Adaptation or Degradation: What’s Happen to Educational Innovation in a Typical Educational Process?

The article is devoted to the study of the processes of changing innovative learning technology in the conditions of a typical educational process. The study was conducted on the example of end-to-end design technology (based on the CDIO methodology in accordance with its standards) for bachelor’s degree in technical areas of training. The study used methods of expert assessment, written survey, content analysis, structural-logical and statistical analysis. The experts were engineers of design departments of industrial enterprises, teachers of engineering disciplines of the university and undergraduate students. A review analysis of the understanding of educational innovation available in the scientific literature is carried out. A concise description of the end-to-end design technology for a training and production workshop that meets the criteria of educational innovation is presented. Based on the expert assessment, a detailed analysis of the influence of the conditions of the typical educational process of the university on the change of the specified learning technology at the level of the characteristics of students’ academic work and its results is made. Data on changes in innovative technology according to the criteria of twelve CDIO standards, as well as its impact on the formation of hard and soft skills of engineers before and after adaptation are presented. A comparative analysis of the assessments of changes in teaching technology made by students and experts is carried out, on the basis of which conclusions are substantiated about: 1) the nature of the degradation of educational innovation when it is introduced into the standard learning process; 2) the special role of the first stages of end-to-end design technology for the formation of effective skills of educational and practical work, which partially compensate for the shortcomings of the educational process caused by its adaptation to the conditions of a typical university education. A hypothesis is also put forward about the reasons for the low efficiency of educational innovations in the educational process of universities.

1. Kochetkov, M.V. (2020). Innovative in Education, or How to Separate the Wheat from the Chaff? Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 153-166, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-11-153-166 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

2. Korobtsov, A.S. (2020). Quality of Engineering Education: Slogans and Reality. Inzhenernoe obrazovanie = Engineering Education. Vol. 27, pp. 27-36. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44676880 (accessed 03.10.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

3. Shisharina, N.V. (2013). Innovations in Education: Essence, Functions, Properties and Types. Sibirskij pedagogicheskij zhurnal = Siberian Pedagogical Journal. Vol. 4, pp. 45-49. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

4. Yordanova, Z., Stoimenova, B. (2021). Smart Educational Innovation Leads to University Competitiveness. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Vol. 1168, pp. 185-195.

5. Ramírez-Montoya, D.M.-S., Lugo-Ocando, J. (2020). Systematic Review of Mixed Methods in the Framework of Educational Innovation. Comunicar. Vol. 28, no. 65, pp. 9-20. URL: https://www.academia.edu/78338507/Systematic_review_of_mixed_methods_in_the_framework_of_educational_innovation (accessed 03.10.2022).

6. Kochetkov, M.V. (2014). Innovations and Pseudo-innovations in Higher Education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 3, pp. 41-47. Available at: https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/596?locale=ru_RU (accessed 03.10.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

7. Nguyen, H.D., Mai, L.T., Anh Do, D. (2020). Innovations in Creative Education for Tertiary Sector in Australia: Present and Future Challenges. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 1149-1161, doi: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1752190

8. Morales-Avalos, J.R., Heredia-Escorza, Y. (2019). The Academia–industry Relationship: Igniting Innovation in Engineering Schools. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing. Vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1297-1312. URL: https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/the-academia-industry-relationship-igniting-innovation-in-engine/16778482 (accessed 03.10.2022).

9. Zeer, E.F., Novoselov, S.A., Davydova, N.N. (2011). Institutional Support of Educational Innovations. Obrazovanie i nauka = Education and Science. Vol. 88, no. 9, pp. 3-20. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

10. Lemaоtre, D. (2019). Training Engineers for Innovation: Pedagogical Initiatives for New Challenges. European Journal of Education. Vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 566-576, doi: 10.1111/ejed.12365

11. Arruabarrena, R., Sánchez, A., Blanco, J.M., Vadillo, J.A., Usandizaga, I. (2019). Integration of Good Practices of Active Methodologies with the Reuse of Student-generated Content. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. Vol. 16, no. 1, article no. 10, doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0140-7

12. Lavi, R., Tal, M., Dori, Y.J. (2021). Perceptions of STEM Alumni and Students on Developing 21st Century Skills Through Methods of Teaching and Learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation. Vol. 70, article no. 101002, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101002

13. Varava, I.P., Bohinska, A.P., Vakaliuk, T.A., Mintii, I.S. (2021). Soft Skills in Software Engineering Technicians Education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Vol. 1946, article no. 012012, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1946/1/012012

14. Dubrov, D.V., Kochetkov, M.V., Steklyannikov, V.Yu. (2020). Employer as an Actor of Student-centered Education: Implementation Experience. Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 141-152, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-11-141-152

15. Patil, M.S., Kamerikar, U.A. (2020). Learning by Doing Through Project Based Active Learning Technique. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations. Vol. 33, pp. 125-129, doi; 10.16920/jeet/2020/v33i0/150080

16. Tyflopoulos, E., Haskins, C., Steinert, M. (2021). Topology-optimization-based Learning: A Powerful Teaching and Learning Framework under the Prism of the CDIO approach. Education Sciences. Vol. 11, no. 7, article no. 348, doi: 10.3390/educsci11070348

17. Julius Fusic, S., Anandh, N., Subbiah, A.N., Bhaven Kumar Jain, D. (2020). Implementation of the CDIO Framework in Engineering Courses to Improve Student-Centered Learning. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations. Vol. 35, pp. 19-26, doi: 10.16920/jeet/2022/v35is1/22003

18. Santos Rego, M.A., Mella Núñez, Í., Naval, C., Vázquez Verdera, V. (2021). The Evaluation of Social and Professional Life Competences of University Students Through Service-Learning. Frontiers in Education. Vol. 6, article no. 606304, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.606304

19. Mtawa, N., Fongwa, S., Wilson-Strydom, M. (2021). Enhancing Graduate Employability Attributes and Capabilities Formation: a Service-learning Approach. Teaching in Higher Education. Vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 679-695, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2019.1672150

20. Sutil-Martín, D.L., Javier Otamendi, F. (2021). Soft Skills Training Program Based on Serious Games. Sustainability (Switzerland). Vol. 13, no. 15, article no. 8582, doi: 10.3390/su13158582

21. Pardo-Garcia, C., Barac, M. (2020). Promoting Employability in Higher Education: A Case Study on Boosting Entrepreneurship Skills. Sustainability (Switzerland). Vol. 12, no. 10, article no. 4004, doi: 10.3390/su12104004

22. Boevé, A.J., Meijer, R.R., Beldhuis, H.J.A., Bosker, R.J., Albers, C.J. (2019). On Natural Variation in Grades in Higher Education, and Its Implications for Assessing Effectiveness of Educational Innovations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. Vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 55-66, doi: 10.1111/emip.12283

23. Isaev, A.P., Valueva, L.V., Martynova, E.V., Plotnikov, L.V. (2016). A Tool for Evaluating and Improving the Effectiveness of the Current Educational Process at the University. Vestnik vysshej shkoly. Alma mater. = Bulletin of the Higher School. Alma mater. Vol. 2, pp. 77-83. Available at: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25470959 (accessed 03.10.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

24. Schophuizen, M., Kalz, M. (2020). Educational Innovation Projects in Dutch Higher Education: Bottom-up Contextual Coping to Deal with Organizational Challenges. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. Vol. 17, no. 1, article no. 36, doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-00197-z

25. Isaev, A.P., Plotnikov, L.V. (2016). “Educational Engineering” in the Context of the Implementation of the CDIO Ideology. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 12 (207), pp. 45-52. URL: https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/901 (accessed 03.10.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

26. Isaev, A.P., Plotnikov, L.V., Fomin, N.I. (2017). Technology of Open-Ended Engineering in Training of Engineers. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 5 (212), рр. 59-67. Available at: https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/1049/0 (accessed 03.10.2022). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

27. Isaev, A.P., Plotnikov, L.V. (2019). Technology for Training Creative Graduates in Engineering Bachelor’s Programs. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 85-93, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-7-85-93

28. Tran, T.B., Phan, T.H. (2022). Development of CDIO-Based Programs from the Teacher Training Perspective. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. Vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 204-219, doi: 10.26803/ijlter.21.5.11

29. Chuchalin, A.I. (2021). Adaptation of the Core CDIO Standards 3.0 to STEM Higher Education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 9-21, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-2-9-21 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).