Transitioning to Individual Learning Paths in the Opinions of Students and Teachers: the Case of the University of Tyumen
Research Article
How to Cite
Gavrilyuk T.V., Pogodaeva T.V. Transitioning to Individual Learning Paths in the Opinions of Students and Teachers: the Case of the University of Tyumen. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal = Sociological Journal. 2023. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 51-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2023.29.2.3 (in Russ.).
Abstract
The aim of this study is to measure and evaluate the application of personalized learning technology based on the system of individual educational paths at the University of Tyumen. In order to collect and analyze the data, the strategy of mix-methods was applied, which allows both for identifying the most common trends in the opinions of the subjects of educational space, and for obtaining detailed interpretations of the ongoing changes. The purpose of the study is to identify the opinions held by the key subjects of education when it comes to educational activity content and technologies, the benefits and risks of individual learning paths and the traditional way of teaching. Interviews with teachers demonstrate that in assessing the positive aspects of the transition to individual learning paths, such aspects have been taken note of as the possibility of focusing on one’s own interests, increased motivation and desire for professional development in a competitive environment, as well as simplification of reporting as a result of digitization. What teachers are apprehensive about is a decline in the fundamental nature of training and the de-professionalization of students, the collapse of stable social ties and identities of teachers, subpar living conditions due to continuous spatial mobility, and uncertainty when it comes to workload. The study showed that a fifth of students are not satisfied with the learning outcomes under new conditions and experience difficulty adapting in mixed groups with other students of different specialties. The variability and individualization of education is not yet a priority for students enrolled in traditional programs. Students pursuing individual study paths do not realize the many advantages the new system provides when it comes to forming the personal qualities necessary for successful selfrealization, due to them lacking the opportunity to compare their form of education to what is considered traditional.
Keywords:
educational trajectories, individual learning paths, personalized learning, higher education, university educational space
References
1. Gasanova R.R. Development and implementation of personal training trajectories for teachers in additional education. Professional’noe obrazovanie v sovremennom mire. 2021. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 125–135. DOI: 10.20913/2618-7515-2021-1-21 (In Russ.)
2. Goncharova E.V., Chumicheva R.M. Development of indivudual learning trajectories for bachelor students. Vestnik Nizhnevartovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2012. No. 2. P. 3–11. (In Russ.)
3. Kliapysheva E.V. The individual educational route as means of individual educational trajectory realization. Interaktivnaya nauka. 2018. Vol. 12. No. 34. P. 36–39. DOI: 10.21661/r-474241 (In Russ.)
4. Koshel V.I., Khodzhayan A.B., Shchetinin E.V., Semenova O.A., Sirak S.V., Mayatskaya N.K., Gevan dova M.G. Features of the individual educational trajectory implementation at a medical university. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal prikladnykh i fundamental’nykh issledovanii. 2015. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 646–650. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://applied-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=7565 (In Russ.)
5. Kulikova O.V., Siukhina E.A., Timofeeva L.V. Development of educational trajectories of athletes within the framework of the competence approach and the educational standards of higher education implementation. Upravlenie v XXI veke: Sbornik statei po materialam studencheskoi Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, NIU “BelGU”, 1–2 noyabrya 2016 goda. [Management in the XXI century: collection of articles based on the materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference.] Ed. by V.M. Zakharov. Belgorod: Belgorod publ., 2016. P. 31–33. (In Russ.)
6. Martynova E.A. Building an individual educational trajectory of people with disabilities studying in professional educational organizations. Nauchnyi al’manakh. 2017. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 156–160. (In Russ.)
7. Muravyeva A.A., Oleynikova O.N., Aksyonova N.M. Multiple dimensions of student-centred learning. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz. 2017. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 92–99. DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2017.03.041 (In Russ.)
8. Sazonov B.A. Organization of the Educational Process: Opportunities for Individualization of Training. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii. 2020. Vol. 29. No. 6. P. 35–50. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2019-29-6-35-50 (In Russ.)
9. Sysoev P.V. Individual trajectory training. Yazyk i kul’tura. 2013. Vol. 4. No. 24. P. 121–131. (In Russ.)
10. Timoshina T.A. The concept of a student’s individual educational trajectory building. Pedagogika i psikhologiya kak resurs razvitiya sovremennogo obshchestva. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, 7–9 oktyabrya 2010 g. [Pedagogy and psychology as a resource for the development of modern society: Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, October 7–9, 2010.] Ed. by L.A. Baykova, N.A. Fomina, A.N. Sukhov. Ryazan: S.A. Yesenin Russian State University, 2010. P. 315–320. (In Russ.)
11. Shaposhnikova N.Yu. Individual Educational Paths in the Universities of Russia and Great Britain (Theoretical Aspects). Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. 2015. Vol. 1. No. 40. P. 263–268. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2015-1-40-263-268 (In Russ.)
12. Adams-Becker S., Cummins M., Davis A., Freeman A., Hall-Giesinger C., Ananthanarayanan V. NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas, 2017. 60 p. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED582134.pdf
13. Alamri H.A., Watson S., Watson W. Learning technology models that support personalization within blended learning environments in higher education. TechTrends. 2021. No. 65. Р. 62–78. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-020-00530-3
14. Augar P. Post-18 review of education and funding. L.: Crown copyright, 2019. 216 p. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/805127/Review_of_post_18_education_ and_funding.pdf
15. Barr R.B., Tagg J. From teaching to learning — A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change. 1995. No. 27. P. 12–26. DOI: 10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
16. Baruth O., Cohen A. Increasing Student Satisfaction with a Personality-Based Personalized Learning Path. Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate Learning. Waynesville, NC, 2021. P. 1074–1081. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/219797/
17. Biemans H.J., Mariën H., Fleur E., Beliaeva T., Harbers J. Students’ experiences with different learning pathways to higher professional bachelor programmes. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training. 2020. No. 7 (1). P. 1–20. DOI: 10.13152/IJRVET.7.1.1
18. Boyarinov D.A. Pedagogical Model for Creating Individual Learning Paths Based on Educational Maps. Proceedings of VI International Forum on Teacher Education — 2020. Kazan’: Kazan Federal University, 2020. P. 277–289. DOI: 10.3897/ap.2.e0277
19. Carneiro R., Lefrere P., Steffens K., Underwood J. Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning environments. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011. 163 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6091-654-0
20. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. Terminology of European education and training policy: A selection of 130 terms. Luxembourg: Cedefop Publications Office, 2014. DOI: 10.2801/15877
21. Christodoulou A., Angeli C. Adaptive Learning Techniques for a Personalized Educational Software in Developing Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Frontiers in Education. 2022. No. 7. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2022.789397
22. Flexible learning pathways in higher education. UNESCO. International Institute for Educational Planning, 2022. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://www.iiep.unesco.org/ en/our-expertise/flexible-learning-pathways-higher-education?language=en
23. Gómez S., Zervas P., Sampson D.G., Fabregat R. Context-aware adaptive and personalized mobile learning delivery supported by UoLmP. Journal of King Saud University — Computer and Information Sciences. 2014. No. 26 (1). P. 47–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2013.10.008
24. Jääskelä P., Poikkeus A.-M., Vasalampi K., Valleala U.M., Rasku-Puttonen H. Assessing agency of university students: Validation of the AUS Scale. Studies in Higher Education. 2017. No. 42 (11). P. 2061–2079. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1130693
25. Jackson N. Learning to be a self-regulating professional: the role of personal development planning (PDP). Learning to be Professional through a Higher Education. 2010. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: http://learningtobeprofessional.pbworks.com/f/CHAPTER+A6+Learning+to+be+a+Self-Regulating+Professional+++the+role+of+PDP.pdf
26. Johnson L., Becker S.A., Cummins M., Estrada V., Freeman A., Hall C. NMC Horizon Report: 2016. Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium, 2016. 56 p. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://www.learntechlib.org/d/171478/
27. Lee D., Huh Y., Lin C.-Y., Reigeluth C. M. Personalized learning practice in U.S. learner-centered schools. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2022. No. 14 (4). Article No. ep385. DOI: 10.30935/cedtech/12330
28. Liu R., Qiao X., Liu Y. A paradigm shift of learner-centered teaching style: Reality or illusion? Journal of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching. 2006. No. 13. P. 77–91.
29. Manfrin A., Apampa B., Parthasarathy P. A conceptual model for students’ satisfaction with team-based learning using partial least squares structural equation modelling in a faculty of life sciences, the United Kingdom. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions. 2019. No. 16 (36). P. 1–9. DOI: 10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.36
30. Newman A., Bryant G., Stokes P., Squeo T. Learning to Adapt: Understanding the Adaptive Learning Supplier Landscape. 2013. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: http://edgrowthadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Learning-to-Adapt_Report_Supplier-Landscape_Education-Growth-Advisors_April-2013.pdf
31. Pogosyan M.A. Development of individual learning paths system in engineering education. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 2020. P. 1–8. DOI: 10.1109/fie44824.2020.9274140
32. Salinas J., Benito B. Construction of personalized learning pathways through mixed methods. Comunicar. 2020. No. 28 (65). P. 31–41. DOI: 10.3916/C65-2020-03
33. Schmid R., Petko D. Does the use of educational technology in personalized learning environments correlate with self-reported digital skills and beliefs of secondary-school students. Computer Education. 2019. No. 136. P. 75–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.006
34. Sharples M., De-Roock R., Ferguson R., Gaved M., Herodotou C., Koh E., KukulskaHulme A., Looi C.K., Mcandrew P., Rienties B., Weller M., Wong L.H. Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5. L.: The Open University, 2016. 45 p.
35. Tur G., Marín V.I., Moreno J., Gallardo A., Urbina S. From diagrams to self-regulated learning: Student teachers’ reflections on the construction of their PLE. Educational Media International. 2016. No. 53 (2). P. 139–152. DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2016.121133
36. UNESCO. Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning for all. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2016. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
37. Wheelahan L. Neither fish nor fowl: The contradiction at the heart of Australian tertiary education. Journal of Access, Policy and Practice. 2008. No. 5 (2). P. 133–152.
2. Goncharova E.V., Chumicheva R.M. Development of indivudual learning trajectories for bachelor students. Vestnik Nizhnevartovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2012. No. 2. P. 3–11. (In Russ.)
3. Kliapysheva E.V. The individual educational route as means of individual educational trajectory realization. Interaktivnaya nauka. 2018. Vol. 12. No. 34. P. 36–39. DOI: 10.21661/r-474241 (In Russ.)
4. Koshel V.I., Khodzhayan A.B., Shchetinin E.V., Semenova O.A., Sirak S.V., Mayatskaya N.K., Gevan dova M.G. Features of the individual educational trajectory implementation at a medical university. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal prikladnykh i fundamental’nykh issledovanii. 2015. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 646–650. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://applied-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=7565 (In Russ.)
5. Kulikova O.V., Siukhina E.A., Timofeeva L.V. Development of educational trajectories of athletes within the framework of the competence approach and the educational standards of higher education implementation. Upravlenie v XXI veke: Sbornik statei po materialam studencheskoi Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, NIU “BelGU”, 1–2 noyabrya 2016 goda. [Management in the XXI century: collection of articles based on the materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference.] Ed. by V.M. Zakharov. Belgorod: Belgorod publ., 2016. P. 31–33. (In Russ.)
6. Martynova E.A. Building an individual educational trajectory of people with disabilities studying in professional educational organizations. Nauchnyi al’manakh. 2017. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 156–160. (In Russ.)
7. Muravyeva A.A., Oleynikova O.N., Aksyonova N.M. Multiple dimensions of student-centred learning. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz. 2017. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 92–99. DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2017.03.041 (In Russ.)
8. Sazonov B.A. Organization of the Educational Process: Opportunities for Individualization of Training. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii. 2020. Vol. 29. No. 6. P. 35–50. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2019-29-6-35-50 (In Russ.)
9. Sysoev P.V. Individual trajectory training. Yazyk i kul’tura. 2013. Vol. 4. No. 24. P. 121–131. (In Russ.)
10. Timoshina T.A. The concept of a student’s individual educational trajectory building. Pedagogika i psikhologiya kak resurs razvitiya sovremennogo obshchestva. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, 7–9 oktyabrya 2010 g. [Pedagogy and psychology as a resource for the development of modern society: Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference, October 7–9, 2010.] Ed. by L.A. Baykova, N.A. Fomina, A.N. Sukhov. Ryazan: S.A. Yesenin Russian State University, 2010. P. 315–320. (In Russ.)
11. Shaposhnikova N.Yu. Individual Educational Paths in the Universities of Russia and Great Britain (Theoretical Aspects). Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. 2015. Vol. 1. No. 40. P. 263–268. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2015-1-40-263-268 (In Russ.)
12. Adams-Becker S., Cummins M., Davis A., Freeman A., Hall-Giesinger C., Ananthanarayanan V. NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas, 2017. 60 p. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED582134.pdf
13. Alamri H.A., Watson S., Watson W. Learning technology models that support personalization within blended learning environments in higher education. TechTrends. 2021. No. 65. Р. 62–78. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-020-00530-3
14. Augar P. Post-18 review of education and funding. L.: Crown copyright, 2019. 216 p. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/805127/Review_of_post_18_education_ and_funding.pdf
15. Barr R.B., Tagg J. From teaching to learning — A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change. 1995. No. 27. P. 12–26. DOI: 10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
16. Baruth O., Cohen A. Increasing Student Satisfaction with a Personality-Based Personalized Learning Path. Proceedings of EdMedia + Innovate Learning. Waynesville, NC, 2021. P. 1074–1081. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/219797/
17. Biemans H.J., Mariën H., Fleur E., Beliaeva T., Harbers J. Students’ experiences with different learning pathways to higher professional bachelor programmes. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training. 2020. No. 7 (1). P. 1–20. DOI: 10.13152/IJRVET.7.1.1
18. Boyarinov D.A. Pedagogical Model for Creating Individual Learning Paths Based on Educational Maps. Proceedings of VI International Forum on Teacher Education — 2020. Kazan’: Kazan Federal University, 2020. P. 277–289. DOI: 10.3897/ap.2.e0277
19. Carneiro R., Lefrere P., Steffens K., Underwood J. Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning environments. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011. 163 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6091-654-0
20. European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. Terminology of European education and training policy: A selection of 130 terms. Luxembourg: Cedefop Publications Office, 2014. DOI: 10.2801/15877
21. Christodoulou A., Angeli C. Adaptive Learning Techniques for a Personalized Educational Software in Developing Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Frontiers in Education. 2022. No. 7. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2022.789397
22. Flexible learning pathways in higher education. UNESCO. International Institute for Educational Planning, 2022. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://www.iiep.unesco.org/ en/our-expertise/flexible-learning-pathways-higher-education?language=en
23. Gómez S., Zervas P., Sampson D.G., Fabregat R. Context-aware adaptive and personalized mobile learning delivery supported by UoLmP. Journal of King Saud University — Computer and Information Sciences. 2014. No. 26 (1). P. 47–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2013.10.008
24. Jääskelä P., Poikkeus A.-M., Vasalampi K., Valleala U.M., Rasku-Puttonen H. Assessing agency of university students: Validation of the AUS Scale. Studies in Higher Education. 2017. No. 42 (11). P. 2061–2079. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1130693
25. Jackson N. Learning to be a self-regulating professional: the role of personal development planning (PDP). Learning to be Professional through a Higher Education. 2010. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: http://learningtobeprofessional.pbworks.com/f/CHAPTER+A6+Learning+to+be+a+Self-Regulating+Professional+++the+role+of+PDP.pdf
26. Johnson L., Becker S.A., Cummins M., Estrada V., Freeman A., Hall C. NMC Horizon Report: 2016. Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium, 2016. 56 p. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://www.learntechlib.org/d/171478/
27. Lee D., Huh Y., Lin C.-Y., Reigeluth C. M. Personalized learning practice in U.S. learner-centered schools. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2022. No. 14 (4). Article No. ep385. DOI: 10.30935/cedtech/12330
28. Liu R., Qiao X., Liu Y. A paradigm shift of learner-centered teaching style: Reality or illusion? Journal of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching. 2006. No. 13. P. 77–91.
29. Manfrin A., Apampa B., Parthasarathy P. A conceptual model for students’ satisfaction with team-based learning using partial least squares structural equation modelling in a faculty of life sciences, the United Kingdom. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions. 2019. No. 16 (36). P. 1–9. DOI: 10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.36
30. Newman A., Bryant G., Stokes P., Squeo T. Learning to Adapt: Understanding the Adaptive Learning Supplier Landscape. 2013. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: http://edgrowthadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Learning-to-Adapt_Report_Supplier-Landscape_Education-Growth-Advisors_April-2013.pdf
31. Pogosyan M.A. Development of individual learning paths system in engineering education. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 2020. P. 1–8. DOI: 10.1109/fie44824.2020.9274140
32. Salinas J., Benito B. Construction of personalized learning pathways through mixed methods. Comunicar. 2020. No. 28 (65). P. 31–41. DOI: 10.3916/C65-2020-03
33. Schmid R., Petko D. Does the use of educational technology in personalized learning environments correlate with self-reported digital skills and beliefs of secondary-school students. Computer Education. 2019. No. 136. P. 75–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.006
34. Sharples M., De-Roock R., Ferguson R., Gaved M., Herodotou C., Koh E., KukulskaHulme A., Looi C.K., Mcandrew P., Rienties B., Weller M., Wong L.H. Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5. L.: The Open University, 2016. 45 p.
35. Tur G., Marín V.I., Moreno J., Gallardo A., Urbina S. From diagrams to self-regulated learning: Student teachers’ reflections on the construction of their PLE. Educational Media International. 2016. No. 53 (2). P. 139–152. DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2016.121133
36. UNESCO. Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning for all. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2016. Accessed 04.03.2023. URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
37. Wheelahan L. Neither fish nor fowl: The contradiction at the heart of Australian tertiary education. Journal of Access, Policy and Practice. 2008. No. 5 (2). P. 133–152.
Article
Received: 11.03.2023
Accepted: 26.06.2023
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
ACM
[1]
Gavrilyuk, T.V. and Pogodaeva, T.V. 2023. Transitioning to Individual Learning Paths in the Opinions of Students and Teachers: the Case of the University of Tyumen. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal = Sociological Journal. 29, 2 (Jun. 2023), 51-73. DOI:https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2023.29.2.3.
Section
SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION
JATS XML
