"Universities themselves are responsible for the programs"

In the Triv-Hunger No. 85 of August 16, 2011, two articles were published dedicated to discussing the positive and negative features of the competency-based approach. Both publications caused a live reaction of our readers. Continuing the raised topic, in his new article, Kand. Biol. Sciences, S.N.S. Research Institute of Physical and Chemical Biology named after A.N. Belozersky Moscow State University Evgeny Sheval comments on the theses of the academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dokt. physical. sciences Viktor Vasiliev .

In my article, I tried to figure out how educational programs are created based on a competency -based approach. In the recall of V. Vasiliev published at the same time, a displacement of the topic under discussion occurred. If in my article I talked about one of the new formal tools for creating educational standards, then the author of the review connected this moment with the nature of education.

It seems to me that there is no reason to believe that the change of Zunov on competence will automatically lead to a change in the content of the programs for the worse. Any thing can be used both for good and evil, but it already depends on the performers. The quality of education is determined to a much greater extent by the work of teachers in audiences and workshops, and not the next ministerial circular. Although, of course, it is easier to scold officials.

The review expresses considerations about ways to develop educational standards. It is proposed to fill the standard with meaning (which, of course, is not there), and for this, "give a fairly representative list of specific tasks that the student who has overcome this course should be able to solve." It is difficult to say how this list should look, but in any case it is impossible to do this - the standards include only general requirements, they do not even contain a complete list of courses. Otherwise, it would not be clear how different universities will implement different programs and how they will modify the programs in accordance with the changing situation.

Next, an extremely important observation is made: "... and then it is not clear who begins to fill them (standards.-E.Sh . ) at least some (but still insufficient and ambiguous) meaning." Based on the standard, each university develops an educational program for himself. This document contains more detailed information, including programs of all disciplines. In the programs of disciplines, you can prescribe all the necessary concepts and theorems with any degree of detail. That is, there is no reason for the alarm that students do not recognize any important theorem due to the competency-based approach.

It is also clear who can fill the program with the content, painting in detail the program of all courses, proposing forms of training, used educational technologies, methods of monitoring the acquired knowledge, etc. etc. Today's “postmodern” situation is that universities themselves are responsible for drawing up the program. Under “it is not clear who” are ordinary teachers who, as I am convinced, are able to fill the program with sufficient and unambiguous meaning.

And several private clarifications.

1. The topic of the alleged training of "narrow specialists". The thoughts expressed about the danger of too narrow specialization, of course, are true, only competencies have nothing to do with it. Competencies are formulated much more widely than the Zuna who had previously existed. But, apparently, the narrow Zuna is not “part of the now pursuing policy of the training of narrow specialists who can solve a small set of specific problems at the level of ready -made recipes and do not have a horizons outside this
The limited area ”, and much wider competencies are.

It is also appropriate to attract attention to the fact of the enlargement of specialties. For example, biologists have so far prepared in the following specialties: biology, anthropology, zoology, botany, physiology, genetics, biophysics, biochemistry, microbiology, bioecology. But now there is only one direction of training - biology. You can relate to the enlargement in different ways, but it is unlikely that it will be possible to interpret it as coercion to prepare “narrow specialists”, rather, on the contrary.

2. The following is the following phrase: "... the statement that " a widely educated graduate is good, only if it does not work in a specialty, " is not an element of many true statements." Italic and quotation marks, as I understand it, is highlighted by my text. After a long thought, I came to the conclusion that I could not write such a nonsense. I in the most meticulous way I checked the text transferred to the editor, and was convinced that the quote given in the article simply absent, which makes further discussion to the indescribable.

3. The following fragment is very interesting: “... do not say that it is humiliating to live life in this beautiful world and not ask how the atom is arranged, how the star burns, how the tree grows, why children look like parents, etc., even if this knowledge does not give you a piece of bread with oil: this, alas, will not touch everyone.” An extremely important problem is raised here. If students' students receive at least a small humanitarian training (philosophy, history, economics), then some humanities with natural sciences do not encounter universities in universities.

The strangeness of this situation was spoke many times, repeating the argument for and against and there is no sense against. At Moscow State University, in the new standards made, by the way, within the framework of a competency -based approach, a general university course with a total labor intensity of 8 s.E. "Modern natural science." If the experiment of Moscow State University is successful, you can hope that such courses will be widespread.