Not so terrible by the Federal State Educational Standard as he is pain

In the new 2011/12 school. Freshmen of all universities in Russia will study according to the new curriculum developed in accordance with the 3rd generation federal state educational standard (GEF-3, the previous standards were called GOS-1 and State). But it cannot be said that this education reform is perceived by the teaching community with “deep approval”, rather, “in hostility” is perceived. The article by the MGPU professor Pavel Semenov is also devoted to criticism of new standards [1], published in No. 13 of the CTV-N in 2011. At its first reading, traditional sensations from articles about Russian science and education arise: “Everything is disappeared, the ministerials spoil everything again”. One of the main claims of the author is a sharp decrease in the auditor's load, i.e. the volume of teaching, according to the new Federal State Educational Standard, which should lead to a decrease in the level of education. But then you think, and is it really so?

In our opinion, no. And just from the point of view of the educational load and its distribution, new standards are very reasonable and comply with European practice. According to the new rules, the system of test units (Z.E) is used to take into account the complexity of the educational program, focused on the European system of transfer and accumulation of loans (ECTS). 1 Z.E. (test unit) is equal to 36 academic hours. For the academic year, 60 s.e. It is fundamentally important, and this in the standard and methodological materials [2] emphasizes several times that this number includes everything: “This is the real time necessary for the implementation of all planned types of educational activities, namely: attending lectures, seminars, laboratory classes, as well as independent work; Preparation of projects, dissertations, passing exams, etc. ” The system of test units (ECTS loans) makes an assessment of the complexity of training courses understandable to the world community, simplifies the creation of joint intra -Russian and international educational programs, after which students are assigned to the world of bachelor or master.

Recorded in the standard 60 s.E. For the academic year, with the length of the semester of 20 weeks, 54 academic hours per week are equal, which just corresponds to the maximum volume of the weekly educational load prescribed in a standard position about the university [3]. Given the adopted both in Russia and the EU between classes, and indeed the inability to work for a normal person without interruptions, 54 academic hours approximately correspond to 54 calendar watches, i.e. 9 hours a day 6 days a week. These figures in European colleagues in themselves are surprising, taking into account the time for transport (and many students have to spend on the road up to 3 hours a day) time on some leisure time and rest remains. Frankly, most students of even the best universities solve this problem by absenteeism in “unnecessary classes”, which can not always be interpreted negatively, but we will return to this.

The claims of Pavel Semenov cause new rules for the distribution of this academic time. For example, he mentions that the preparation and passage of one exam is counted for 1 s.e. In fact, it is quite reasonable: 3 days of intense preparation and passing the exam. 5 exams in semester, 5 s.e. And a little more than 3 weeks per session. However, this is not a tough requirement of the Federal State Educational Standard! According to the instructive letter of the director of the Department of State Policy in Education I.M. Remorenko, a university can independently distribute the time to “measures of current control and intermediate certification (depending on the applied educational technology and the control system adopted at the university)” [4]. An examination session may not be in general if the university adopts a balle-and-rating system for evaluating work, focused on a continuous assessment of the student’s work during the semester. For example, it is accepted in the Higher School of Economics or at the Yandex data analysis school. And in this aspect of the Federal State Educational Standard is a “framework”, providing the developers of educational programs with great freedom.

The second stated fundamental moment. In the methodological recommendations, it is proposed to be assigned 50% of the educational load to the student’s independent work, i.e. homework, coursework, etc. The tendency to increase the share of independent classes of the student was scheduled back in 1994, in the 1st generation state, where it was increased from 18 to 22 hours. And the share of 50% was recommended even in the 2nd generation state, adopted in 2000 [2]. Student independent work is the cornerstone of education. What kind of training course is this, which during the semester only needs to be listened to, and to memorize and hand it over to the session? This is profanity!

Just on a visit to such courses, students are happy to “score”, considering them a loss of time. It is much easier to read a book or notes at the end, and you do not need to waste time in the semester.

Apparently, many teachers believe that the student will not do anything on his own, but with pleasure it will go to drink beer out into the street. But in the future, the teacher will not stand behind the graduate, he will have to work on his own. The ability to study independently is perhaps a key competence from the list of necessary in the modern world. The organization of effective independent work with the involvement of all technologies available now is one of the main challenges facing universities.

Perhaps universities are still afraid of this call. In most of the accepted standards, the maximum auditor's load is recorded in 32 hours, i.e. At 60 % of the time. Recommendations of both the state and Federal State Educational Standards remain recommendations.

We go further, the third fundamental moment. It is recommended to take no more than 40% of the total auditorial time to lectures. In fact, this means that each lecture should be accompanied by a seminar (40% + 40%). This is also extremely reasonable. If the student must be able to do something on the topic of the course, then the analysis of practical aspects needs seminars to which the student’s home independent work is applied. Again, the standard does not prohibit the existence of purely lecture courses, establishing only the ratio of lectures and other forms of audit classes. But here, in some standards, the plank decreases, and a little more time is given to the lecture - 50%.

So what is the reason for the indignation of the honored author of a critical note? I think everything is very simple! Current programs simply do not correspond to the recommendations proposed by the Federal State Educational Standard! For some reason, Russian teachers are still convinced of the superiority of lectures to other forms of transmission of knowledge. They do not trust the Bologna process in which priority is given to more active forms, such as seminars, interactive classes and independent work. At the same time, seminars are not provided for many courses. Homework often too. Why? Yes, because the states have developed like that! The teaching staff in most universities represents an inverted pyramid, and many recognize this. There are many “honored teachers” who have grown up to the professors, who need to give some lectures, it is preferably in-line, so that it is easier to gain the required pedagogical load. And few assistants who should conduct seminars, check homework, etc. And for many courses, just no one thought about practical tasks, this material is either not, or very little.

Thoughtful development of new standards and their implementation require both enormous work on the development of new curricula and a serious change in the structure of teaching staff. Each course requires a Monday curriculum with assessments of the time necessary for completing tasks for independent work. These grades must be verified with the real costs of students by regular survey. Then adjustment and refinement will be required. In many courses, it will be necessary to reduce lecture material, develop plans for seminars, prepare homework. It will be necessary to reduce the number of professors and associate professors and gain many assistants. This is a difficult matter. Some do not want to leave (stories about life for one pension can drive anyone into depression), others do not want to come (is it easy to find sensible youth at the current rates of assistants?).

To whom the hunt is such serious issues to raise and resolve? It is much easier to scold the ministry and the government, if only to seriously change anything in the prevailing system and not to make unnecessary efforts. Sometimes desperate resistance leads to “victory” over the ministry, and some specialists' programs “save” (111 standards adopted!)-excellent, you can not touch anything. Sometimes the hope of salvation is warming up before the recruitment, the faculty remains alone with the clumsy bachelors program, and the Solomon Solution is made: “So far we will read the old program of specialists, and we will see there.”

Anton Konushin,
cand. physical. sciences,
N.S. Laboratory of computer graphics
and multimedia VMK Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

1. Semenov P. “Education? Higher ?? Forget ”, crv-n No. 82, p. 3.

2. Sazonov B.A. Methodological recommendations for the use of test units in the design and implementation of OOP, www.edu.ru.

3. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 14, 2008 No. 71 “On the approval of a typical provision on the educational institution of higher professional education (higher educational institution)” (paragraph 40) [ www.fgosvpo.ru/uploadfiles/npo/201104190913.pdf ].

4. Letter of the director of the Department of State Policy in Education I.M. Remorenko “On the development of universities of basic educational programs” [ www.fgosvpo.ru/uploadfiles/mo/20110706155950.pdf ].