Individualization In Distance Education For Master’s Students In Russia And France

Abstract

The paper presents the results of study on the implementation of individualization during the transition of the educational process at universities of Russia and France to distance learning because of the pandemic. The study aimed to investigate the features of individualized distance learning of master’s students on the example of master’s degree program in pedagogy. A comparative analysis of the results of the survey on the problem of individualization in the conditions of distance learning was carried out. The survey involved over 160 university teachers in Russia and in France who deliver MA courses. The study analyzes the concepts of 'individualization' and 'personalization', which are currently widely used in education, and identifies the features of understanding the essence of these terms by Russian and foreign teachers. As a result, it was found that Russian and French teachers employ different learning technologies for individualization. The data obtained as a result of the survey can be used to improve the quality of education with regard to the experience of the two countries, and to improve the individualization process in the framework of distance and blended learning formats in higher education.

Keywords: Individualization, personalization, master’s degree program in pedagogy, university education, comparative study, distance learning

Introduction

In modern conditions, higher education, including pedagogical education, is focused on the development of each student, activation of personal resources of professional development, formation of abilities for self-realization, and operational adaptation to changing social conditions. In this study, personal and professional development is considered as a process based on the integrity of the personality and the unity of its manifestations in different spheres of life (Lyz & Lyz, 2012). A new challenge in the pandemic in 2020–2021 led to the global digitalization of higher education in the two countries: creation of a new information and communication educational environment, spread of electronic educational resources, development of distance education, and development of new models for information and communication technologies in the system of training and retraining of teachers. Thus, modern learning conditions are associated with information and communication technologies, which personalize education and adapt it to the student's needs (Vainshtein, 2019).

In addition, the modern realities of education require the abilities of self-organization and self-motivation, the development of which is facilitated by the process of individualization. Individualization in higher education requires various educational technologies, which are different in different countries. Comparison of technological approaches to individualization of the master’s degree education in pedagogy in Russia and in France will help understand the general trends in the organization of education, and innovative practices in training of future teachers.

Problem Statement

In both Russia and France, the main principle of modern higher education based on a competent approach is student-centered learning, when a student becomes an active participant in the educational process and can choose his own educational route (Baidenko & Selezneva, 2011). Various models of student-centered learning associated with the concepts of individualization and personalization of education are being successfully implemented, for example, in the form of adaptive learning, free education, liberal arts, customized educational training programs (Leushin & Leushina, 2020). At the same time, individualization and personalization in Russian higher pedagogical education have become one of the leading principles of education only in recent years.

From a modern point of view, individualization implies orientation of the educational process towards maximizing of the student's capabilities, building the educational process with regard to the individual characteristics (character, temperament, interests, motivation, etc.), and optimizing variable forms and teaching methods to improve personal and professional qualities. According to Mityaeva (2004), individualization is determined by organization of the educational process, its content and appropriate teaching methods. In addition, individualization is considered as a set of techniques and actions, such as goal-setting, motivation, level of complexity, etc.

Individualization suggests that the student is the main subject of the educational process. Based on the educational needs and individual characteristics of students, learning is aimed at self-development in the space of educational opportunities, and the choice of educational content and educational routes (Belyakova & Zakharova, 2020).

According to Getman and Petrusevich (2014), individualization of learning is a personality-oriented approach that contributes to the development of the personality and individual qualities necessary for professional growth. At the same time, they insist that the concept of individualization must be considered as the interaction of two processes: personalization and personification.

Personalization of learning is achieved by creating individual educational routes, using certain forms and adaptive learning technologies, and forming an educational environment suitable for self-education and self-development of students (Bilenko, 2020).

At the same time, personalization of learning is understood as meeting the needs of the state, society and a person for the development of socially significant qualities that allow a person to effectively perform social and professional functions. Personification implies meeting the needs of each person for free manifestation of individual qualities in accordance with personal interests, views and attitudes (Getman & Petrusevich, 2014).

French scientists interpret the principle of individualization ambiguously. On the one hand, it is understood as the recognition of a person as a subject and active participant in his own educational route. On the other hand, it is defined as the recognition of a person as a bearer of knowledge acquired through experience and assessed by educational institutions and systems of continuous professional education (Maude, 2012). Individualization, according to Perrenoud (1993), implies the targeted and relevant adaptation of learning to different characteristics of the student, his capabilities, abilities and needs. According to foreign scientists, individualization is the creation of learning conditions that correlate with the needs of different students. At the same time, the goal of learning is similar for all students, but there is a possibility of flexible learning in accordance with the individual needs and abilities of students (Kuznetsova & Régnier, 2014).

The study considers the organization of the process of individualization of the master’s degree education, which is the second stage in higher pedagogical education and requires methods of individualization and personalization of learning, since it provides initial pedagogical education, professional retraining or improving of qualifications for professional advancement in pedagogy (Brazhnik & Lebedeva, 2008).

It should be noted that in France the principle of individualization is a traditional approach. In the middle of the XX century, a noted French pedagogue Freinet (1964) introduced the ideas of individualization in education and suggested that education should be built in accordance with the needs, interests, goals and achievements of students. The Freinet's pedagogical approach is based on the differences between several types of intellectual abilities, which should be considered by the teacher to design further education, creating all the necessary conditions for the harmonious development of each student (Freinet, 1964).

In the XX century, the problem of individualization of learning was investigated by many Russian educators and psychologists such as Kirsanov (1982), Klarin (1987), Unt (1990). The main principle of individualization implies consideration of individual parameters aimed at the successful development of students.

Since the 90s of the XX century, individualization has been considered, first of all, in terms of personal and professional self-determination of students (Gerdo, 2011). At the same time, there was a shift from unitarity to variability, delineation of the concepts of individualization and differentiation, and promotion of the personal development of each student. Individualization of learning should help solve the most important problems of modern higher pedagogical education. Thus, in addition to professional subject knowledge acquired from a modern teacher and from other specialists in the education system (educators, tutors, administration, etc.), students need values based attitude, critical thinking, and such personality qualities as leadership, initiative, creativity, adaptability. Implementation of general professional tasks requires a set of competencies: the ability for continuous self-education, communication in a multicultural society, ICT competence, etc. A sharp global transition of higher education to distance learning because of the pandemic has brought new problems associated with the quality of higher pedagogical education and provided conditions for the real organization of individualization of the educational process, which can have both advantages and difficulties in its implementation. Digital technologies create an educational environment with a variety of educational resources and content. The student must be ready for a high level of independence, not excluding the help of a teacher. In the context of distance learning, the ability to independently organize educational activities at all stages of the educational process, both in bachelor’s degree and master’s degree programs, is required.

Research Questions

Digital didactics contributes to individualization and personalization of the educational process, while promoting active and interactive forms and methods of teaching. The role of pedagogical technologies, teamwork, group and individual reflection, which have a complex structure and a certain internal scenario, is increasing (Bilenko, 2020). Despite the advantages, the process of remote individualization has a number of disadvantages. The study provides the responses of experienced teachers working in master’s degree programs at universities in Russia and France to the following questions:

• how do university teachers of the two countries understand the process of individualization of education?
• how do teachers organize the process of individualization of learning in the master’s degree education in a distance format?
• what difficulties arise during the implementation of the individualization process in a distance format?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to identify the main advantages and difficulties during the implementation of individualization of learning in the master’s degree pedagogical education in a distance format based on the opinions of university teachers from two countries, Russia and France.

Research Methods

The study employed the following research methods:

• theoretical analysis of scientific literature on the problems of individualization and personalization of education;
• comparative analysis of higher education in the studied countries and the results obtained,
• online survey of teachers from Russia and France, generalization, systematization, processing and interpretation of data.

Findings

Conclusion

According to the survey results, in the concept of individualization, the Russian and French pedagogical communities put an emphasis on the independence and self-determination of each student, and transformation of all components of the educational environment (learning content, forms, methods and technologies) that contribute to the self-development of each student and formation of his individual educational route.

In practice, teachers use a wide range of educational tools and learning technologies. Digital technologies provide great opportunities in the design and implementation of the principles of individualization of learning (for example, a virtual portfolio for recording achievements, e-learning platforms as a cloud storage for educational resources and as a tool for online interaction between students and teachers).

The main difficulties noted by teachers from both Russia and France are associated with technical equipment, increased teaching loads, decreased concentration and motivation of students, and the difficulty in maintaining interest in the conditions of distance learning.

Acknowledgments

The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 19-313-90023.

References

• Baidenko, V. I., & Selezneva, N. A. (2011). Competitive Education Programmes – on Forming the Conception. Higher Education in Russia, 5, 24–39.

• Belyakova, E. G., & Zakharova, I. G. (2020). Professional self-determination and professional identity of students-teachers in the conditions of individualization of education. The Education and Science Journal, 1(22), 84–112.

• Bilenko, P. N. (2020). Didactic concept of digital professional education and training. MSPU Publishing house.

• Brazhnik, E. I., & Lebedeva, L. I. (2008). Organization of research work of master’s degree student in universities in Russia and in France. The Emissia. Offline letters, 12, 1292–1296.

• Freinet, C. (1964). Œuvres pédagogiques [Educational works]. Seuil.

• Gerdo, N. V. (2011). The development of the idea of individualization of education in foreign countries and its impact on the formation of the practice of individualization and differentiation of education in Russia. Scientific potential, 3, 77–81.

• Getman, N. A., & Petrusevich, A. A. (2014). Organizational and pedagogical conditions of individualization of students’ education in higher education. Omsk Scientific Bulletin, 3(129), 125–128.

• Ilina, O. I. (2020). Transformation of the teacher’s role in digital age (Russia & France) 20th conference Professional Culture of the Specialist of the Future: vol. 98 (pp 432–442) European Publisher.

• Kirsanov, A. A. (1982). Individualization of educational activity as a pedagogical problem. Kazan University Press.

• Klarin, M. V. (1987). Individualization of education in bourgeois pedagogy of the XX century. Soviet Pedagogy.

• Kuznetsova, E., & Régnier, J. -C. (2014). Individualization of Educational Process According to C. Freinet: A Pilot Experiment in a Group of Language Learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 154, 87–91.

• Leushin, I. O., & Leushina, I. V. (2020). Customization of a University Graduate: Illusion or Requirement of Time? Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia, 29(7), 56–63.

• Lyz, N. A., & Lyz, A. E. (2012). Trends in the development of higher education: An educational and methodological guide. TTI SFU Publishing House.

• Maude, H. -C. (2012). L’individualisation des parcours de formation dans le champ du travail social: entre tensions et ambivalences. Formation emploi, 119, 83–100.

• Mityaeva, A. M. (2004). Technology of individualization of the content of students ' educational activities. OSU Bulletin, 5, 50–54.

• Perrenoud, P. (1993). Organiser l'individualisation des parcours de formation: peurs à dépasser et maîtrises à construire [Organize the individualization of training courses: fears to overcome and skills to build. Lyon, Association of Teachers and Researchers in Educational Sciences (AESCÉ)]. Individualiser les parcours de formation, Lyon, Association des enseignants-chercheurs en sciences de l'éducation (AESCÉ), 145-182.

• Unt, I. E. (1990). Individualization and differentiation of training. Pedagogy.

• Vainshtein, I. V. (2019). Individualization of education in terms of e-learning: experience and prospects. J. Sib. Fed. Univ. Humanit. soc. sci., 12(9), 1753–1770.