David Konstantinovsky, D.Sc. in Sociology, Director of the Center for Sociology of Education, Science and Culture, Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: scan21@mail.ru
Address: Bld. 5, 24/35 Krzhizhanovskogo St., Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation.

This article makes an attempt to summarize results of studies on strategies and social behavior of youth in education. The author uses empirical data obtained in different projects over recent years.

Intentions of young people are predetermined by the social and professional status of parents and by the level of urbanization: school students have to adjust their life and education strategies to the existing inequality patterns. The same factors also influence educational trajectories of school graduates: the higher the social status and the urbanization level, the better the chances of entering a higher education institution. These trends are found in surveys of all years, from the early 1960s through the 2000s.

Accessibility of quality general education is investigated. As a result, Russian schools are divided into clusters which differ in qualified teachers, infrastructure and teaching quality. Each cluster mostly serves a specific social group. Obtaining a quality general education is associated with the main social barriers: sociocultural, geographical and economic. Differences in school education quality result in unequal chances on further (professional) education, thus reproducing social differentiation again and again. The Unified State Exam broadens the choice of higher education institutions but provides no solution to improve school education quality.

The conclusions are applied to other spheres of public life. It is suggested that an extended interpretation like that can provide additional insights into what is going on in society.

David Konstantinovsky, D.Sc. in Sociology, Director of the Center for Sociology of Education, Science and Culture, Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: scan21@mail.ru
Address: Bld. 5, 24/35 Krzhizhanovskogo St., Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation.

Viktor Vakhshtayn, Ph.D. in Sociology, senior researcher at the Centre for Fundamental Sociology, Institute for Theoretical and Historical Studies in the Humanities, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: avigdor2@yahoo.com 

Dmitry Kurakin, Ph.D. in Sociology, research fellow at the Centre for Fundamental Sociology,Institute for Theoretical and Historical Studies in the Humanities, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: kourakine@yandex.ru 

This is an analysis of metaphorical foundations of sociological studies in education. The authors show the mechanics of descriptive languages in research with specific examples from their own empirical projects.

Assuming that theoretical foundation—conceptual definitions and research hypotheses—is based on non-theoretical, or pre-theoretical, factors, the authors demonstrate connection between scientific concepts and their pre-theoretical basis.

Using the metaphor theory to explicate axiomatic assumptions, they regard sociological studies as a series of ‘translations’ between mutually impenetrable linguistic worlds (the world of common sense, the world of sociological theory, the world of management decisions). The paper discovers transition points where research acquires or loses its strictly scientific nature. Purely scientific methods are only used for conceptualization, development of tools and data interpretation. Basic metaphors (the axiomatic level) are rather associated with intuition and imagination, field data collection has to do with the logic of common sense, while managing skills and development of recommendations belong to the sphere of management. Methodological implications of metaphorical shifts and effects of an ‘uncontrolled metaphorical expansion’ are discussed in the paper. The authors study in detail the metaphors of organism and market as applied to education.

As implicit expansion (transfer of properties from auxiliary object to main object) is the fundamental property of metaphor, the authors believe that explication of research metaphors may facilitate significantly solving the problem of ‘translation’ between different ‘realities’ of the research process. 

Elena Voznesenskaya, Ph.D. in History, senior researcher at the Education Sociology Department, Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences. Email: maslovka3@mail.ru  Address: Bld. 5, 24/35 Krzhizhanovskogo St., Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation.

Galina Cherednichenko, Ph.D. in Philosophy, leading researcher at the Education Sociology Department, Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences. Email: galcher50@mail.ru  Address: Bld. 5, 24/35 Krzhizhanovskogo St., Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation.

A sociological study has been performed to consider characteristics of professional trajectories among degreed young people employed as workers at Russian factories or of those getting on-the-job higher education. The authors analyze what motivates young workers to receive higher education, what ideas they put into it and how they use it.

As higher education is quite accessible, unlike high-paying jobs, the fact of getting higher education alone, with no other resources (cultural capital of the family, social and professional status of parents) doesn’t change the educational and professional trajectory determined by the habitus of a workers’ family. However, higher education and the relevant diploma become young workers’ personal and social resources that serve the basis for opportunities and prospects of further promotion. At the same time, many young workers distrust higher education. The authors find out why higher education may be rejected by the working force.

Educational and professional trajectories of these people are built around the labor market demands and the needs of a specific factory, which promotes enhancing cumulative cultural capital of the enterprise and creates a favorable environment for its re-equipment and modernization. There is a need to introduce new forms of educational programs that would be more adjusted to opportunities and real living and working conditions of young industrial workers. 

Aleksandr Gasparishvili, Ph.D. in Philosophy, Head of the Public Opinion Laboratory, Institute of Complex Educational Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: gasparishvili@yandex.ru
Address: 1 Leninskiye Gory St., Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation.

Oksana Krukhmalyova, Ph.D. in Sociology, senior researcher at the Public Opinion Laboratory, Institute of Complex Educational Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: kruhoks@yandex.ru
Address: 1 Leninskiye Gory St., Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation.

The paper is based on the results of the survey ‘Moscow Teacher Today’ conducted in 2011. Special attention is given to what Moscow teachers think about transformations in secondary school and changes in their social status caused by the education reform.
The survey has revealed that absolute majority of Moscow teachers are concerned about the education reform issues. Half of the respondents are negative about the reform, and more than 50% are pessimist about its practical implications. Specialization of high school and advanced teaching technologies are the most welcomed components of the school education reform. Normative per capita financing and the Unified State Exam receive the most criticism by teachers. The paper also reviews teachers’ points of view on independent decision making.
The survey has revealed a high workload on teachers, which may be due to supervision functions that have been transformed significantly by the reform. Besides, teachers unanimously claim the abundance of paperwork has a negative impact on their teaching activities.
Transition to a new financing system is discussed. According to respondents, financial situation of Moscow teachers is relatively good, as compared to other regions, which may be a proof of the new payment system efficiency.The study presentshow much teachers believe their financial situation depends on extra-budgetary school funds. Disparate opinions on this issue among teachers may be explained by the fact that almost half of the respondents never take part in activities of any public administrative body in education. 

Ekaterina Popova, Ph.D. student at the Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Email: EkaterinaS.Popova@bk.ru  Address: Bld. 5, 24/35 Krzhizhanovskogo St., Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation.

This article explains why the interdisciplinary approach is required to study motivation for learning. A brief overview of foreign psychological, educational and sociological studies on development of motivation for learning is provided.

An analysis of approaches to motivation allowed to develop the strategy of research, which regards motivation as one of the key drivers of any action. One of the main problems that teachers encounter while developing and maintaining motivation in students is finding and keeping the balance between internal and external motivational factors.

The author discusses preliminary results of a poll carried out in order to operationalize her own concept of motivation for learning. A pilot survey has evidenced efficiency of the developed system of operants in measuring social aspects of motivation development. Operants associated with student engagement in learning have confirmed that social aspects of external motivation are indeed very important. Internal motivation of school students is also largely affected by social values. Evaluating the methods of measuring aspirations of modern high school students, the author concludes that investigating aspirations after the 9th grade is not enough to analyze estimated educational trajectories and goals of youth, so aspirations of the 11th grade graduates should also be an object of research.

An analysis of pilot survey data has revealed the need to expand the survey apparatus. As a result, an extended system of operational and conceptual terms was developed. The academic year 2013–2014 will witness adjustment and testing of the new apparatus, more polls, and material analysis. 

Pavel Stepantsov, M.A. in Sociology (Manchester University), intern researcher at the Centre for Fundamental Sociology, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Email: pavel.stepantsov@gmail.com    Address: 20 Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.

Vasily Kuzminov, M.A. in Sociology (Manchester University), intern researcher at the Centre for Fundamental Sociology, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Email: frameanalysis@ya.ru   Address: 20 Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.

The paper provides an insight into the market model of educational choice, identifying it as insufficient to explain the way school graduates choose a professional education institution.

An opinion poll conducted among schools graduates (9th and 11th grades) and students of vocational technical schools, colleges and higher education institutions has revealed heterogeneity of post-secondary education: there is no single ‘place market’ in this education, no single differentiation system which would enable professional education institutions of different types to ‘scan’ academic performance of candidates.

As institutions of each type have their own codes for candidate selection, educational choice of school students is not restricted to choosing an education institution; it also involves choosing the right code recognizable by professional education institution of a specific type. That is why, when the Unified State Exam (USE) was made a universal code for all HE institutions, educational choice of students not interested in higher education was shifted in time from the 11th grade to the 9th grade, as the USE code was not used when applying to vocational technical schools or colleges. By contrast, nearly all 11th graders (90%) are going to apply to HE institutions only—they already made their choice of code when they decided to take the USE.

Conclusions reached in the course of this study are used to describe possible patterns of further research on educational trajectories.

Michael Barber, Professor, chief education advisor at Pearson, London, UK.
Email: krdonnelly@pearson.com Address: Institute for Public Policy Research, 4th Floor, 14 Buckingham Street, London WC2N 6DF, UK.

Katelyn Donnelly, executive director in the administration of the chief education advisor at Pearson, London, UK.
Email: krdonnelly@pearson.com Address: Institute for Public Policy Research, 4th Floor, 14 Buckingham Street, London WC2N 6DF, UK.

Saad Rizvi, executive director in the administration of the chief education advisor at Pearson, London, UK.
Email: krdonnelly@pearson.com Address: Institute for Public Policy Research, 4th Floor, 14 Buckingham Street, London WC2N 6DF, UK.

This essay assumes the near certainty that the Pacific region will take primary leadership of the global economy in the near future and explores the implications for their education systems. It explores the historic insights that can be taken from the Atlantic’s rise to global leadership and outlines the economic transformation over the last 50 years that has shifted leadership from the Atlantic to Pacific Asia.

On this foundation, the authors lay out a new model for fostering innovation among individuals, teams, organizations and society as a whole. Lessons about creativity and innovation have major implications for public policy. Education—deeper, broader and more universal—has a significant part to play in enabling humanity to succeed in the next half century.

The authors outline the key characteristics of Pacific Asian systems which contribute to performance of their educational systems.

Despite the rooted nature of educational progress in the region, the leaders should not leave the educational systems well alone. The paper sketches out what features the education systems require to enable successful global leadership and innovation in the decades ahead. The authors recommend a combination of best practices in coherent reform of education systems together with the latest thinking on unlocking systemic innovation to produce the ‘whole-system revolution’ that will be required to inspire a generation and produce global leaders who are able to rise to the challenges of the 21st century. 

Sergey Malykh, D.Sc. in Psychology, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, leading researcher at the Laboratory for Cognitive Investigations and Behavioral Genetics, National Research Tomsk State University. Email: malykhsb@mail.ru
Address: 36 Lenina Ave., Tomsk, 634050, Russian Federation.

Tatyana Tikhomirova, Ph.D. in Psychology, senior researcher at the Laboratory for Cognitive Investigations and Behavioral Genetics, National Research Tomsk State University. Email: tikho@mail.ru
Address: 36 Lenina Ave., Tomsk, 634050, Russian Federation.

Yuliya Kovas, Ph.D., Head of the Laboratory for Cognitive Investigations and Behavioral Genetics, National Research Tomsk State University, Head of the International Laboratory for Interdisciplinary Investigations into Individual Differences in Learning, Goldsmiths College, University of London. Email: y.kovas@gold.ac.uk
Address: 36 Lenina Ave., Tomsk, 634050, Russian Federation.

This article emphasizes the significance of scientific and experimental research in studying the nature of individual differences, i.e. in discovering why students differ in cognitive, personal and motivational characteristics in a relatively uniform educational environment. Individual differences in cognitive and learning capabilities are formed in the course of complex genotype-environment interaction. In order to solve the major educational problem, i.e. to raise the overall level of academic performance by means of individually tailored teaching methods, the authors suggest using genetically sensitive methods to study mechanisms which underlie individual differences in learning capabilities in different subject fields.

Special attention is paid to the twin study method that allows for a detailed research into cognitive development, learning capabilities and disabilities. An important feature of the twin study methods is that it provides the best possible evidence for the influence of environmental factors, including those of educational environment. The twin study method allows to specify the role of common and individual environment, i.e. conditions increasing similarities or differences between twins in certain qualities respectively.

The Russian School Twin Registry has been developed since 2012 to provide a unique database for Russian and foreign researchers and a source of theoretical and practical knowledge for teachers, psychologists, parents and students themselves. 

Based on the data obtained in the MEMO Project

Lyudmila Ugolnova, Deputy Head of the Data Processing Department, Center for Institutional Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: lugolnova@hse.ru 

The situation in distance higher education in Russia is described using statistical data and results of the polls conducted among students of professional higher education institutions and employers as part of the MEMO Project (Monitoring of Education Markets and Organizations).

The number of distance students in HE institutions has more than doubled over the last decade, making distance learning the most popular way of getting professional higher education. The paper shows how students are distributed among different forms of learning in public and private HE institutions. The proportion of distance students has been increasing, while the proportion of full-time and part-time students has been naturally decreasing in both private and public institutions, although to a lesser extent in the latter.

The author specifies the differences between full-time and distance students in terms of their social and demographic status, educational and career strategies. She also explains the motivation for choosing distance learning. The paper investigates how full-time and distance students assess their chances of working in their field of study.

A survey among employers has shown that full-time students have a certain advantage when applying for a job after graduation. Preferences of employers in hiring graduates and undergraduates are also presented.

Workshop ‘Modern Research and Development in Education’, Institute for Educational Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, June 19, 2012.

Speakers:

Irina Abankina, Director of the Institute for Educational Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics;

Mark Agranovich, Executive Director of the Interregional Association for Monitoring and Statistics of Education;

Aleksandr Adamsky, Rector of the Institute of Educational Policy Problems ‘Eureka’;

Yelena Berezhnova, leading researcher of the Center for Innovative Education Models, Moscow Institute of Open Education;

Viktor Bolotov, Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

Valery Kazarin, D.Sc. in Pedagogy, independent consultant;

Anatoly Kasprzhak, Director of the Center of Leadership Development in Education, Institute for Educational Studies, National Research University —Higher School of Economics;

Tatyana Klyachko, Director of the Center for Lifelong Education Economics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration;

Tatyana Kovalyova, Professor at the Chair of Pedagogics, Moscow State Pedagogical University, President of the Interregional Tutors Association;

Sergey Kravtsov, Director of the Regional Development Department, Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation;

Vladimir Livshits, Secretary of the Central Committee of the Trade Union of Public Education and Science of the Russian Federation for Economic Issues;

Yelena Penskaya, Dean of the Faculty of Philology, National Research University — Higher School of Economics;

Yefim Rachevsky, Director of Moscow High School ‘Tsaritsyno 548’;

Igor Remorenko, Deputy Minister of Education and Science if the Russian Federation;

Boris Rudnik, Director of the Institute of Public Resource Management, National Research University — Higher School of Economics;

Aleksandr Sysoyev, Professor at the National Research Nuclear University ‘MEPhI’;

Konstantin Ushakov, Professor at the Institute for Educational Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics;

Isak Frumin, Director of Research and Development at the Institute for Educational Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics;

Lyubov Tsoy, senior researcher at Moscow Institute of Open Education.

The discussion gives a retrospective view on accuracy of the forecasts made by the leading experts in education when they discussed prospects for development of the educational system in 2003 and current trends in this development. Participants of the workshop agree that mostly negative predictions have come true. The forecasts underestimated threats external to education, which have been dominating over inherent educational policies and developing into insurmountable barriers restricting implementation of efficient strategies.

Both seized and missed opportunities are discussed. It turns out that the analyzed period witnessed much less changes than the previous decade and than it had been predicted. The spotlight is thrown on possible mechanisms of changing the educational system: specifics of market laws in education; opportunities provided by proper management; young people’s motivation to change the educational system. The speakers point out that resource and time scale of the measures taken is in a huge disproportion with their expected effects. The 2020 Strategy is also viewed from this perspective. Possible resources of education development are discussed. The Internet and social networks are regarded as potential triggers of changes in the educational system. The speakers also ponder on why these changes didn’t happen over the past decade. 

Ekaterina Zharova, Ph.D. in Biology, teaching assistant at the Zoology and Anatomy Department, Petrovsky Bryansk State University, Bryansk, Russian Federation.  Email: caty-zharr@yandex.ru
Address: 14 Bezhitskaya St., Bryansk, 241036, Russian Federation.

The paper describes evolution of biology education in Mathematical Physics faculties of Russian universities in the 19th and the early 20th centuries.

The most important phases of this evolution are defined: dividing Mathematical Physics faculties into mathematical and natural science departments by the end of the 1840s; introducing obligatory practical trainings in laboratories for natural science and medical students—after the University Statute of 1863 was adopted, enabling natural science students to specialize in chemistry, geology, geography, and various fields of biology. The most essential changes in educational process were made by the University Statute of 1884, which replaced conventional annual examinations with pass-fail exams on a semester basis.

The example of the Natural Science Department of Saint Petersburg University is used to show changes in educational process induced by transition from course system to subject field system in academic year 1906/1907. The newly-introduced subject field system almost didn’t affect the studies in natural sciences, as specialization within departments had already been practiced by faculties. Russian students could get quality biology education in either course or subject field system of the early 20th century as long as they had an opportunity of doing research in equipped laboratories at any university center. 

Yelena Penskaya, D.Sc. in Philology, Dean of the Faculty of Philology, Head of the Literature Department, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: e.penskaya@hse.ru
Address: 20 Myasnitskaya St., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.

This article analyzes how frequently the term ‘educational policy’ is used in printed media and online resources. Appearance of this term in discussion and information fields had two major circumstances in the background: a concentration of reform measures brought to spotlight by media; splashes of public debates, whether spontaneous or initiated by stakeholders.

The paper shows how the frequency of using the term has been changing over the past decades. It became widespread in the early 1990s as denoting consistent education reform measures and has been subject to a number of semantic changes throughout the last 20 years, developing into a cliché. In 2010, this forgotten cliché was back in Russian sociocultural vocabulary, having acquired additional valence over the past few years.

The author also investigates the meaning implied by this concept in journalistic texts, in particular in Obrazovatelnaya Politikaand Svobodnaya Mysljournals and in two collections of essays on history of education in Russia published in 2012. She suggests that frequency of use and semantics of the ‘educational policy’ cliché are the tools that help trace and analyze the nature and evolution of relations between authorities and the society. Quite naturally, this term is never mentioned in any projects, guides or monographs created for teaching purposes. 

Alisa Melikyan, M.Sc., Head of the Academic Mobility Department, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: amelikyan@hse.ru 

Boris Zhelezov, Ph.D. in Political Science, Head of the International Academic Mobility Department, National Research University — Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. Email: bzhelezov@hse.ru 

The authors have studied activities of international employees in the NRU HSE, both foreign citizens and Russian scientists who have worked abroad for a long time, using online questionnaires and interviews with scientists themselves, international managers and heads of relevant departments.

The paper contains statistics on the proportions of foreign academicians among researchers and teachers in colleges and universities of different countries. A brief overview of foreign studies on motivation and adaptation of foreign employees is given.

Changes in numbers of international experts in the NRU HSE over the last five years are presented. The authors analyze professional and personal characteristics of international NRU HSE employees, determine criteria of their choice of a foreign HE institution, explore their attitudes to work and co-workers and the challenges they encounter while adapting to business, cultural and social environment, communicating with their co-workers, or achieving professional self-fulfillment. The major clusters of problems impeding adaptation to working in Russia and in the NRU HSE in particular include: employment and education laws; relationship with students; specifics of business culture.

Some recommendations are proposed to correct the measures designed to internationalize the University and to make it a global science center. The authors describe prospects for further research on the factors providing efficient engagement and adaptation of foreign experts. They also stress the need for a detailed analysis of international scientists’ performance indicators.