Models of Organization of Teaching Students at the University: Basic Assumptions, Advantages and Limitations
https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2020.02.017
Abstract
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.
Keywords
higher education,
learning process,
student engagement,
teaching,
student as a partner,
student-centered model,
student as a consumer
Supporting agencies: The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number № 19-113-50049.
About the Authors
N. G. Maloshonok
National Research University «Higher School of Economics»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia G. Maloshonok – PhD (Sociology), Senior Research Fellow and Director of the Centre for Sociology of Higher Education
Potapovky 16, Bld.10, Moscow 101000
I. A. Shcheglova
National Research University «Higher School of Economics»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina A. Shcheglova – Junior Research Fellow of the Centre for Sociology of Higher Education
Potapovky 16, Bld.10, Moscow 101000
References
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, pp. 171–183. DOI: org/10.1080/03075070802562857. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 12–26. (In Eng.).
3. 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.).
4. Abramov R. N. Transformatsii akademicheskoi avtonomii [Transformation of Academic Autonomy]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2010, no. 3, pp. 75–92. (In Russ.).
5. 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.).
6. 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.).
7. 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.).
8. 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.).
9. 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.
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, pp. 277–287. DOI: 10.1080/13562510902898841. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 250–260. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2013.796714. (In Eng.).
12. 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.).
13. 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.).
14. 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.).
15. 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.).
16. 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.).
17. Eagle L., Brennan R. Are Students Customers? Quality Assurance in Education, 2007, vol. 15. no. 1, pp. 44–60. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 149–164. DOI: 10.1080/713678141. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 58–61. (In Eng.).
20. Johnson V. E. Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York : Springer Science & Business Media, 2006. 262 p. (In Eng.).
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, 2017, vol. 14, pp. 54–62. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 171–182. DOI: 10.1080/1360080022000013491. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 5–28. DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2014.969798. (In Eng.).
24. Tomlinson M. Exploring the Impacts of Policy Changes on Student Attitudes to Learning. York, GB : Higher Education Academy, 2014. 50 p. (In Eng.).
25. 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.).
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. pp. 23–37. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-015-9977-4. (In Eng.).
27. Dewey J. Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York : The Free Press, 1966. 384 p. (In Eng.).
28. 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.).
29. Piaget J. Origins of intelligence in the child. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1936. 419 p. (In Eng.).
30. 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.).
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, pp. 81–85. (In Eng.).
32. 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.).
33. 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.).
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, problembased, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 2006, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75–86. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 115–121. DOI: 10.1080/00461520701263426. (In Eng.).
36. 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.).
37. Chickering A. W., Gamson Z. F. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 1987, pp. 3–7. (In Eng.).
38. 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.).
39. 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.).
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. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 210–231. DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2018.1466756. (In Eng.).
42. 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.).
43. 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.).
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, pp. 935–951. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540–5885.2012.00971.x. (In Eng.).
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, pp. 231–241. DOI: 10.1177/147059311140 8171. (In Eng.).
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-co-creation-styles-higher-education-and-their-consequences-case-poland-katarzyna (дата обращения: 27.05.2020). (In Eng.).
47. 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.).
48. 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.).
49. 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.).
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, pp. 249–265. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1136279. (In Eng.).
51. Fullan M., Langworthy M. A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning. Pearson, 2014. 99 p. (In Eng.).
52. 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.).
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, pp. 544–556. (In Eng.).
54. Tight M. Students: customers, clients or pawns? Higher Education Policy, 2013, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 291–307. (In Eng.).
55. 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.).
56. 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.).
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, pp. 1–32. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9. (In Eng.).
58. 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.).
59. 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.).
60. 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.).
Review
For citations:
Maloshonok N.G., Shcheglova I.A. Models of Organization of Teaching Students at the University: Basic Assumptions, Advantages and Limitations. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2020;24(2):107-120. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2020.02.017
Views:
1204
Email this article 