Global And Russian Trends Of Modern Education

Abstract

The main trends in changes in education became a response to external threats caused by globalization processes, new technologies and innovations in the age of new thinking and a new attitude to the changes. The economy and society as a whole need thinking and functionally competent personnel, capable of continuous updating and a reasonable change of their competencies and activities for a successful life in modern society. All this leads to a change in the philosophy of modern education for the formation of the digital economy of Russia. Today we are witnessing large-scale changes affecting a large number of people: globalization of production, communications, cultures, education systems; family structure changes, the population becomes more heterogeneous; economic competitiveness and social cohesion increase. Interest in life-long learning is dictated not so much by the requirements of the labor market as by the awareness of each modern person of the subjectivity of his life path. As a result, in order to satisfy the public request for the development of skills and competencies, the world education system and methodological approaches to training are being transformed. The list of professions of the future and the requirements for the qualifications of specialists are constantly being updated, technologies are rapidly improving and their application is becoming wider, the importance of an interdisciplinary approach and the integration of knowledge for solving socio-economic problems is growing.

Keywords: Academic revolutioneducation systemindividualization of educationintellectual internationalizationinter-disciplinary approachsubjectivity of the individual

Introduction

Education is the foundation for the development of each person and should help him become the subject of his life, find his own path, be able to meet the challenges of constant changes in the world and the demands of the modern labor market. It should predict trends in the future development of all spheres of public life and be ready to immediately respond to its requests. The world for which the traditional Russian education system was developed no longer exists; and even if we redesign this system for today, it can immediately become obsolete after 5-10 years of existence. These changes are the results of a new scientific and technological revolution. One of its most striking features is the acceleration of the technology life cycle: production, social, cultural and educational. The key stake of our time is innovation. The transformation affected everything: in the era of industry 4.0, industrial and educational technologies are not only rapidly updated, but also mutually complement and develop each other (Evzrezov, 2015; Laszlo et al., 2017). Until the middle of the last century, such a rapid change of technology did not occur, and, therefore, a serious transformation of both the knowledge itself and the process of its transfer was not required. Often a person had only one profession throughout his life. Today, the education system should not prepare a person for a certain profession, but "form" a rapidly transforming specialist with a wide range of different competencies (Hard + Soft + Selfskills), providing the interdisciplinarity of his knowledge and skills, a researcher of life and professional situations motivated by the result, having a high speed of perception of information and issuing new original solutions. This will allow the graduate to be professionally competitive not only in his region, but in the world. Thanks to the acquired competencies, he will be ready:

• to solve problems that are not yet formulated at the time of training;

• to use technologies that have not yet been invented;

• to solve problems that are not yet obvious.

The success of a graduate is determined not by the amount of knowledge, but by the ability to use it in various new professional and life situations, in the skillful mastery of various skills. The essence of modern education is the development of engineering thinking (critical, systemic, creative); a combination in one person of natural-scientific, functional, digital and other various types of literacy; the ability to explore and create new things; communicate and collaborate; in personal qualities, thanks to which people can self-govern and self-actualize. Cooperation for the sustainable development of mankind should become a new principle of modern education.

Problem Statement

Today, self-determination, openness to new things, and convergence of connections between ideas that previously seemed unconnected are important, but for this it is necessary to have an idea of different areas of knowledge, to own modeling technologies and design competencies. Now it is not enough to be receptive to new information in order to be successful after training (Figure 01 ). Modern schoolchildren and students are ambitious and pragmatic. They easier understand and more actively accept the technological and social changes in our society than adults (mature generation). Thanks to information technology, there are no barriers to communication for them, they do not notice barriers to professional and career growth. The generation of modern youth is already a priori ready for change and they want to choose their own life path. Time is becoming the most important and valuable resource and requires effective management. Motivating yourself to use time effectively means determining what rewards are needed to actively continue working on your own mission. In the days of Adam Smith, the main motivation was monetary, but now intangible incentives are becoming increasingly important: a free schedule, a good team, the prospect of professional growth.

See Full Size >

Many education analysts currently describe the growing demands of the labor market for graduates. (Donina & Vodneva, 2019; Du Toit & Verhoef, 2018; Fullan, 2016; Pont, 2017; Postma, 2014; Volkov & Livanov, 2012). A modern graduate should have a unique combination of competencies in depth and considerable breadth of fundamental, applied knowledge and soft skills, i.e. it is necessary to transform the focus of the education system not only on the development of research activities, but also on ensuring specific business needs. In his interview on April 21, 2020, Minister of Science and Higher Education Falkov (2020) confirmed the weight of this trend. This means that a change in the philosophy of education is necessary, which differs from the educational pipe that has been dominant in Russia for many decades.

To deepen and improve the quality of training, educational organizations must become an investor of knowledge, skills and mental intelligence in the success and growth of students. It is necessary to create such an informational and physical educational environment that motivates for efficiency, provides a high-quality educational process that meets the challenges of our time. It is compliance with modern trends in the development of society, the preparation of graduates for the professions of the future that will allow the educational system to be always relevant and competitive not only in the Russian educational space, but also in the world.

Research Questions

Emphasizing the importance of research on educational trends for understanding the prospects of modern education as an answer to the global challenges of our time, the authors focus on the following questions.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to discuss global trends in the development of society and the modern education system for the formation of a broad scientific discussion with the aim of developing methodological approaches to the conscious transformation of educational technologies and a competency-based model of education in Russian and foreign universities that allows one to feel free in the digital world.

Research Methods

To study these issue, the authors studied numerous sources of information, consisting of monographs, scientific articles by specialists in this field, as well as analytical information from the Russian and foreign business press, interviews with representatives of federal and regional authorities, business structures, and materials from thematic scientific and practical conferences. Being representatives of the Russian academic community, the authors have the opportunity to monitor and analyze on a daily basis the opinions of stakeholders in the educational process - teachers and administrators of various universities, students and applicants, representatives of research institutes and entrepreneurial structures that receive “the results of the educational process”. The new socio-economic reality determines the need and demand for new conceptual and applied research in this area.

Findings

In the conditions of fierce competition and the rapidly changing social paradigm of the development of civilization, the education system also requires a new strategy that leads away from concentration only on educational activities and global transformations at all levels of its functioning.

Academic revolution

According to scientists (Altbach et al., 2010; Altbach & Rumbley, 2016; British Council, 2012; Zaitseva, 2017) besides massization and the global economy of knowledge, the signs of the academic revolution are also globalization, digitalization and a shortage of qualified and motivated personnel. The academic revolution requires a paradigm shift in education in accordance with global trends in the labor and education markets (Figure 02 ):

• from the state - the implementation of the relevant all-Russian policy;

• from educational organizations - self-determination in the framework of its implementation, taking into account its individual history and regional component;

• from teachers - multi-, cross- and interdisciplinary courses adapted to the challenges of the time;

• from academic, social and industrial-technological partners - joint project activities to the development of educational courses, the organization of educational practices, excursions and expeditions.

See Full Size >

However, under the influence of the development of a creative economy, paternalistic structure, the usual dictatorship of elders, slow advancement in the career ladder, the inertia of leaders and scientific schools, the Russian education system faced an outflow of young qualified personnel into commercial organizations, demanding researchers and promising a faster career, more intensive mobility (Polterovich et al., 2007). And in order to “grow” a new teacher of higher education or to attract him “from outside”, the mechanical selection of personnel for teaching and research is not suitable: it takes time, financial investments, the organization of a modern educational environment and tools for effective motivation.

Subjectivity in education

The variety of educational technologies and forms of knowledge transfer is in the hands of students. They use them from childhood and quickly adapt their lifestyle to them. Students seek to choose an educational program, form of study, educational institution, country, educational community in the best way reflecting their requirements, opportunities and ambitions. At the moment, we are witnessing a change in the paradigm of education, in which the education supply market is replaced by the demand market. Therefore, to maintain competitiveness, educational institutions and educational approaches must also quickly respond to dynamically changing environmental conditions.

The subjectivity of the personality comes to the fore and dictates the conditions for the formation of the education market, of course, increasing its quality and adaptability to the realities of life. In modern pedagogical science, subjectivity has a number of fundamentally different meanings. (Gusakova, 2015). But for the transition to a new paradigm, it is necessary to define the very concept of “subjectivity” in the educational system. According to L. S. Vygotsky, subjectivity is manifested in the activity of the individual (Vygotskiy, 1999).

Kapterev (1982) believed that the subject of the educational process is a person like-minded with the teacher. Brushlinskiy (2003) believed that “the subject is the highest systemic value of the essence of man, the totality of his fundamental properties and abilities to turn his own life into the subject of practical transformation” (p. 11-12). Slobodchikov (1995) determined that the development of subjectivity is initially carried out in socially defined forms of activity through the mechanisms of imitation and reflection, where their interaction leads to the fact that the results of imitation (involuntary imitation of the actions of another individual) - as a way of external attitude and perception of social norms - turn into relationships on the ideal plane of thinking of the individual (Slobodchikov, 1995).

Therefore, the main conditions for the development of subjectivity is the experience acquired by the individual in the process of life. Subjective experience, in the opinion of I. S. Yakimanskaya (2000), is the experience of experienced and being experienced behavior in which a person himself can give an account of his abilities; where he knows the rules of organizing his own actions and his own attitude; where significant values are fixed for him and there is a certain hierarchy of preferences about which he is able to realize what he needs and what he wants. In our opinion, the content of subjectivity must be considered in the aggregate of all components.

The analysis of scientific research has shown that the phenomenon of subjectivity has passed a difficult path of formation and development from the moment of its inception to the moment of recognition of its official status. And in the context of modern trends in education, he found practical implementation in the form of a system of formation of the subjectivity of the student (Figure 03 ).

The formation of subjectivity occurs through a multi-component and multi-level choice of a student. Each stage of the ladder of competencies carries with it the student’s request for himself and for the education system, determining the set of competencies he needs and their level. The requested level of competencies forms the semantic content of education, passing through the given forms of training.

See Full Size >

When choosing a particular format, it is important to rely on the essential features that this format can provide for preparing a student for the profession of the future:

• subjective interaction of all participants in the educational process,

• openness and ability to work in a team,

• mindfulness, creativity and systematic thinking,

• unity of purpose and algorithm of activity, the interconnection of goals, objectives, means and results,

• reflection of all participants in the educational process over the results.

Conclusion

The need for transformation of education systems has matured throughout the world. This is facilitated not only by the active use of information technology, the academic mobility of teachers and students, but also by a shift in the goals of education: from knowledge to competency. Taking into account the above-mentioned trends in the development of the educational system of the Russian Federation and the laws governing the development of world civilization, we can state that as a result of modernization of modern education, all participants in the educational process benefit:

• for the state - a workforce that has all the competencies necessary for the digital economy; citizens with an active lifestyle, ready for changes in adapting to them throughout life;

• for educational institutions - effective collaboration with business, socio-cultural and other organizations to increase their attractiveness in the education market and increase the demand for their services;

• for external stakeholders - trained personnel of the required qualification “without completion of studies” and joint research developments even at the stage of the educational process;

• for teachers - updating training courses; fundamental and applied research developments demanded by business and world science, competitiveness in the global market of educational services as a teacher, expert, tutor;

• for students - the choice of an individual career path according to an individual educational program; mastering skills for the professions of the future; competitiveness in the global labor market.

References

1. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2010). Trends in Global Higher Education. Brill.
2. Altbach, Ph. G., & Rumbley, L. (2016).Tracking a Global Academic Revolution. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42, 30-39.
3. Baruch, Y. (2004). Transforming careers: from linear to multidirectional career paths: organizational and individual perspectives. Career Development International, 9(1), 58-73. DOI:
4. British Council. (2012). The shape of things to come: higher education global trends and emerging opportunities to 2020. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/the_shape_of_things_to_come_-_higher_education_global_trends_and_emerging_opportunities_to_2020.pdf
5. Brushlinskiy, A. V. (2003). Sub"ekt: myshlenie, uchenie, voobrazhenie [Subject: thinking, learning, imagination]. MPSI.
6. Burdie, P. (1993). Sotsiologiya politiki [Sociology of politics]. Socio-Logos.
7. De Wit, H. (2019). Intelligent internationalization in higher education. In Godwin, K. A., & de Wit, H. (Eds.) Intelligent Internationalization (pp. 189-198). Brill.
8. Donina, I. A., & Vodneva, S. N. (2019). Electronic information-educational environment as a quality of life improvement factor. The European proceedings of social and behavioural sciences, 77, 366-374.
9. Dudin, M. N., Bezbakh, V. V., Frolova, Е. E., & Galkina, M. V. (2018). The models of higher education in Russia and European countries at the beginning of the XXIST сentury: the main directions of development. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 7(4), 653-667.
10. Du Toit, J., & Verhoef, A. H. (2018). Embodied digital technology and transformation in higher education. Transformation in Higher Education, 3, 52.
11. Egron-Polak, E. (2012). Internationalization of higher education: a few global trends and regional perspectives. In Ennew, C. T., & Greenaway, D. The globalization of higher education (pp. 57-69). Palgrave Macmillan.
12. Evzrezov, D. V. (2015). O forsayte rossiyskogo obrazovaniya [About the foresight of Russian education]. Filosofiya obrazovaniya [Philosophy of education], 4(61), 23-34.
13. Falkov, V. N. (2020, April 21). Interview in a special issue of the Antifragility program 2020 [Video file]. https://youtu.be/VQauzw4zHbE
14. Fikhtner, O. A. (2019). About the system approach to the problems of networking. The European proceedings of social and behavioural sciences, 59, 70-80.
15. Fullan, М. (2016). The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of educational change, 17, 539-544.
16. GEQAF. (2012). General education quality analysis/diagnosis frameworkю http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/glossary-curriculum-terminology/i/interdisciplinary-approach
17. Gusakova, М. А. (2015). Fenomen sub"yektnosti v teorii i praktike pedagogiki [Phenomenon of subjectivity in the theory and practice of pedagogy]. Pedagogicheskoye obrazovaniye v Rossii [Pedagogical education in Russia], 4, 90-95.
18. Hazelkorn, E. (2019). Evolving architecture of/for international education and global science. In Godwin, K. A., & de Wit, H. (Eds.) Intelligent Internationalization (pp. 19-22). Brill. http:// doi.org/
19. Hendrickson, C. T. (2001). Encouraging multi-disciplinary education and inter-disciplinary research. Civil Engineering Education Issues 2001, 1-5.
20. Kapterev, P. F. (1982). Izbrannye pedagogicheskie sochineniya.[Selected pedagogical works]. Pedagogika.
21. Kizuk, A. (2017). Teaching science in an inter-disciplinary framework: innovation and practice. In Gómez Chova, L., López Martínez, A., Candel Torres, I. (Eds.). INTED2017 Proceedings (p. 3385). Valencia, Spain: IATED Academy.
22. Laszlo, A., Luksha, P., & Karabeg, D. (2017). Systemic innovation, education and the social impact of the systems sciences. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 34(5), 601-608.
23. Leal, F. (2019). The new routes for internationalization of higher education in Brazil. In Godwin, K. A., & de Wit, H. (Eds.) Intelligent Internationalization (pp. 126-129). Brill.
24. OECD. (2019). Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance, Higher Education. OECD Publishing.
25. OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. (n.d.). https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/curriculum-analysis/
26. Polterovich, V. M., Alexandrov, D. A., Kuzminov, Ya. I., & Suvorov, A. D. (2007). Rol’ issledovatelskoy deyatel’nosti v universitete [The role of research at a university]. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Educational studies], 4, 181-200.
27. Pont, B. (2017). A comparative view of education system reform. In Janc Malone, H., Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Kew, K. (Eds.) Future directions of educational change. Social justice, professional capital, and systems change (pp. 171-187). Routledge.
28. Postma, D. (Ed.). (2014). Education as change: Educational practice and research for transformation. Education as Change, 18(1), 3-7.
29. Reddy, D. C., & Satyanarayana, K. (1994). Developing Inter Disciplinary Professionals: A Model Approach. IETE Technical Review, 11(1), 63-66.
30. Slobodchikov, V. I. (1995). Osnovy psikhologicheskoy antropologii. Psikhologiya cheloveka: Vvedenie v psikhologiyu sub"ektivnosti.[Foundations of psychological anthropology. Human psychology: introduction to the psychology of subjectivity]. Shkola-Press.
31. Toguma, М. (2015). Education 2030: rethinking OECD core competencies. https://conferences.nis.edu.kz/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/OECD-Learning-Compass-2030РУСС_.pdf
32. Volkov, А. Е., & Livanov, D. V. (2012). Betting on new content. https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2012/09/03/stavka_na_novoe_soderzhanie
33. Vygotskiy, L. S. (1999). Myshlenie i rech [Thinking and speaking]. Labirint.
34. Wang, Q. (2019). World Class 2.0 and internationalization in chinese higher education. In Godwin, K. A., & de Wit, H. (Eds.) Intelligent Internationalization (pp. 122-125). Brill. DOI:
35. Wodi, D. S. W. (2012). Inter-disciplinary approach to developing curriculum for peace. International Journal of Learning and Development, 2(4), 44-51.
36. Yakimanskaya, I. S. (2000). Tehnologiya lichnostno orientirovannogo obucheniya v sovremennoy shkole [The technology of student-centered learning in a modern school]. September.
37. Zaitseva, М. А. (2017). Issledovanie preobladayuschih interesov sovremennoy studencheskoy molodezhi [Study of the prevailing interests of modern students]. Sovremennye nauchnye issledovaniya i razrabotki [Modern scientific research and development], 4(12), 117-121.