Sergey L. Lenkov

The research analyzes the variability of the representation of research work in the structure of practices of educational programs of higher education in pedagogical specialties. The sample included 2025 programs, including 1373 undergraduate and 652 graduate programs.

The authors used several absolute (in credit units) and relative (in percentage) indicators that characterize the educational program. Absolute indicators included the volume of training practices, production practices and practices in general, as well as the volume of research work as part of each type of practice. Relative rates included the share of research work in each type of practice. Using non-parametric statistics methods, the authors reveal a high variability of research work in the practice structure of the considered educational programs. For example, the share of research work in the total amount of practice for undergraduate programs varies from 0% to 75%. For graduate programs, this indicator varies from 0% to almost 90%. It is established that the representation of research work in the composition of practices is significantly influenced by such factors as the legal status of the university (state or non-state) and the university’s profile (pedagogical, humanitarian, technical or universal). In turn, the specialty of training (five specialties were considered for undergraduate programs and four specialties for graduate programs) and the form of education (full-time, part-time or correspondence) have less influence. Based on the research results, the authors formulate recommendations for improving the educational programs of higher pedagogical education in terms of the representation of students’ research work in the structure of educational and industrial practices.

The research considers the problem related to the consistency of forming the research competence in students of pedagogical specialties during university education. The authors analyzed 1319 educational programs of higher education in pedagogical specialties, including 924 undergraduate programs and 395 graduate programs. The authors consider qualitative indicators of systemic representation of research work in educational programs, that characterize the complete (comprehensive) systemic representation (i.e., represented in theory and in both types of practices – training and work), as well as seven heterogeneous types of its violations. The authors found that complete systemic representation occurs in only half of the graduate programs and in less than a third of undergraduate programs. Accordingly, various violations of systemic representation are found in more than 50% of graduate programs and 73% of undergraduate programs. Among the violations of consistency in undergraduate programs, the most common is the lack of research work in the training practices (20%). In graduate programs, the most common is the lack of research work in the training practices (22%) and work practices (17%). The authors determined that the systemic representation of research work in undergraduate and graduate educational programs is influenced by such external factors as the legal status of the university (state or non-state), the independence of the university (an independent university or a branch of the university), the university’s profile (pedagogical, humanitarian, technical, or universal), the form of education (full-time, part-time, or correspondence), and pedagogical specialty (five specialties for undergraduate and four for graduate). Practical recommendations are formulated for universities to improve educational programs of higher pedagogical education in the aspect of strengthening the systemic formation of students’ research competence.