CC BY
17Physical education in context of current problems in higher education
UDC 796.011.3
PhD, Professor V.N. Egorov1 Dr. Hab., Professor N.A. Gluzman2 PhD, Associate Professor A.V. Antipov3 1Tula State University, Tula
2V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, Simferopol, Republic of Crimea 3Moscow State Regional University, Moscow
Corresponding author: EgorovW@mail.ru
Abstract
Objective of the study was to analyze the current physical education service situation in the context of the modern educational paradigm with the higher education system reforms and new higher education system standards.
Methods and structure of the study. During the study, we applied a battery of theoretical methods including analysis, synthesis, comparison, and generalization of paradigmatic approaches in higher education, as well as traditional and alternative educational concepts of physical education.
Results and conclusions. We identified the orientation of the scientific paradigms in education; made a theoretical generalization of the accumulated knowledge and experience in the field of physical education from the perspective of the paradigmatic approach; showed the role and place of physical education in the structure of the state higher education standards; disclosed the structural and content base of the thematic sections of the sample physical education program.
Based on the results of the theoretical analysis, the authors conclude that the current reality of higher education implies the implementation of alternative concepts of educational activity into the long-standing traditional teaching practice. The contradiction between the objective requirements of the society for the level of development of physical education competences and the prevalence of a practical-oriented approach to the formation of educational functions necessitates the development of a theoretical-methodological grounds for educational technologies from a paradigmatic perspective. In terms of actualization of the Federal State Education Standard, the higher education standard ensures that mandatory requirements are met when future specialists develop competences to support an adequate physical fitness level to provide for full-fledged social and professional activities.
Keywords: physical education, education paradigm, higher education system, sample curriculum, Federal State Higher Education Standards.
Background. One of the key priorities of the national higher education system is the students' health protection and improvement programs with their social, medical, academic progress test and mental health securing aspects in the context of the national health and education paradigms [5, 8]. Missions and objectives of the academic physical education service with its theoretical and practical aspects are consistent with the national education paradigm, concepts and models. The physical education service progress strategies are persistently updated as
required by the new knowledge and experience in the education service fields, with a special priority to the new theoretical and practical service models, tools and methods [4].
Objective of the study was to analyze the current physical education service situation in the context of the modern educational paradigm with the higher education system reforms and new higher education system standards.
Results and discussion. The national higher education system in its every element and level has
long been governed by the traditional paradigms, with the higher education system goal limited by the academic knowledgebase and practical skill set building mission [1]. The recent revision of the traditional paradigms has prioritized a learning individual as the key cultural phenomenon and educational process subject. The shift towards humanistic / humanitarian/ phenomenological paradigms has changed the cultural content of the higher education service to establish proactive cultural standards and norms in the educational system in advance of the present social reality [11]. In this context, the traditional and humanistic education paradigms need to be harmonized in every aspect [7]. It should also be mentioned that, despite the versatility of the new education paradigm, it still favors at this juncture the competency-prioritizing model [2, 3, 10] geared to develop the standard key competences as required by the state standards for the relevant professional, social, economic, informational and other service missions [12].
As things now stand, the academic physical education service is designed as required by the Federal State Higher Educational Standards (FSHES) that set forth requirements to the physical education curricula. Analysis of the educational system design and content for the last two decades shows that they have been transformed in the approaches to the educational service and professional requirements to graduates - to make a transition from the traditional paradigm to the competency-centered one [8]. The first- and second-generation FSHES mandated the educational paradigm transition towards the humanistic education model. In practical terms, it has given more freedom to universities in their educational curricula design and management aspects. However, the traditional approaches to the academic disciplines, design and content without the still substandard academic progress test system have made the results short of expectations.
Drawbacks of the second-generation FSHES were addressed by Federal Law of December 29, 2012 No. 273-FZ "On Education in the Russian Federation" that provided for transition to the third-generation FSHES with the new higher education system objectives and graduates' education quality assurance requirements including the key general cultural and professional competences. Further amendments to the FSHES-3 once again affected the physical education service standards. The physical education discipline was eventually listed beyond the humanitarian, social and economic disciplines to stand alone as a separate mandatory course. The conceptual uncertainty and inconsistencies in the requirements to the graduates' education levels resulted in the standard competences and the relevant notions and interpretations in the
education curricula being contradictory in many aspects.
Further updates to the FSHES-3 to produce FSH-ES-3+ and FSHES-3++ included revisions both to the list of competences and even the titles and contents of the curricula. Thus the general cultural competences gave way to the so called universal competences (UC) classified into categories/ groups. The academic physical education service is required to form UC-7 including the graduate's competence in "due physical fitness maintenance for the fully-fledged social and professional service (self-control, self-development and health safety category)".
The sample physical education curricula are developed in compliance with the valid FSHES and fundamental legal and regulatory provisions that spell out the core priorities, scopes and contents of the education service harmonized with the local socio-cultural and climatic contexts and professional specialist training traditions [4]. Cognitive goals of the modern academic education service are secured by the theoretical educational materials; although it should be mentioned that the theoretical part of the physical education service (critical for the students' health agendas, healthy lifestyle and even world outlooks) virtually never exceeds 10% of the total labor intensity of the discipline.
Despite the few updates of the FSHES for the last decade with changes to the lists of competences and design and content of the curricula, the sample physical education curriculum effective since 2011 remains the only regulatory document for the academic physical education service priorities, goals, scopes and contents. At this juncture, the decisionmakers pay much attention to new revisions of the education service concepts to allow a broader use of distance education service models to fully enjoy benefits of the modern IT and communication tools with interactive student-teacher and studentstudent communication, data flows and teamwork. These revisions are considered beneficial, resourceful and highly promising for the national education system [9].
Conclusions. The current reality of higher education implies the implementation of alternative concepts of educational activity into the long-standing traditional teaching practice. The contradiction between the objective requirements of the society for the level of development of physical education competences and the prevalence of a practical-oriented approach to the formation of educational functions necessitates the development of a theoretical-methodological grounds for educational technologies from a paradigmatic perspective. In terms of actualization of the Federal State Education Standard, the higher education standard ensures that mandatory
36
Theory and Practice of Physical Culture I teoriya.ru I October № 10 2020
requirements are met when future specialists develop competences to support an adequate physical fitness level to provide for full-fledged social and professional activities.
References
1. Agapova N.G. Paradigmatic orientations and models of modern education (system analysis in context of philosophy of culture). Ryazan: Yes-enin RSU publ., 2008. 364 p.
2. Guba V.P. Interdisciplinary basis to find individual abilities in cultural and educational space. Izvestiya Rossiyskoy akademii obrazovaniya. 2014. No. 4 (32). pp. 114-124.
3. Denisenko P.A. Historical diversity of educational paradigms of Russian society. Vestnik Voennogo universiteta. 2008. No.4 (16). no. 46-52.
4. Egorov V.N., Gryazeva E.D. Modular design of theoretical and methodological content of Physical education discipline. Izvestiya Tulskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Fizicheskaya kultura. Sport. 2014. no. 2. pp. 15-20.
5. Egorov V.N. Orientation and theoretical and methodological substantiation of health preservation paradigm and its individual scientific concepts. Mir sporta. 2019. No. 4(77). pp. 81-85.
6. Egorov V.N., Gryazeva E.D., Leontyeva M.S., Arkhipova S.A. Problems of implementation of
polyparadigm approach in physical education. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 2016. No. 1. P. 42.
7. Egorova E.V., Lopatukhina T.A. Change of educational paradigms in modern education. Vestnik TGPU. 2017. No. 4 (181). pp. 118-122.
8. Maltseva S.G., Teodorovich M.V. Comparative analysis of state standards of three generations of higher professional education for tourism sector. Uchenye zapiski universiteta im. P.F Les-gafta. 2014. No. 8 (114). pp. 124-128.
9. Mikhaylova T.V., Pavlov E.A., Guba V.P. Modern sport specialist education service integration in the EU. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 2018. no. 12. pp. 95-98.
10. Fedotova V.S. Discourse analysis of educational paradigms today: formation of new educational paradigm. Chigisheva O.P. [ed.]. Modern science: theoretical, practical and innovative aspects of development. V. 1. Rostov-on/D: Nauchnoe sotrudnichestvo publ., 2017. 221 p.
11. Shubina N.A. Place of cultural paradigm in modern education. Obrazovanie i nauka. 2007. No. 5 (47). pp. 41-48.
12. Yamburg E.A. Harmonization of pedagogical paradigms - strategy for development of education. Uchitelskaya gazeta. 2004. No. 11. [Electronic resource]. Available at: http://www.ug.ru/ archive/3365 (date of access: 10.04.2020).
