Tatyana Klyachko — Doctor of Sciences in Economics, Director of the Center for Lifelong Learning Economics, Institute of Applied Economic Research, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), Professor, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Address: Bld. 1, 82 Vernadskogo Ave, 119571 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: tlk@ranepa.ru (Corresponding author)

Alexey Novoseltsev — Vice Rector, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Address: 11 Pokrovsky Blvd, 109028 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: anovoseltsev@hse.ru

Elena Odoevskaya — Senior Assistant to Rector, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Address: 11 Pokrovsky Blvd, 109028 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: ekirilyuk@hse.ru

Sergey Sinelnikov-Murylev — Doctor of Sciences in Economics, Professor, Rector, Russian Foreign Trade Academy of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation.

Address: 6A Vorobyevskoe Hwy, 119285 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: sinel@vavt.ru

This paper explores the organizational and economic response of higher education to the coronavirus pandemic and the emergency transition to distance learning. We analyze the situation across different categories of universities as well as how they respond to campus closures and to the urgent transition to remote student-faculty interactions in learning. We also assess the education system’s need for additional public funding to promote digital learning environments, foster professional development of faculty members, and create job opportunities for students who have lost their jobs that paid their education and/or accommodation. Improvement scenarios are proposed for the funding mechanisms underlying the fulfillment of government contract for education and science, which have been applied since 2013.

Dmitry Rogozin — Candidate of Sciences in Sociology, Leading Research Fellow, Institute for Social Analysis and Forecasting, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Sociology, Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Address: Bld. 1, 11 Prechistenskaya Emb, 119034 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: rogozin@ranepa.ru

A questionnaire survey of 33,987 faculty members in April 2020 revealed predominantly negative evaluations of learning effectiveness in the context of distance learning, as compared to in-person instruction, and a rather pessimistic vision of the future of higher education in Russia. This article formulates hypotheses about the reasons of such attitudes among faculty members and provides arguments for possible opinion shifts and alleviation of resistance to technological change. The paramount problem consists in the contradiction between the acceptance of the idea and value of digital innovation and the rejection of such at the level of personal teaching practices. During expert interviews, faculty members were offered alternative scenarios of the future. The data obtained was then used to analyze the attitudes and beliefs behind their resistance and to find out which perceptions of the future correlated with negative and positive evaluations of distance learning.

Viktor Koksharov — Candidate of Sciences in History, Rector, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin. E-mail: v.a.koksharov@urfu.ru

Daniil Sandler — Candidate of Sciences in Economics, First Vice Rector for Economics and Strategic Development, Head Researcher, Research Laboratory of University Development Problems, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin. E-mail: d.g.sandler@urfu.ru

Pavel Kuznetsov — Head of the Center for Monitoring of Science and Education, Senior Lecturer, Department of International Economics and Management, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin. E-mail: pavel.kuznetcov@urfu.ru

Address: 19 Mira Str., 620002 Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation.

Alexander Klyagin — Leading Expert, Laboratory for University Development, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: aklyagin@hse.ru

Oleg Leshukov — Head of the Laboratory for University Development, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: oleshukov@hse.ru (Corresponding author)

Address: Bld. 10, 16 Potapovsky Ln, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation. 

As an inevitable result of Russia’s higher education policies of the past two decades, new university leaders in and outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg have emerged, and vertical differentiation has increased. Inequality of educational potential has a strong regional dimension, exerting a considerable delayed impact on regional socioeconomic development. Differences in universities’ resources affected their ability to adapt their instructional, research, and administrative processes to change during the pandemic, thus broadening the education and research quality gap in higher education. Some regions may face an increased outflow of youth talent to leading universities or just any colleges based in Moscow and St. Petersburg, which will certainly weaken the socioeconomic growth prospects of Russia’s regions.
The pandemic accelerated the debate over this problem and demonstrated readiness of universities for joint efforts. Groundwork was laid for deploying a policy to create a cooperative network of universities and their stakeholders so as to reduce institutional differentiation and promote exchange of experience and competence among universities.
This paper investigates into the main characteristics of vertical differentiation in Russian higher education that had been in place when the pandemic broke out and determined whether universities succeeded or failed in switching to distance learning. Furthermore, lockdown measures and their economic impact on different types of universities are analyzed. Finally, we discuss possible avenues and specific considerations for expanding cross-institutional collaboration and engaging stakeholders inuniversity development.

Saule Bekova — PhD, Research Fellow, Center of Sociology of Higher Education, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: sbekova@hse.ru (Corresponding author)

Evgeniy Terentev — Candidate of Sciences in Sociology, Senior Researcher, Center of Sociology of Higher Education, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: eterentev@hse.ru

Natalia Maloshonok — Candidate of Sciences in Sociology, Director of the Center of Sociology of Higher Education, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: nmaloshonok@hse.ru

Address: Bld. 10, 16 Potapovsky Ln, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation.

The urgent transition to distance education in March 2020 revitalized the debate on the influence of a new educational reality on the educational inequality. A study was performed to measure the relationship between the difficulties experienced by students during distance learning and their socioeconomic status. Data from a nationwide survey of students administered in late March — early April 2020 by a team of researchers from a few Russian universities was used as empirical basis of this study. Results demonstrate significant differences in obstacles faced by students from families with different levels of income. Students from low-income families were the most likely to have technical and self-regulation problems and to lack skills required for effective distance learning. Findings indicate the importance of finding system-level solutions to ensure equal opportunities for students in distance learning, regardless of their socioeconomic status.

Anastasia Petrakova — PhD, Research Fellow, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: apetrakova@hse.ru (Corresponding author)

Tatjana Kanonire — PhD, Assistant Professor, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: tkanonir@hse.ru

Alena Kulikova — PhD HSE in Education, Junior Research Fellow, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: aponomareva@hse.ru

Ekaterina Orel — Candidate of Sciences in Psychology, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: eorel@hse.ru

Address: Bld. 10, 16 Potapovsky Ln, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation.

Recent studies show that stress levels are higher among teachers than in many other occupational groups. Semi-structured interviews with 14 teachers from various regions of Russia were conducted to investigate the characteristics of psychological stress and coping strategies in the context of the abrupt transition to distance learning imposed by the COVID‑19 pandemic. In remote schooling, teachers have to implement education programs despite their own pandemic anxiety, provide emotional support to students, and stimulate their motivation for learning. It appears from the interview data that teacher stress is elevated by the absence or lack of support from school administrators and a substantial increase in teacher workload, caused by the need to search for new techniques of teaching and preparing for classes from a distance, intensified communication with students and their parents, and the growing amount of homework assignments to review. The stress factors specific to the pandemic include the new work-from-home setup and changes in the work-life balance. The most common strategies of coping with stress and reducing its consequences include an effort to search for the silver lining and/or new opportunities, seeking social and emotional support, physical exercise, and hobby activities.

Ulyana Zakharova — Candidate of Sciences in Philology, Research Fellow, Center of Sociology of Higher Education, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: uzakharova@hse.ru (Corresponding author)

Ksenia Vilkova — Postgraduate Student, Junior Research Fellow, Center of Sociology of Higher Education, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: kvilkova@hse.ru

Address: 20 Myasnitskaya Str., 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation.

Gennadiy Egorov — Candidate of Sciences in Psychology, Director of Online Education Institute, Saint Tikhon’s Orthodox University of Humanities.

Address: 23B Novokuznetskaya Str., 115184 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: egorov.g@pstgu.ru

Transition to distance learning during the COVID‑19 lockdown in spring 2020 was a challenge to the education system in general and higher education in particular. Applied Sciences were unanimously recognized as the most affected due to their focuson practical skills, being closely tied to the institutional infrastructure, and a moderate curriculum digitalization. This article describes student experiences during the spring semester of academic year 2019/20, using data obtained from 30 interviews with students in Engineering, Technology & Applied Sciences, Health & Medical Sciences, and Arts & Culture degrees. Delivery of lectures and practical classes, placements, dissertations, and faculty–student interactions are analyzed. Findings are consistent with the widely discussed perception of education during the pandemic not as distance learning but rather as emergency remote teaching that requires supportive measures to compensate for time loss in learning as well as solutions to technical and methodological issues.

Viola Larionova — Candidate of Sciences in Mathematical Physics, Assistant Professor, Deputy Vice Rector for Education Technology, Head of the Department of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University named after the 1st President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin.

Address: 19 Mira Str., 620002 Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation. E-mail: v.a.larionova@urfu.ru (Corresponding author)

Tatiana Semenova — Research Fellow, Center of Sociology of Higher Education, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Address: Bld. 10, 16 Potapovsky Ln, 101000 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: tsemenova@hse.ru

Elena Murzakhanova — Postgraduate Student, Department of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University named after the 1st President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin. E-mail: e.m.babenkova@urfu.ru

Liudmila Daineko — Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University named after the 1st President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin. E-mail: l.v.daineko@urfu.ru

Address: 19 Mira Str., 620002 Yekaterinburg, Russian Federation. 

As Russian universities switched to distance education in March 2020 to prevent COVID-19 from spreading, self-paying students started questioning the fairness of tuition fees during the pandemic. They filed petitions, emphasizing that distance learning could not be equated to traditional classroom-based learning, that educational services were not delivered to the full extent, and that educational quality had decreased. On those grounds, students required cutting tuition fees down to the size of those in part-time or extramural education. To understand whether universities can afford making this step, we undertake to measure the price that they have paid for the transition to distance learning.
For this purpose, we use data from a survey of faculty teaching and curriculum organization practices carried out at a federal university between March 23, 2020 and June21, 2020, which involved 4,099 faculty members, as well as financial records of some departments within that university. Findings show that teaching workload reduced by 15% with distance learning during the pandemic, and the number of contact hours decreased 1.7 times. However, the overall amount of faculty workload increased by 50%, first of all due to a 2.4-time rise in curriculum organization activities. Therefore, the transition to distance education led to a significant increase in faculty workload, given that contact hours were preserved. Furthermore, the university invested heavily in the transition to distance learning and continuity of educational processes during the pandemic, in particular by financing the establishment of a new department for digitalization of learning processes.
An inference is made that distance education imposed by the pandemic has not been reduced to part-time or extramural studies. Decisions about cutting tuition fees for self-paying students should be made at the institutional level, with due regard for faculty workload and digitization costs.

Marharyta Fabrykant — Candidate of Sciences in Sociology, Candidate of Sciences in Psychology, Senior Research Fellow, Laboratory for Comparative Studies in Mass Consciousness, Expert Institute, National Research University Higher School of Economics; Associate Professor, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences, Belarusian State University.

Address: 9 Kalvariyskaya Str., 220004 Minsk, Belarus. E-mail: mfabrykant@hse.ru

The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of narratives of the Вlack Death (the epidemic of plague that struck Western Europe in the mid-1300s) in six contemporary history textbooks in the Russian language published in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. Structural narrative analysis provides an answer to the research question about the interplay of external circumstances (structure) and individual choices (agency) in depicting the causes of the Black Death, its course of events, and attribution of its developments and consequences. Findings demonstrate that structure prevails over agency. The textbooks offer no behavioral patterns to internalize and implicitly conceptualize behavior in an epidemic as a mass phenomenon, not as a product of many individual choices. This perception of agency blatantly contradicts the two prerequisites for an effective epidemic response elaborated during the COVID-19 pandemic: quality of governance and population’s willingness to comply with authorities’ recommendations in spite of the growing circulation of false information. The Black Death is presented in textbooks as an inevitable attribute of the Middle Ages — the “era of calamities”. Hence, an epidemic in any other historical period appears an omen of “bad times” coming, which is likely to create expectations of new unavoidable disasters and foster catastrophic perceptions of the already existing problems. To shift this approach to history as “life’s teacher”, intrinsic to didactic pedagogy, two methods are suggested: explicit comparison with epidemics from other historical periods (not only the present) and counterfactual thinking to create alternative scenarios with regard to general patterns of human behavior and the characteristics of the Medieval Period.

Nadezhda Radina — Doctor of Sciences in Political Institutes, Processes and Technologies, Candidate of Sciences in Pedagogical Psychology, Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: rasv@yandex.ru (Corresponding author)

Julia Balakina — PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Literature and Intercultural Communication, National Research University Higher School of Economics. E-mail: julianaumova@gmail.com

Address: 25/12 Bolshaya Pecherskaya Str., 603155 Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation.

This article overviews studies exploring the COVID‑19 pandemic’s impact on education systems and their responses to lockdown restrictions, comparing available findings with international statistics based on continuous education system monitoring. Global organizations acknowledge disruption of classical educational processes and emergency transition to distance learning during the pandemic. Scientific literature examines accessibility of online education, alternative forms of distance learning, and the pandemic-induced financial constraints on universities inhibiting new construction, social support for students, scholarship application, professional development of faculty members, and research growth. The pandemic illuminated the issue of inequality in education, which worsened as a result of emergency transition to online studies. In particular, researchers focus on the most vulnerable groups of students, such as children from low-income families, children from migrant backgrounds, and students with disabilities.
Projects aimed at studying the digitalization of education account for the biggest chunk of research inspired by the new pandemic reality. A number of studies discuss not just a formal transition to distance learning but a major technological turn that allows using the unique opportunities provided by digital technologies, which is especially important when teaching medical students.
Theoretical inquiry is a distinctive feature of scientific discourse, as compared to the discourse of international expert and analytical reports on the problems of education in the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Research on changes to the learning process makes it possible to reconstruct the direct and indirect, as well as latent, threats of the pandemic.

Anastasia Azbel — Candidate of Sciences in Psychology, Associate Professor, Institute of Pedagogy, Saint Petersburg State University. E-mail: a.azbel@spbu.ru

Leonid Ilyushin — Doctor of Sciences in Pedagogy, Associate Professor, Institute of Pedagogy, Saint Petersburg State University. E-mail: l.ilushin@spbu.ru (Corresponding author)

Polina Morozova — Master’s Degree Student, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Saint Petersburg State University. E-mail: polina_2312@bk.ru

Address: 7/9 Universitetskaya Emb, 199034 Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.

Despite the obvious significance of the feedback phenomenon for school practice, there is a lack of valid analysis of students’ perception of feedback. This article explores how Russian adolescents conceptualize and perceive feedback as an educational tool. Descriptive research was conducted using an anonymous survey based on a questionnaire composed of open-ended questions. Seven hundred and three adolescents from large cities of Russia were asked questions about how they understood “feedback”, what kind of feedback they would like to receive, and what kind of feedback they actually received from teachers. This was followed by a field study that involved an overt observation and analysis of feedback manifestations in a secondary school program for gifted students (n = 140). Most senior students understand the range of problems associated with feedback, yet they perceive feedback itself as a resource to be used by the teacher, not by themselves. In their beliefs about feedback, adolescents intuitively rely on either “behavioral” or “existential” perspective. In the former case, feedback is perceived only as an external stimulus and the resulting response. In the latter, students regard feedback as a tool for dialogue, support, engaged communication, relationship development, and direct or indirect request for evaluation or assistance. The more complex interpretation may stem from students’ prior participation in situations of assistance and cooperation as well as their perceived need for a dialogue with the teacher or tutor.
Since the sample was unrepresentative, the conclusions made in this study should be deemed preliminary. Nevertheless, they allow designing further research of feedback literaсу in Russia’s school education.

Tamara Gordeeva — Doctor of Sciences in Pedagogical Psychology, Professor, Department of Psychology of Education and Pedagogics, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University.

Address: Bld. 9, 11 Mokhovaya Str., 125009 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: tamgordeeva@gmail.com (Corresponding author)

Oleg Sychev — Candidate of Sciences in Psychology, Associate Professor, Research Fellow, Shukshin Altai State Humanities Pedagogical University.

Address: 53 Vladimira Korolenko Str., 659333 Biysk, Russian Federation. E-mail: osn1@mail.ru

Anastasia Sidneva — Candidate of Sciences in Psychology, Senior Research Fellow, Department of Psychology of Education and Pedagogics, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University.

Address: Bld. 9, 11 Mokhovaya Str., 125009 Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: asidneva@gmail.com

This study is a theoretical analysis of two student assessment systems that are most common in Russian schools: traditional performance grading and evaluation within the developmental education paradigm proposed by Daniil Elkonin and Vasily Davydov, which implies a set of assessment criteria for different types of achievement, self-assessment, peer assessment, and no focus on assessment results or comparisons.
Elementary school students enrolled in traditional and developmental education systems became participants in two empirical studies. Projective techniques (Three Wishes and Three Questions to a Wise Man) were used to measure grades’ related anxiety among third- to fourth-graders in traditional (TE) and developmental classes (DE). Content analysis of children’s spontaneous wishes and questions to a wise man (N(TE) = 327, N(DE) = 153) shows that students in traditional classes are more anxious about their grades than those in developmental classes. In addition, only children in the traditional education system focus on formal assessment at the expense of mastery-based learning outcomes.
The second study measured the relationship between grades and academic perseverance, motivation, and self-concept (N(TE) = 309, N(DE) = 78). The value and role of grades may vary in the structure of intrinsic and extrinsic academic motivation and perseverance, as their motivational function differs between the two systems of student assessment. Findings support the idea of organizing school assessments in the logic of developmental education, which is more differentiated, mastery-oriented, and objective. Furthermore, it is originally implemented in cooperation with children, supports the values of enquiry, initiative, independent thinking, and collective discussion, and is less focused on external control and diligence.

Joy V. Nyondo — Doctoral student at the Institute for Post School Studies, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.

Address: University of the Western Cape, Robert Sobukwe Road, Bellville, 7535, Republic of South Africa. E-mail: 3741689@myuwc.ac.za (Corresponding author)

Patrício V. Langa — Professor, Institute for Post School Studies, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa; Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique.

Адрес: University of Eduardo Mondlane, av. Julius Nyerere, nr. 3453 Maputo, Moçambique. E-mail: Patricio.langa@gmail.com

This article provides an analytical literature review on the emerging research university in Africa. Specifically, we advance a deliberation of whether a research university is relevant and various experiences that denote its emergence. Notably, there is a global acknowledgement of universities as major centres for knowledge production. However, commitment to teaching with a minimum focus on research function seems to be a noticeable feature of most African universities. In the last 15 years, some African universities have indicated aspirations and efforts to become research universities. Exploring both theoretical and empirical studies, while reflecting on their rhetoric and real perspectives, we establish that there are divergent views on relevance and experiences of the emergence of a research university in Africa. Relating to the backdrop of this study, which is the link between knowledge and economic advancement, we discuss these divergent views. To date, few studies have provided an in-depth understanding of the emerging research universities in Africa. We advance a wider outlook on African higher education initiatives and directions on constructing research universities and suggest novel avenues for future research.

Alexey Lyubzhin — PhD in Philology, Head of the Department of History, Dmitry Pozharsky University; Research Fellow at the Laboratory for Interdisciplinary Analysis of Society, Culture and History (IASCH), National Research University Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.

Address: 9 Institutsky Ln, 141701 Dolgoprudny, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation. E-mail: vultur@mail.ru

This article is a response to Georgy Lyubarsky’s profound and farsighted speculations about the functioning of educational institutions in the new social context, where conventional approaches cannot be applied anymore. In a situation where mass media take over the school’s function of producing meanings for the public, it becomes impossible to speak about the “majority” and, consequently, about any classical culture common for that majority. Meanwhile, it appears a good idea to create a new mythology (perhaps, a university mythology) that would allow elaborating the theory of general education, first of all in universities, at a new level. If the concepts proposed are considered as viable, development models should also be proposed for institutions of secondary education, where it would make sense to use traditional western and pre-Soviet models of school organization, in much the same way that investors in a recession turn to conservative assets.