Assessment of the student’s educational experience as a tool for making management decisions in the university

This article draws attention to students’ educational experience at a Russian regional university. Such experience is based on two aspects: on the one hand, it is a result of abilities integration, and on the other, it is an ability to act in a context of uncertainty. The latter aspect in understanding students’ experience is the most important for the personality formation in today’s complex world. Within the context of the higher education transformation, experience as an ability to act plays a significant role in individual development. That is why this study is aimed at analyzing the educational experience of first-year students and university graduates. Their educational experience is assessed based on their involvement in educational practices in class, in research activities at the university, and in self-educational activities. The results show that the first-year students’ experience and the graduates’ one at the university have functional differences. The first-year students’ academic engagement is higher as compared to the graduate students’. The research experience of both is expressed in a low degree. The self-educational experience at the university is not strategically formed. Comparing the first-year students’ and the graduates’ educational experiences, one can conclude that the structure of the latter is more functional due to the graduates’ limited involvement in educational activities. This means that the educational experience varies during the period of studies mainly in individual competencies, which are not connected with each other. The low level of the students’ involvement in educational practice reflects the weak development of their experience as an ability to act. It is the structure of a student’s motives that can be one of the main factors of his/her involvement in the learning process. Our findings contribute to the design of educational practices at the university and suggest the strong demand for a more responsible approach to designing the educational environment and educational practices at all university levels.

1. Obrazovanie dlya slozhnogo obshchestva [Educational Ecosystems for Societal Transformation], available at: https://futuref.org/educationfutures_ru (accessed 5.08.2021). (In Russ.).

2. Teslinov A. G. O dvukh klassakh trendov v obrazovanii tsifrovoi epokhi [About Two Classes of Trends in the Education of the Digital Age]. DEQ-2017, Zhukovsky, 2018, pp. 183–188. (In Russ.).

3. De Corte E. Proektirovanie uchebnogo protsessa: sozdanie vysokoeffektivnykh obrazovatel’nykh sred dlya razvitiya navykov samoregulyatsii [Learning Design: Creating Powerful Learning Environments for Self-Regulation Skills]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2019, nr 4, pp. 30–46. (In Russ.).

4. Asmolov A. G., Shekhter E. D., Chernorizov A. M. Preadaptatsiya k neopredelennosti kak strategiya navigatsii razvivayushchikhsya sistem: marshruty evolyutsii [Preadaptation to Uncertainty as a Strategy of Developing Systems Navigation: The Ways of Evolution]. Voprosy psikhologii, 2017, nr 4, pp. 3–26. (In Russ.).

5. Lerner I. Ya. Didakticheskie osnovy metodov obucheniya [Didactic Foundations of Teaching Methods], Moscow, Pedagogika, 1981, 154 p. (In Russ.).

6. Ashwin P. Mozhet li universitetskoe obrazovanie izmenit’ cheloveka? [Why Would Going to University Change Anyone? ]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2016, nr 1, pp. 8–27. (In Russ.).

7. Ashwin P., Abbas A., McLean M. How Do Students’ Accounts of Sociology Change over the Course of their Undergraduate Degrees? Higher Education, 2014, vol. 67, nr 2, pp. 219–234. (In Eng.).

8. Krause K. L., Coates H. Students’ Engagement in First-Year University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2008, vol. 33, nr 5, pp. 493–505. (In Eng.).

9. Shcheglova I. A., Koreshnikova Yu. N., Parshina O. A. Rol’ studencheskoi vovlechennosti v razvitii kriticheskogo myshleniya [The Role of Engagement in the Development of Critical Thinking in Undergraduates]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2019, nr 1, pp. 34–47. (In Russ.).

10. Maloshonok N. G., Shcheglova I. A. Modeli organizatsii obucheniya studentov v universitete: osnovnye predstavleniya, preimushchestva i ogranicheniya [Models of Organization of Teaching Students at the University: Basic Assumptions, Advantages and Limitations]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2020, vol. 24, nr 2, pp. 107–120. (In Russ.).

11. Balyasin M. A., Karvalho L., Mihut G. Opyt obuchayushchikhsya: issledovanie-opros kak novyi podkhod k otsenke kachestva sovmestnykh programm magistratury Erasmus Mundus [Student Experience: A New Approach to Evaluate the Quality of Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees through Survey Research]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2016, nr 1, pp. 110–134. (In Russ.).

12. Ermolaeva M. V., Isaev E. I., Lubovsky D. V. Otsenka lichnostnykh obrazovatel’nykh rezul’tatov studentov v protsesse obucheniya v magistrature [Assessing PersonalityRelated Learning Outcomes in Master Programs]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2020, nr 4, pp. 193–206. (In Russ.).

13. Astin A. W. Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education. Journal of College Student Development, January 1999, vol. 40, pp. 518–529. (In Eng.).

14. Jones R. The Student Experience of Undergraduate Students: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2018, vol. 42, nr 8, pp. 1040–1054. (In Eng.).

15. Valiev R. A. Formirovanie gotovnosti budushchikh pedagogov k osvoeniyu aktual’nogo sotsial’nogo opyta [Formation of Future Teachers’ Readiness to Master the Actual Social Experience], Abstract of Doctor’s thesis, Tyumen, 2012, 26 p. (In Russ.).

16. Kholodnaya M. A. Kognitivnye stili: O prirode individual’nogo uma [Cognitive Styles: On the Nature of the Individual Mind], Saint Petersburg, Piter, 2004, 384 p. (In Russ.).

17. Trina J., Beverley O. Want Students to Engage? Contextualise Graduate Learning Outcomes and Assess for Employability. Higher Education Research Development, 2018, vol. 37, nr 1, pp. 44–57. doi 10.1080/07294360.2017.1339183. (In Eng.).

18. Kholodnaya M. A. Mnogomernaya priroda pokazatelei intellekta i kreativnosti: metodicheskie i teoreticheskie sledstviya [Multidimensional Nature of Intelligence and Creativity Indicators: Methodical and Theoretical Consequences]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 2020, vol. 41, nr 3, pp. 18–31. (In Russ.).

19. Kurennoy V. A. Filosofiya liberal’nogo obrazovaniya: principy [Philosophy of Liberal Education: The Principles]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2020, nr 1, pp. 8–39. (In Russ.).

20. Meehan C., Howells K. ‘What Really Matters to Freshers?’: Evaluation of First Year Student Experience of Transition into University. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2018, vol. 42, nr 7, pp. 893–907. doi 10.1080/0309877X.2017.1323194. (In Eng.).

21. Shcheglova I., Gorbunova E., Chirikov I. The Role of the First-Year Experience in Student Attrition. Quality in Higher Education, 2020, vol. 26, nr. 3, pp. 307–322. (In Eng.).

22. Kuh G. D. What Student Affairs Professionals Need to Know about Student Engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 2009, vol. 50, nr 6, pp. 683–706. (In Eng.).

23. Maloshonok N. G., Semenova T. V., Terentyev E. A. Uchebnaya motivatsiya studentov rossiiskikh vuzov: vozmozhnosti teoreticheskogo osmysleniya [Academic Motivation among Students of Russian Higher Education Establishments: Introspection]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2015, nr 3, pp. 92–121. (In Russ.).

24. Zborovskiy G. E., Shuklina E. A. Samoobrazovanie kak sotsiologicheskaya problema [Self-Education as a Sociological Problem]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 1997, nr 10, pp. 78–87. (In Russ.).

25. Ilyin E. P. Motivatsiya i motivy [Motivation and Motives], Saint Peterburg, Piter, 2002, 512 p. (In Russ.).