Aspects of Individualization Implementation in Higher Education in Russia

This article investigates the perceptions of university leadership in Russia regarding the goals, effects, and barriers to the implementation of individualized educational trajectories (IETs) within the educational process. Based on 15 semi-structured interviews conducted with representatives of Russian universities’ administration (vice-rectors, directors, deputy directors of institutes, and heads of departments), conclusions were drawn concerning the key perceptions of the effects experienced by universities that have implemented IETs. These effects include economic (enhanced efficiency of the educational process in lower courses for greater flexibility in upper courses), organizational-management (updating curricula through faculty initiatives), and motivational (increased student engagement). Additionally, contradictions were identified between the perceptions of respondents with experience in implementing IETs and those without such experience. For instance, respondents evaluated economic effects differently: those who implemented IETs reported increased efficiency, while those who did not expressed concerns about rising costs due to the individualized approach to students. The analysis identified several categories of barriers: conservatism within the academic community, resistance to change (particularly regarding granting students the right to free choice), organizational-management issues in establishing new management processes, regulatory constraints imposed by existing standards and laws, and a methodological dilemma in balancing general education and professional components of educational programs. The findings contribute to the empirical foundation for a more comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon of individualized educational trajectories. The identified perceptions of effects and contradictions among respondents with varying experiences highlight the necessity for further research into the effects of individualization using more precise methods. A significant number of universities are already initiating pilot projects to implement IETs, which allows for the collection of longitudinal data for subsequent analysis of the obtained effects. This article will be of interest to senior management professionals who are developing their universities’ development programs and analyzing the feasibility of implementing new educational policies.

1. Ringenberg W. C. Student Academic Freedom. In: The Christian College and the Meaning of Academic Freedom, New York, Palgrave Macmillan US, 2016, pp. 107–114. (In Eng.).

2. Scott J. C. The Mission of the University: Medieval to Postmodern Transformation. The Journal of Higher Education, 2006, vol. 77 (1), pp. 1–39. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2006.0007 (In Eng.).

3. Ash M. G. Bachelor of W hat, Master of W hom? The Humboldt My th and Historical Transfor mations of Higher Education in German-Speaking Europe and the US. European Journal of Education, 2006, vol. 41 (2), pp. 245–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1465–3435.2006.00258.x (In Eng.).

4. Carpenter H. C. Emerson, Eliot, and the Elective System. The New England Quarterly, 1951, vol. 24 (1), pp. 13–34. (In Eng.).

5. Elliott R. W., Paton V. O. U. S. Higher Education Reform: Origins and Impact of Student Curricular Choice. International Journal of Educational Development, 2018, vol. 61, pp. 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.11.008 (In Eng.).

6. Kuz’minov Ya., Yudkevich M. Universitety v Rossii: kak eto rabotaet [Universities in Russia: how it works], Moscow, HSE, 2021, 616 p. (In Russ.).

7. Klimova T. A., Kim A. T., Ott M. A. Individual’nye obrazovatel’nye traektorii studentov kak uslovie kachestvennogo universitetskogo obrazovaniya [Students’ Individual Educational Trajectories as a Condition for High-Quality University Education]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2023, vol. 27, nr 1, pp. 23–33. doi: 10.15826/ umpa.2023.01.003 (In Russ.).

8. Lang D., Wang A., Dalal N., Paepcke A., Stevens M. L. Forecasting Undergraduate Majors: A Natural Language Approach. AERA Open, 2022, vol. 8, nr 2, pp. 2–18. doi: 10.1177/23328584221126516 (In Eng.).

9. McGarry B. J., Theobald K., Lewis P. A., Coyer F. Flexible Learning Design in Curriculum Delivery Promotes Student Engagement and Develops Metacognitive Learners: An Integrated Review. Nurse Education Today, 2015, vol. 35, nr 9, pp. 966–973. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.06.009 (In Eng.).

10. van Rooij E., Jansen E., van de Grift W. First-Year University Students’ Academic Success: the Importance of Academic Adjustment. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2017, vol. 33, pp. 749 –767. doi: 10.1007/s10212-017-0347-8 (In Eng.).

11. D e n ic e P. A. C ho osi ng a nd C h a ng i ng C ou r se: Postsecondary Students and the Process of Selecting a Major Field of Study. Sociological Perspectives, 2021, vol. 64, nr 1, pp. 82–108. doi: 10.1177/0731121420921903 (In Eng.).

12. Malgwi C. A., Howe M. A., Burnaby P. A. Inf luences on Students’ Choice of College Major. Journal of Education for Business, 2005, vol. 80, nr 5, pp. 275–82. (In Eng.).

13. Del Rossi A. F., Hersch J. The Private and Social Benefits of Double Majors. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2016, vol. 7 (2), pp. 292–325. doi: 10.1017/bca.2016.14 (In Eng.).

14. Del Rossi A. F., Hersch J. Double your Major, Double your Return? Economics of Education Review, 2008, vol. 27 (4), pp. 375–86. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.03.001 (In Eng.).

15. Hemelt S. W. The College Double Major and Subsequent Earnings. Education Economics, 2010, vol. 18 (2), pp. 167–89. do i 10.1080/09645290802469931 (In Eng.).

16. Sazonov B. A. Organizatsiya obrazovatel’nogo protsessa: vozmozhnosti individualizatsii obucheniya [Organization of the educational process: opportunities of individualization]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2020, vol. 29, nr 6, pp. 35–50. doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2019-29-6-35-50 (In Russ.).

17. Lee H. R., von Keyserlingk L., Arum R., Eccles J. S. Why Do They Enroll in This Course? Undergraduates’ Course Choice from a Motivational Perspective. Frontiers, 2021, vol. 6. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.641254 (In Eng.).

18. Morris P., Castro-Faix M., Hengtgen K., Rapp K., Winkler C., Xu T. Virtues of Academic Exploration: Impact of Major Changes on Degree Completion. Journal of College Orientation Transition and Retention, 2023, n r 30 (1). doi: 10.24926/jcotr.v30i1.4904 (In Eng.).

19. Dekker T. The Value of Curricular Choice Through Student Eyes. The Curriculum Journal, 2020, vol. 32, iss. 2, pp. 198–214. doi: 10.1002/curj.71 (In Eng.).

20. Kovaleva T. Oformlenie novoi professii t’yutora v rossiiskom obrazovanii [New profession of tutor in Russian education]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2011, nr 2, pp. 163–80. (In Russ.).

21. Zeer E. F., Popova O. S. Psikhologicheskoe soprovozhdenie individual’nykh obrazovatel’nykh traektorii obuchayushchikhsya v professional’noi shkole [Psychological support of individual educational trajectories of vocational school students]. Obrazovanie i nauka, 2015, vol. 1, nr 4, pp. 88–99. doi: 10.17853/1994-5639-2015-4-88-99 (In Russ.).

22. Riley S., Ferrell W., Gibbs T., Murphy M., Cairns W., Smith W. Twelve Tips for Developing and Sustaining a Programme of Student Selected Components. Medical Teacher, 2008, vol. 30, pp. 370–376. doi: 10.1080/01421590801965145 (In Eng.).