Модели организации обучения студентов в университете: основные представления, преимущества и ограничения

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

высшее образование, образовательный процесс, студенческая вовлеченность, преподавание, студент как партнер, студентоцентрированная модель, студент как потребитель

1. 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. P. 171–183. DOI: 10.1080/03075070802562857.

2. 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.

3. Покровский Н. Е. Трансформация университетов в условиях глобального рынка // Вестник Института Кеннана в России. 2004. № 6. C. 77–85.

4. Абрамов Р. Н. Трансформации академической автономии // Вопросы образования. 2010. № 3. С. 75–92.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Колесников А. К., Лебедева И. П. Моделирование удовлетворенности потребителей образовательными услугами высшей школы // Экономика образования. 2013. № 2. C. 108–115.

14. Крокинская О. К., Трапицын С. Ю. Студент как «потребитель образования»: содержание категории // Высшее образование в России. 2015. № 6. C. 65–75.

15. Запесоцкий А. С. Платное образование – не услуга, студент – не клиент // Высшее образование в России. 2002. № 2. C. 48–50.

16. 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.

17. Eagle L., Brennan R. Are Students Customers? // Quality Assurance in Education. 2007. Vol. 15, no. 1. P. 44–60.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Johnson V. E. Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York : Springer Science & Business Media, 2006. 262 p.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Tomlinson M. Exploring the Impacts of Policy Changes on Student Attitudes to Learning. York, GB : Higher Education Academy, 2014. 50 p.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. Dewey J. Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York : The Free Press, 1966. 384 p.

28. Rogers C. R. Freedom to learn: a view of what education might become. Columbus, Ohio : C. E. Merrill Pub. Co, 1969. 358 p.

29. Piaget J. Origins of intelligence in the child. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1936. 419 p.

30. Жилин Д. М. Инструктивизм и конструктивизм – диалектически противоположные стратегии обучения // Педагогика. 2011. № 5. С. 26–36.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. Astin A. W. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education // Journal of College Student Personnel. 1984. Vol. 25, no. 4. P. 297–308.

37. Chickering A. W., Gamson Z. F. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education // AAHE Bulletin. 1987. P. 3–7.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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).

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. Fullan M., Langworthy M. A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning. Pearson, 2014. 99 p.

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. Tight M. Students: customers, clients or pawns? // Higher Education Policy. 2013. Vol. 26, no. 3. P. 291–307.

55. 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.

56. 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.

57. 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.

58. 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.

59. 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.

60. 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.