания отношений между преподавателями и студентами. В ней представлены модели, в которых студенты рассматриваются в качестве потребителей; активных учащихся; партнеров в образовательном процессе. Помимо этого предложена классификация моделей по двум основаниям: 1) активность студентов в учебном процессе и 2) участие студентов в принятии решений и создании образовательных продуктов. Излагаемая в статье информация помогает понять, какими принципами руководствуются зарубежные вузы при разработке как методов работы со студентами и преподавателями, так и образовательной политики. В практическом плане статья будет полезна руководителям российских вузов для определения образовательной стратегии, а преподавателям – для

Assessment of the quality of higher education and its management is not possible without answers to the following questions: what students should learn at the university; how the studying process at the university should be organized to achieve certain educational outcomes; what the role of students in the educational process is. Some researchers  attempted to answer these questions through developing conceptual assumptions related to building student-university relationships. However, today there is no systematic analysis of such conceptual models, which makes it difficult to compare them and choose the optimal one for the university according to its external conditions and resources. The article aims to analyze the models of organization of learning at the university and building relations between teachers and students. There are presented models, conceptualizing students as consumers, active learners, and partners. We also suggest the classification of the models by two criteria: 1) students’ activity in the learning process and 2) students’ participation in decision-making and creating educational products. The paper provides understanding which principles foreign universities use to interact with students and teachers as well as to develop educational policy. The article might be practically useful for the executives of Russian universities to help them decide on the educational strategies; of no less use would it be for the teachers to make them deeper understand their relations with students.

высшее образованиеобразовательный процессстуденческая вовлеченностьпреподаваниестудент как партнерстудентоцентрированная модельстудент как потребительhigher educationlearning processstudent engagementteachingstudent as a partnerstudent-centered modelstudent as a consumerИсследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 19-113-50049.The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number № 19-113-50049.ReferencesMcCulloch A. The student as co-producer: Learning from public administration about the student–university relationship // Studies in Higher Education. 2009. Vol. 34, no. 2. P. 171–183. DOI: 10.1080/03075070802562857.McCulloch A. The student as co-producer: Learning from public administration about the student – university relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 2009, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 171–183. DOI: org/10.1080/03075070802562857. (In Eng.).Barr R. B., Tagg J. From teaching to learning – A new paradigm for undergraduate education // Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 1995. Vol. 27, no. 6. P. 12–26.Barr R. B., Tagg, J. From teaching to learning – A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 1995, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 12–26. (In Eng.).Покровский Н. Е. Трансформация университетов в условиях глобального рынка // Вестник Института Кеннана в России. 2004. № 6. C. 77–85.Pokrovsky N. Е. Transformatsiya universitetov v usloviyakh global’nogo rynka [Transformation of Universities in Global Market]. Vestnik Instituta Kennana v Rossii, 2004, vol. 6, pp. 77–85. (In Russ.).Абрамов Р. Н. Трансформации академической автономии // Вопросы образования. 2010. № 3. С. 75–92.Abramov R. N. Transformatsii akademicheskoi avtonomii [Transformation of Academic Autonomy]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2010, no. 3, pp. 75–92. (In Russ.).McMillan J. J., Cheney G. The student as consumer: The implications and limitations of a metaphor // Communication Education. 1996. Vol. 45, no. 1. P. 1–15.McMillan J. J., Cheney G. The student as consumer: The implications and limitations of a metaphor. Communication Education, 1996, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 1–15. (In Eng.).Bovill C., Bulley C. J. A model of active student participation in curriculum design: Exploring desirability and possibility / C. Rust (ed.) // Improving Student Learning (ISL) 18: Global Theories and Local Practices: Institutional, Disciplinary and Cultural Variations. Series: Improving Student Learning. Oxford Brookes University: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, 2011. P. 176–188.Bovill C., Bulley C. J. A model of active student participation in curriculum design: Exploring desirability and possibility. In: C. Rust (ed.), Improving Student Learning (ISL) 18: Global Theories and Local Practices: Institutional, Disciplinary and Cultural Variations. Series: Improving Student Learning, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, 2011, pp. 176–188. (In Eng.).Bramming P. An argument for strong learning in higher education // Quality in Higher Education. 2007. Vol. 13, no. 1. P. 45–56. DOI: 10.1080/13538320701272722.Bramming P. An argument for strong learning in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 2007, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 45–56. DOI: 10.1080/13538320701272722. (In Eng.).Pascarella E. T. Identifying Excellence in Undergraduate Education Are We Even Close? // Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 2001. Vol. 33, no. 3. P. 18–23. DOI: 10.1080/00091380109601796.Pascarella E. T. Identif y i ng Excellence i n Undergraduate Education Are We Even Close? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 2001, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 18–23. DOI: 10.1080/00091380109601796. (In Eng.).Wulf C. «From Teaching to Learning»: Characteristics and Challenges of a Student-Centered Learning Culture // Inquiry-Based Learning – Undergraduate Research. Springer, Cham, 2019. P. 47–55.Wulf C. «From Teaching to Learning»: Characteristics and Challenges of a Student-Centered Learning Culture. In Inquiry-Based Learning – Undergraduate Research. Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 47–55.Molesworth M., Nixon E., Scullion R. Having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer // Teaching in Higher Education. 2009. Vol. 14, no. 3. P. 277–287. DOI: 10.1080/13562510902898841.Molesworth M., Nixon E., Scullion R. Having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 2009, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 277–287. DOI: 10.1080/13562510902898841. (In Eng.).Carey P. Student as co-producer in a marketised higher education system: a case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design // Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2013. Vol. 50, no. 3, P. 250–260. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2013.796714.Carey P. Student as co-producer in a marketised higher education system: a case study of students’ experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2013, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 250–260. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2013.796714. (In Eng.).Гуськова Е. А., Шавырина И. В. Проблема профессионального самоопределения современной молодежи в условиях конкуренции вузов на рынке образовательных услуг // Вестник БГТУ им В. Г. Шухова. 2014. № 3. C. 215–219.G u skova Е. А., Sh av y r i n a I. V. P roble m a professional’nogo samoopredeleniya sovremennoi molodezhi v usloviyakh konkurentsii vuzov na rynke obrazovatel’nykh uslug [The Problem of Professional SelfDetermination of Today’s Youth in the Conditions of Higher Schools’ Competition on the Education Market]. Vestnik Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo tehnologicheskogo universiteta im V. G. Shukhova, 2014, no. 3, pp. 215–219. (In Russ.).Колесников А. К., Лебедева И. П. Моделирование удовлетворенности потребителей образовательными услугами высшей школы // Экономика образования. 2013. № 2. C. 108–115.Kolesnikov A., Lebedeva I. Modelirovanie udovletvorennosti potrebitelei obrazovatel’nymi uslugami vysshei shkoly [Modelling Customers’ Satisfaction with Educational Services Provided by Higher Education Institutions]. Ekonomika obrazovaniya, 2013, no. 2, pp. 108–115. (In Russ.).Крокинская О. К., Трапицын С. Ю. Студент как «потребитель образования»: содержание категории // Высшее образование в России. 2015. № 6. C. 65–75.Krokinskaya О. К., Trapitsin S. Yu. Student kak «potrebitel’ obrazovaniya»: soderzhanie kategorii [Student as «an Education Consumer»: Content of the Concept]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2015, no. 6, pp. 65–75. (In Russ.).Запесоцкий А. С. Платное образование – не услуга, студент – не клиент // Высшее образование в России. 2002. № 2. C. 48–50.Zapesotsky A. S. Platnoe obrazovanie – ne usluga, student – ne klient [Paid Education is not a Service, a Student is not a Client]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2002, no. 2, pp. 48–50. (In Russ.).Kanji G. K., Tambi M. A. Total quality management in UK higher education institutions // Total Quality Management. 1999. Vol. 10, no. 1. P. 129–153.Kanji G. K., Tambi M. A. Total quality management in UK higher education institutions. Total Quality Management, 1999, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 129–153. (In Eng.).Eagle L., Brennan R. Are Students Customers? // Quality Assurance in Education. 2007. Vol. 15, no. 1. P. 44–60.Eagle L., Brennan R. Are Students Customers? Quality Assurance in Education, 2007, vol. 15. no. 1, pp. 44–60. (In Eng.).Sharrock G. Why students are not (just) customers (and other reflections on life after George) // Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2000. Vol. 22, no. 2. P. 149–64. DOI: 10.1080/713678141.Sharrock G. Why students are not (just) customers (and other reflections on life after George). Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2000, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 149–164. DOI: 10.1080/713678141. (In Eng.).Driscoll C., Wicks D. The Customer-Driven Approach in Business Education: A Possible Danger? // Journal of Education for Business. 1998. Vol. 74, no. 1. P. 58–61.Driscoll C., Wicks D. The Customer-Driven Approach in Business Education: A Possible Danger?Journal of Education for Business, 1998, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 58–61. (In Eng.).Johnson V. E. Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York : Springer Science & Business Media, 2006. 262 p.Johnson V. E. Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York : Springer Science & Business Media, 2006. 262 p. (In Eng.).Joyce A. Course Difficulty and Its Association with Student Perceptions of Teaching and Learning – RESEARCH // Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and Learning. 2016. Vol. 14. P. 54–62.Joyce A. Course Difficulty and Its Association with Student Perceptions of Teaching and Learning – RESEARCH. Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and Learning, 2017, vol. 14, pp. 54–62. (In Eng.).Rolfe H. Students’ demands and expectations in an age of reduced financial support: The perspectives of lecturers in four English universities // Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2002. Vol. 24, no. 2. P. 171–182. DOI: 10.1080/1360080022000013491.Rolfe H. Students’ demands and expectations in an age of reduced financial support: The perspectives of lecturers in four English universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2002, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 171–182. DOI: 10.1080/1360080022000013491. (In Eng.).Saunders D. B. They do not Buy it: Exploring the Extent to Which Entering First-Year Students View Themselves as Customers // Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 2014. Vol. 25. P. 5–28. DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2014.969798.Saunders D. B. They do not Buy it: Exploring the Extent to Which Entering First-Year Students View Themselves as Customers. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 2014, vol. 25, pp. 5–28. DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2014.969798. (In Eng.).Tomlinson M. Exploring the Impacts of Policy Changes on Student Attitudes to Learning. York, GB : Higher Education Academy, 2014. 50 p.Tomlinson M. Exploring the Impacts of Policy Changes on Student Attitudes to Learning. York, GB : Higher Education Academy, 2014. 50 p. (In Eng.).Tomlinson M. Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education // British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2017. Vol. 38, no. 4. P. 450–467. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856.Tomlinson M. Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2017, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 450–467. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856. (In Eng.).Budd R. Undergraduate orientations towards higher education in Germany and England: problematizing the notion of «student as customer» // Higher Education. 2017. Vol. 73, no. 1. P. 23–37. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-015-9977-4.Budd R. Undergraduate orientations towards higher education in Germany and England: problematizing the notion of ‘student as customer’. Higher Education, 2017, vol. 73, no. 1. pp. 23–37. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-015-9977-4. (In Eng.).Dewey J. Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York : The Free Press, 1966. 384 p.Dewey J. Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York : The Free Press, 1966. 384 p. (In Eng.).Rogers C. R. Freedom to learn: a view of what education might become. Columbus, Ohio : C. E. Merrill Pub. Co, 1969. 358 p.Rogers C. R. Freedom to learn: a view of what education might become. Columbus, Ohio : C. E. Merrill Pub. Co, 1969. 358 p. (In Eng.).Piaget J. Origins of intelligence in the child. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1936. 419 p.Piaget J. Origins of intelligence in the child. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1936. 419 p. (In Eng.).Жилин Д. М. Инструктивизм и конструктивизм – диалектически противоположные стратегии обучения // Педагогика. 2011. № 5. С. 26–36.Zhilin D. M. Instruktivizm i konstruktivizm – dialekticheski protivopolozhnye strategii obucheniya [Instruktivism and Constructivism – Dialectically Opposing Learning Strategies]. Pedagogika, 2011, no. 5, pp. 26–36. (In Russ.).Grossen B., Kelly B. F. The effectiveness of direct instruction in a third-world context // International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l’Education. 1992. Vol. 38, no. 1. P. 81–85.Grossen B., Kelly B. F. The effectiveness of direct instruction in a third-world context. International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l’Education, 1992, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 81–85. (In Eng.).Vita G. De, Case P. Rethinking the internationalisation agenda in UK higher education // Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2003. Vol. 27, no. 4. P. 383–398. DOI: 10.1080/0309877032000128082.De Vita G., Case P. Rethinking the internationalisation agenda in UK higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2003, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 383–398. DOI: 10.1080/0309877032000128082. (In Eng.).Student Centered Learning. An Insight into Theory and Practice / A. Attard, I. E. Di, K. Geven, R. Santa. Bukarest : Education International, European Students Union, 2010. 82 p.Attard A., Di I. E., Geven K., Santa R. Student Centered Learning. An Insight into Theory and Practice. Bukarest : Education International, European Students Union, 2010. 82 p. (In Eng.).Kirschner P. A., Sweller J., Clark R. E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching // Educational Psychologist. 2006. Vol. 41, no. 2. P. 75–86. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.Kirschner P. A., Sweller J., Clark R. E. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problembased, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 2006, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75–86. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1. (In Eng.).Sweller J., Kirschner P. A., Clark R. E. Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries // Educational Psychologist. 2007. Vol. 42, no 2. P. 115–121. DOI: 10.1080/00461520701263426.Sweller J., Kirschner P. A., Clark R. E. Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 2007, vol. 42, no 2, pp. 115–121. DOI: 10.1080/00461520701263426. (In Eng.).Astin A. W. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education // Journal of College Student Personnel. 1984. Vol. 25, no. 4. P. 297–308.Astin A. W. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1984, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 297–308. (In Eng.).Chickering A. W., Gamson Z. F. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education // AAHE Bulletin. 1987. P. 3–7.Chickering A. W., Gamson Z. F. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 1987, pp. 3–7. (In Eng.).Bovill C. Students and Staff Co-creating Curricula: An Example of Good Practice in Higher Education? // The Student Engagement Handbook: Practice in Higher Education / E. Dunne and D. Owen (eds.). Emerald, 2013. P. 461–476.Bovill C. Students and Staff Co-creating Curricula: An Example of Good Practice in Higher Education? In: E. Dunne and D. Owen (eds.), The Student Engagement Handbook: Practice in Higher Education, Emerald, 2013, pp. 461–476. (In Eng.).Bovill C., Felten P. Cultivating student-staff partnerships through research and practice // International Journal for Academic Development. 2016. Vol. 21, no. 1. P. 1–3. DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2016.1124965.Bovill C., Felten P. Cultivating student-staff partnerships through research and practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 2016, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–3. DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2016.1124965. (In Eng.).Healey M., Flint A., Harrington K. Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York, GB : HEA, 2014. 77 p.Healey M., Flint A., Harrington K. Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York, GB : HEA, 2014. 77 p. (In Eng.).Dollinger M., Lodge J., Coates H. Co-creation in higher education: towards a conceptual model // Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 2018. Vol. 28, no. 2. P. 210–231. DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2018.1466756.Dollinger M., Lodge J., Coates H. Co-creation in higher education: towards a conceptual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 2018, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 210–231. DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2018.1466756. (In Eng.).Vargo S. L., Lusch R. F. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing // Journal of Marketing. 2004. Vol. 68. P. 1–17. DOI: 10.1016/S1441-3582(07)70037-X.Vargo S. L., Lusch R. F. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 2004, vol. 68, pp. 1–17. DOI: 10.1016/S1441–3582(07)70037-X. (In Eng.).Prahalad C. K., Ramaswamy V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation // Journal of Interactive Marketing. 2004. Vol. 18, no 3. P. 5–14.Prahalad C. K., Ramaswamy V. Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 2004, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 5–14. (In Eng.).Perks H., Gruber T., Edvardsson B. Co-creation in radical service innovation: A systematic analysis of microlevel processes // Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2012. Vol. 29, no. 6. P. 935–951. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540–5885.2012.00971.x.Perks H., Gruber T., Edvardsson B. Co-creation in radical service innovation: A systematic analysis of microlevel processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2012, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 935–951. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540–5885.2012.00971.x. (In Eng.).Cova B., Dalli D., Zwick D. Critical perspectives on consumers’ role as ‘producers’: Broadening the debate on value co-creation in marketing processes // Marketing Theory. 2011. Vol. 11, no. 3. P. 231–241. DOI: 10.1177/1470593111408171.Cova B., Dalli D., Zwick D. Critical perspectives on consumers’ role as ‘producers’: Broadening the debate on value co-creation in marketing processes. Marketing Theory, 2011, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 231–241. DOI: 10.1177/147059311140 8171. (In Eng.).Dziewanowska К. Value co-creation styles in higher education and their consequences. The Case of Poland. ROPS, 2018. URL: https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/value-cocreation-styles-higher-education-and-their-consequencescase-poland-katarzyna (дата обращения: 27.05.2020).Dziewanowska К. Value co-creation styles in higher education and their consequences. The Case of Poland. ROPS, 2018. URL: https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/value-co-creation-styles-higher-education-and-their-consequences-case-poland-katarzyna (дата обращения: 27.05.2020). (In Eng.).Students as co-producers in a multidisciplinary software engineering project: addressing cultural distance and cross-cohort handover / D. Foster, F. Gilardi, P. Martin [et al.] // Teachers and Teaching. 2018. Vol. 24, no. 7. P. 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2018.1486295.Foster D., Gilardi F., Martin P., Song W., Towey D., White A. Students as co-producers in a multidisciplinary software engineering project: addressing cultural distance and cross-cohort handover. Teachers and Teaching, 2018, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2018.1486295. (In Eng.).Student staff partnership to create an interdisciplinary science skills course in a research intensive university / C. Woolmer, P. Sneddon, G. Curry [et al.] // International Journal for Academic Development. 2016. Vol. 21, no. 1. P. 16–27. DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2015.1113969.Woolmer C., Sneddon P., Curry G., Hill B., Fehertavi S., Longbone C., Wallace K. Student staff partnership to create an interdisciplinary science skills course in a research intensive university. International Journal for Academic Development, 2016, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 16–27. DOI: 10.1080/1360144X.2015.1113969. (In Eng.).Student academic partners: student employment for collaborative learning and teaching development / R. Freeman, L. Millard, S. Brand, P. Chapman // Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2014. Vol. 51, no. 3. P. 233–243. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2013.778064.Freeman R., Millard L., Brand S., Chapman P. Student academic partners: student employment for collaborative learning and teaching development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2014, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 233–243. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2013.778064. (In Eng.).Dickerson C., Jarvis J., Stockwell L. Staff-student collaboration: student learning from working together to enhance educational practice in higher education // Teaching in Higher Education. 2016. Vol. 21, no. 3. P. 249–265. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1136279.Dickerson C., Jarvis J., Stockwell L. Staff-student collaboration: student learning from working together to enhance educational practice in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 2016, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 249–265. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1136279. (In Eng.).Fullan M., Langworthy M. A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning. Pearson, 2014. 99 p.Fullan M., Langworthy M. A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning. Pearson, 2014. 99 p. (In Eng.).Hornsby D. J., Osman R. Massification in higher education: Large classes and student learning // Higher Education. 2014. Vol. 67, no. 6. P. 711–719. DOI: 10.1007/ s10734-014-9733-1.Hornsby D. J., Osman R. Massification in higher education: Large classes and student learning. Higher Education, 2014, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 711–719. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-014-9733-1 (In Eng.).Ramachandran N. T. Marketing framework in higher education: Addressing aspirations of students beyond conventional tenets of selling products // International Journal of Educational Management. 2010. Vol. 24, no. 6. P. 544–556.Ramachandran N. T. Marketing framework in higher education: Addressing aspirations of students beyond conventional tenets of selling products. International Journal of Educational Management, 2010, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 544–556. (In Eng.).Tight M. Students: customers, clients or pawns? // Higher Education Policy. 2013. Vol. 26, no. 3. P. 291–307.Tight M. Students: customers, clients or pawns? Higher Education Policy, 2013, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 291–307. (In Eng.).Baruch Y. Transforming careers: from linear to multidirectional career paths: Organizational and individual perspectives // Career Development International. 2004. Vol. 9, no. 1. P. 58–73. DOI: 10.1108/13620430410518147.Baruch Y. Transforming careers: from linear to multidirectional career paths: Organizational and individual perspectives. Career Development International, 2004, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 58–73. DOI: 10.1108/13620430410518147. (In Eng.).Ахметшина Е. Р. Профессиональная идентичность преподавателя вуза в условиях реформирования системы высшего образования в России // Известия высших учебных заведений. Поволжский регион. Общественные науки. 2009. № 4 (12). С. 80–87.Akhmetshina Е. R. Professional’naya identichnost’ prepodavatelya vuza v usloviyakh reformirovaniya sistemy vysshego obrazovaniya v Rossii [Professional Identity of a University Teacher in the Context of Reforming the System of Higher Education in Russia]. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Povolzhskii region. Obshchestvennye nauki, 2009, vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 80–87. (In Russ.).Carini R. M., Kuh G. D., Klein S. P. Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages // Research in Higher Education. 2006. Vol. 47, no. 1. P. 1–32. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9.Carini R. M., Kuh G. D., Klein S. P. Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages. Research in Higher Education, 2006, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1–32. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9. (In Eng.).Krause K. L., Coates H. Students’ Engagement in First-Year University // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2008. Vol. 33, no. 5. P. 493–505. DOI: 10.1080/02602930701698892.Krause K. L., Coates H. Students’ Engagement in First-Year University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2008, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 493–505. DOI: 10.1080/02602930701698892. (In Eng.).Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on FirstYear College Grades and Persistence / G. D. Kuh, T. M. Cruce, R. Shoup [et al.] // The Journal of Higher Education. 2008. Vol. 79, no. 5. P. 540–563. DOI: 10.1353/jhe.0.0019.Kuh G. D., Cruce T. M., Shoup R., Kinzie J., Gonyea R. M. Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 2008, vol. 79, no. 5, pp. 540–563. DOI: 10.1353/jhe.0.0019. (In Eng.).Chi X., Liu J., Bai Y. College environment, student involvement, and intellectual development: evidence in China // Higher Education. 2017. Vol. 74, no. 1. P. 81–99. DOI: 10.1007/s10734–016–0030-z.Chi X., Liu J., Bai Y. College environment, student involvement, and intellectual development: evidence in China. Higher Education, 2017, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 81–99. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-016-0030-z. (In Eng.).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.