AGILE METHODOLOGY IN EDUCATION

Following publication is a conceptual article solving the problem of responses to challenges of contemporary education. Contemporary students are often characterized as incapable of holding their attention on the same object for long. Requirements of the labor market are constantly changing, requiring new competencies, skills, work styles from university alumni. Universities have to adopt to these societal changes to remain in demand. The study is aimed at review and analysis of educational approaches created to solve this problem. The approaches reviewed here have a common practice: use of agile methods of project management. Agile is a methodology of flexible project management. Its main specific features are the raise of business’s sensitivity to changes of preferences of consumers and project owners and management of communications with them, ending with perpetual improvement of the end product. Starting in computer software development, agile was quickly adopted by project management and general management on different markets. Yet there has been no such success in transition of agile to education so far. To achieve the stated aim, following methods were used: collection and analysis of scientific publications on agile in education. A part of this analysis was the comparison of conceptually important elements of these approaches to each other and the main ideas expressed in Agile Manifesto. Special attention was given to two of the most discussed approaches: agile teaching-learning methodology (ATLM) and extreme Pedagogy (XP). The analysis allowed for characterising the agile approaches as generally uniform and universal, i. e. they can be applied to different disciplines, despite of disciplines being aimed at theoretical or practical preparation of the students. Analysis of the values of different agile educational programs allowed for concluding that methodology can be easily adopted to solving specific educational problems in the universities practically without changing the central ideas expressed in Agile Manifesto. The originality of the data produced in the survey is based on the following characteristics: 1) the comparison of the main agile principles used in the education; 2) conceptual argumentation of possibility of using agile in university environment; 3) preparation of recommendations for the use of the agile at universities. The analysis of educational practices and approaches allowed authors to formulate following practical recommendations for creating new educational programs. First, applied educational practices should correspond to the values of adopted agile methodology. Second, the iterative interaction between the teacher and the student should become a basis of the educational practices. The result of interaction can be in the form of both student knowledge and changes in educational program.

agile, higher education, agile, teaching methodology, learning methodology, education environment, education practices

1. Багдасарова Е. Интервью с профессором Университета Ланкастера Полом Эшвином // Вопросы образования. 2016. № 1. С. 18-20.

2. Dicker R., Garcia М., Kelly A., Mulrooney Н. What does ‘quality’ in higher education mean? Perceptions of staff, students and employers // Studies in Higher Education. 2018, pp. 1-13.

3. D’Souza M. J., Rodrigues P. Engaging Millennial Students in an Engineering Classroom using Extreme pedagogy // Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 2015, vol. 8, no. 24, pp. 1-6.

4. Capellan M. An agile course-delivery approach. New York, Pace University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2009, 266 p.

5. King A. From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side // College Teaching, 1993, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 30-35.

6. Chirkov I. The Mystery of Russian Students: Poor Learning Experience, High Satisfaction // HERB: Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 2015, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 10-11.

7. Lujan H. L., DiCarlo S. E. Too much teaching, not enough learning: what is the solution? II Advances in Physiology Education, 2006, vol. 30, no.1, pp. 17-22.

8. Авраамова E., Верпаховская Ю. Работодатели и выпускники вузов на рынке труда: взаимные ожидания // Социологические исследования. 2006. № 4. С. 37-46.

9. Kamat V, Sardessai S. Agile practices in higher education: A case study II Proceedings of IAEE AGILE India, 2012, pp. 48-55.

10. Balijepally V., Dingsoyr T., Nerur S. A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development II The Journal of Systems and Software, 2012, vol. 85, pp. 1213-1221.

11. Cohen D., Lindvall M., Costa P. An Introduction to Agile Methods II Advances in Computers, 2004, vol. 62, pp. 1-66.

12. Beck K., Beedle M., Van Bennekum A., Cockburn A., Cunningham W., Fowler M. & Kern, J. Manifesto for agile software development. 2001 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://agilemanifesto.org/iso/en/manifesto.html (дата обращения: 15.09.2018).

13. Ceschi M., Sillitti A., Succi G., De Panfilis S. Project Management in Plan-Based and Agile Companies II IEEE Software, 2005, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 21-27.

14. Риккерт Г. Ценности жизни и культурные ценности. М. : Логос, 1912. 421 с.

15. Jagadeesh J., Manjunath K.N., Yogeesh М. Achieving quality product in a long term software product development in healthcare application using Lean and Agile principles: Software engineering and software development. II International Mutli-Conference on Automation, Computing, Communication, Control and Compressed Sensing (iMac4s), 2013, pp. 26-34.

16. Larson D. K, Miller К. W. Agile software development: human values and culture II IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 2005, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 36-42.

17. Cockburn A., Highsmith J. Agile Software Development: The Business of Innovation II Computer, 2001, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 120-122.

18. Cockburn A., Williams L. Agile Software Development: It’s about Feedback and Change. II Computer, 2003, vol. 36, no. 6, p. 39-43.

19. Boehm B. Get Ready for Agile Methods, with Care II IEEE Software, 2002, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 64-69.

20. Langtagen H. P., Hannay J. E., Pfahl D., Sletholt M. T. What Do We Know about Scientific Software Development’s Agile Practices? II Computing in Science & Engineering, 2012, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 24-37.

21. Carnine D. Bridging the research-to-practice gap// Exceptional Children, 1997, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 513-521.

22. De Graaf E., Kolmos A. Characteristics of Problem-Based Learning II International Journal of Engineering Education, 2003, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 657-662.

23. Liefner I. Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems II Higher Education, 2003, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 469-489.

24. Costa J. M., Rossi M., Rebentisch E., Terzi S., Taisch M., Nightingale D. What to Measure for Success in Lean System Engineering Programs? II Procedia Computer Science, 2014, vol. 28, pp. 789-798.

25. Lawrence S., Sharma U. Commodification of Education and Academic Labour - Using the Balanced Scoreboard in a University Setting II Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 2002, vol. 13, no. 5-6, pp. 661-677.

26. Connell R. The neoliberal cascade and education: an essay on the market agenda and its consequences II Critical Studies in Education, 2013, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 99-112.

27. Connell R. Good teachers on dangerous ground: Towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism// Critical Studies in Education, 2009, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 213-229.

28. Monahan T. Just Another Tool? IT Pedagogy and the Commodification of Education // The Urban Review, 2004, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 271-292.

29. Фрумин И. Д., Добрякова М. С. Что заставляет меняться российские вузы: договор о невовлеченности // Вопросы образования. 2012. №. 2. С. 159-191.

30. Маркузе Г. Одномерный человек. М.: АСТ, 2009. 331 с.

31. Andersson R., Bendix L. eXtreme teaching: A framework for continuous improvement // Computer Science Education, 2006, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 175-184.

32. Kamat V. Agile manifesto in higher education // Fourth International Conference on Technology for Education, 2012, pp. 231-232.

33. Chun A. The agile teaching/learning methodology and its e-learning platform // Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS- Advances in Web-Based Learning, 2004, vol. 3143, pp. 11-18.

34. Krehbiel T. C., Salzarulo P. A., CosmahM. L., Forren J., Gannod G., Havelka D., Hulshult A. R., Merhout J. Agile Manifesto for Teaching and Learning // Journal of Effective Teaching, 2017, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 90-111.

35. Stewart J. C., DeCusatis C. S., Kidder K., Massi J.R., Anne К. M. Evaluating agile principles in active and cooperative learning // Proceedings of Student-Faculty Research Day, 2009, pp. В 3.1-B 3.8.

36. D’Souza M. J., Rodrigues P. eXtreme TeachingLearning Paradigm: A pedagogical framework for higher education // International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 2015, vol. 10, no. 69, pp. 153-156.

37. Dewi D.A., Muniandy M. The agility of agile methodology for teaching and learning activities // Proceedings of the 8th Malaysian Software Engineering Conference (My SEC), 2013, pp. 255-259.

38. Lalley J., Miller R. The learning pyramid: Does it point teachers in the right direction // Education, 2007, vol. 128, no. 1, p. 64-79.

39. Freeman R., Dobbins K. Are we serious about enhancing courses? Using the principles of assessment for learning to enhance course evaluation // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2013, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 142-151.

40. Fontana D., Fernandes M. Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils // British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1994, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 407-417.

41. Otto J., Sanford Jr D. A., Ross D. Does ratemyprofessor.com really rate my professor? // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2008, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 355-368.

42. Cathcart A., Greer D., & Neale L. Learner-focused evaluation cycles: Facilitating learning using feedforward, concurrent and feedback evaluation //Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2014, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 790-802.

43. Byers C. Interactive assessment: An approach to enhance teaching and learning // Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 2001, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 359-374.