CC BY
34
PROBLEMS OF CONTINUITY OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER EDUCATION AND THEIR REASONS
I.V. Gordeeva
When we speak about the continuity of secondary and higher education, we primarily mean the continuity of unified state requirements for training of graduates from general secondary education institutions and the content of standards of higher professional education with respect to certain disciplines in natural sciences, humanities, social studies, economics and other areas. Any continuity in teaching manifests itself in the following aspects: (a) provision of systemic knowledge; (b) further development of forms, key methods and content of teaching; and (c) forward-looking upbringing and training that contribute to the building and improvement of a personality.
Nevertheless, it is no secret that the basic level of knowledge among a large number of graduates from Russian schools is far from meeting the requirements set by higher education institutions for potential enrollees. Contrary to popular belief, this problem is not solely a result of the recent reform of the education system. Even 25-30 years ago, teachers of specialty disciplines in many universities often started their course with the phrase "Forget everything you learned in school". This emphasized inconsistency of educational programs with the requirements of higher education institutions for the amount of students' knowledge. Another possible reason for such a neglectful attitude to knowledge received in secondary school lies in somewhat the arrogantly condescending opinion of "degree-holding" university professors about their "junior" colleagues who are unable to fully appreciate the full array of scientific information which must be learned in order to be able to provide appropriate high-quality teaching.
When it comes to problems of the continuity of secondary and higher education in modern times, we have to bitterly admit that the situation has not improved, and continues to worsen, despite the efforts to build a single chain of lifelong education. It is not only about a low level of general education and knowledge gaps that require correctional training. Another reason for fair criticism from teachers is the fact that first-year students generally lack skills in intellectual and self-guided work, are poorly prepared for active learning and unable to think critically, evaluate information rationally and express their thoughts in a logical and intelligent way. It should be noted that employers often have issues similar to those listed above with university graduates, which is further confirmation of the seriousness of the problem. An analysis of causes of disruption in the continuity of secondary and higher education enables us to identify a few key points:
First, there are significant conceptual differences in the structuring of different levels of education, resulting in poor compatibility between general and vocational education programs. Fair criticism and issues are raised with respect to many textbooks used in secondary school, and not so much due to the quality of material presented (although problems are possible here, too: from typos to outright distortion of facts), as because of their diversity and, hence, a completely different structure and content, despite the formal consistency of training programs.
180
As a result, in some situations the same sections of a discipline are learned by students from different schools in different years of learning and in a completely different order, often without logical links between subjects. For example, the chemical composition of cell is learned in the school course of Biology long before students begin to learn about complex organic compounds in Chemistry; therefore the concepts of "proteins", "lipids" and "carbohydrates" are not informative;
Second, the fact that curricula are overloaded with data that are often redundant and quickly become obsolete still remains a serious problem. A huge amount of information presented in class and requiring the same amount of homework causes rejection and reluctance to assimilate any knowledge due to the apparent discrepancy between teachers' demands to the level of knowledge of a subject and the actual capabilities of students to learn certain information. At the same time, specialized classes where students master a full amount of just a few disciplines necessary for entering university in specific areas of training does not provide a solution to the problem. The fact is that the majority of potential enrollees only know what disciplines included in the unified state examination are counted for admission to a particular specialty in a particular higher education institution, but have no idea about the full program of training in the chosen specialty. As a result, a student enrolled in the specialty of "Food Biotechnology" based on the results of the examination in Chemistry is surprised to learn that as early as in the first year, he or she will have to study Biology, Physics and other disciplines that have not been given proper attention in the school curriculum. This leads to a common situation where teachers have to fill gaps in knowledge among a significant group of first year students;
Third, students move from a secondary education institution to a higher education institution without any experience of working in new settings. School classroom lessons and lecture/seminar classes not only have different duration, but also different requirements imposed by teachers. The lack of total control with constant checks of homework in higher education institutions not only promotes self-reliance and responsibility, but also creates an illusion of complete freedom, in particular from attending classes in the hope of "wiggling out somehow during the examination period". However, the point rating system of knowledge assessment currently applied by many higher education institutions does not allow such students to be admitted for respective examinations. This leads to a considerable number of dramatic situations where students discover that the old school habit of "completing outstanding assignments and making up for low grades in the last days" does not work here, leaving them in complete confusion. There is an apparent conflict between the status of students and their preliminary preparation for training in the new setting.
To summarize the above, it can be stated that the effectiveness of interaction between secondary and higher education in many respects depends on solving the problem of compatibility between the learning processes in secondary and higher education institutions, in particular: (a) alignment of curricula and textbooks for secondary school students with the content of university curricula and textbooks. The main focus should be put not on "loading with information" which is often redundant and abstract, but on teaching to work with information, choosing the basic content and critically evaluating the data learned; (b) providing effective
181
control of the level of educational attainment of students and the extent of their willingness to continue training in a higher education institution; (c) insufficient utilization of the possibility of using various forms of cooperation between general secondary education institutions and universities (cooperative research, participation in scientific conferences hosted by universities and schools), demonstrational lectures, workshops and training sessions delivered by university teachers for schoolchildren; and (d) underdeveloped links in the content, organizational forms and methods of teaching between general secondary education institutions and universities.
182
