CC BY
32
INDEPENDENT WORK OF STUDENTS AS A RISK FACTOR IN THE SYSTEM OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN MODERN-DAY RUSSIA
G. A. Bannykh
The author considers the risks to higher education in modern Russia in the context of transformation. Independent work as the obligatory part of education occupies most of the educational capacity. However, this element is dysfunctional, creates additional risk, and reduces the quality of the educational process.
Key words: independent work of students, higher education, educational risks, plagiarism.
In previous studies, we have argued that one of the risks to the higher education system is the one which reduces the quality of learning because of the common access to higher education, the lack of competitive selection of applicants (the appearance of "quasi-specialists"), and the increase in volume of independent work in the absence of the skills necessary for its implementation. After all, students are not only objects of the educational process, but also active subjects in this activity. Let us analyze the real educational practices of students, and the associated risks for the system of higher education.
The sharp increase in independent work has marked an important change in higher education. The curricula of both bachelor's and master's programmes have been amended to contain substantially larger amounts of hours allocated to the independent study of academic disciplines than have been provided for in studies in a classroom. Modern higher education suggests that the most (or a substantial) part of the learning material is left for students of all forms of learning to master on their own. The proportion of independent work for part-time students, for students of short or distance forms of learning is significantly greater than that for full-time students. In order to determine the attitude of both students and instructors to the change in the role of independent work of students in the educational process, a mass survey in the form of a questionnaire was conducted at the Ural State University of Economics. Some of the results are presented in comparison with similar studies from other universities. To clarify the attitude of the instructors for the increase in hours for the independent work of students, the following question was formulated: "Which position is closer to your opinion, the first or the second?": (1) "There must be the same requirements for students of any form of learning, regardless of the number of classroom hours" or (2) "if the students don't have enough of classroom hours, then the requirements for them must be lower." About 18.0% could not formulate a clear view on this. Only a third of respondents (30.9%) are convinced that the first principle of the implementation of educational programs must be followed. The majority (54.1%) is inclined to follow the second option - to reduce the requirements for students who have fewer classroom hours and more hours on the independent study of a discipline in the curriculum. Along with that, about one-fifth (21.5%) of the respondents of the faculty of the University accepts the idea of granting students the "minor allowances" on tests and examinations, in
138
the case of an insufficient number of classroom hours to study the discipline. Another 23.2% of instructors believe that for these students, the "requirements should be a little bit less strict." 9.4% of instructors believe that the requirements for students who have fewer classroom hours in the curriculum to study this or that discipline must be "substantially lower".
One of the risks of education is the introduction of different requirements for students with different forms of learning. As a result, the same grades and the same diplomas can mean completely different levels of competence, skills, and depth of knowledge. According to the survey, 41.1% of the students claim that they spend as much time on independent learning as on learning in the auditorium. 36.2% spent less on independent work than on work in the auditorium, and only one-fifth of respondents (21.8%) spent more time on independent work rather than on work in the auditorium. According to the study conducted by the Department of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of Ural State Pedagogical University in 20112012., freshman students of the Ural State Medical Academy spent 6.75 hours on classes at the Academy, and 4.24 hours at home; students of Pedagogical University - 5.5 on classes at the University, and 2.5 - at home; and the students of the Institute of Ariel (Israel) - 7.65 hours for classes at the Academy and 3.0 at home. By the third year, the students began to spend a little less time on their studies in all institutions: Medical Academy students began to study an hour less at home, while the lessons at the Academy remained the same. Students of the Pedagogical University spent a little less time both at home and at the University. Students of Ariel spent one hour less in the classroom at the University, but selfstudy took up the same amount of time [1]. Thus, the amount of time students spend in a classroom is more than is provided for self-study.
Meanwhile, the curricula envisage significantly more time for independent work than for classroom work. It can be concluded that the vast majority of students do not work hard enough, and spend significantly fewer hours for selfstudy than it is stipulated by their curriculum. The question of whether or not the issues that have not been worked out with the instructor in the classroom must be included in the exams or tests is largely connected to the students' attitude to selfstudy. Here, the instructors hold positions which are very close: 44.1% said that "it is acceptable to include such material in tests and exams." However, there are still those who think that this can not be done, and they are a little greater in number: 48.2% of instructors responded that "the material which hasn't been covered in the auditorium can not make it to the exams and tests." 48.1% of full-time students indicated in our survey that instructors only "sometimes" bring to the tests and exams material not covered in the classroom. Only 17.4% of respondents indicated that their professors do it "all the time", and it's a common practice. Only 9.0% of the students of the Institute of Continuing Education of the University of Economics noted that teachers "always" used materials not covered in the classroom during tests and exams. 35.8% of the students of this department noted that teachers do it "sometimes", and another 28.9% that it was "extremely rare." 18.7% of the students who participated in the survey have never encountered such a practice. Thus, students of the Institute of Continuing Education, with far fewer hours in the classroom as compared to full-time and part-time students, usually pass tests and exams only on those topics that the instructor had highlighted in his/her lectures
139
and seminars. The volume of material worked on in the auditorium ranges from 10 to 30% of the total educational material in the final controlled piece of work. However, the vast majority of students - 72% of respondents - believe that such a practice is unfair. Only 13.3% of respondents agreed with the possibility of including in tests and exams the materials which have not been learnt during lectures and seminars, while the rest were undecided on this issue.
If the curricular materials intended for independent learning by students are absent in the tests and examinations, it makes many forms of self-study impractical, and deprives students of the opportunity to go beyond the limited time of learning in a classroom with an instructor, and as a consequence, on the "output" the students, a lack theoretical knowledge and practical skills. Students tend to simulate independent work by using various forms of plagiarism. Independent work of students makes sense if it is subject to appropriate forms of control which allowing the assessment of performance, and increase a student's motivation to learn all at the same time.
In studies of students' independent work carried out in May (Institute of Continuing Education of University of Economics) and October 2014 (full-time students of University of Economics), we touched on the students' attitudes to copyright and intellectual property, which has recently been given a lot of attention nationwide, including within higher professional education. The questionnaire had a block of questions on students' attitudes to such phenomena such as plagiarism, ordering and purchase of control and term papers, as well as of dissertations. In a similar study of the attitude of full-time students to plagiarism, the results were the same. 64.6% of respondents believe plagiarism is partially acceptable in student papers, 21.5% of respondents (in fact, one fifth of the students) chose the variant that plagiarism is by far the common norm. Only 12.2% of the students indicated that for them plagiarism as theft of another person's property is absolutely unacceptable. Most of the students of the Institute of Continuing Education (60.5% of respondents) believe plagiarism acceptable and confirm its wide use and tolerance among students. 13.8% believe that plagiarism is an accepted norm. Only 22.8% of respondents made a statement against any use of plagiarism. If you add these answers with the answer on the admissibility of plagiarism in some cases, it turns out that 86.1% of full-time students and 74.3% of the students of the Institute of Continuing Education do not consider plagiarism to be a form of deviant behavior. We can conclude that the concept of fairness in education has not yet received universal acknowledgment among students.
This clearly indicates the need to take certain measures against plagiarism among students. Surveys have revealed an unexpected nuance for us: intolerance of plagiarism among students of the Institute of Continuing Education was higher as compared to full-time students. This can be explained by the fact that the students of that Institute belong to the older age groups, who can't easily use the "magic buttons" ("ctrl + c" and "ctrl + v") or basically do not consider it possible to borrow someone else's texts.
When full-time students were asked whether "your instructors check your papers for plagiarism?", only 22.5% indicated that all works of students are checked. More than half of the respondents indicate that the works are checked, but not all and not always. Almost a fifth (20%) of students responded negatively -
140
namely, that instructors never check their works on plagiarism at all. The majority -71.6% of instructors responded that they check students' works for plagiarism. But only 15.4% of them check all or almost all works of all their students. A quarter (about 25%) of teachers do not do it at all. It seems that the number of teachers who really check students' works for plagiarism is actually less than is believed by the students. Instructors assess the situation with the autonomy of students' works to be better than the students think: they believe that the extent of plagiarism is less than is estimated by students themselves.
Thus, according to the study, we can conclude that the independent work of students in higher education institutions is organized ineffectively and presents a serious threat to the transformation of higher education in Russia.
Bibliography
1. Динамика ожиданий и оценок в отношении процесса образования: сравнительное исследование вузов России и Израиля. - Екатеринбург: УрГПУ, 2012.
Translated from Russian by Znanije Central Translastions Bureas
141
