UDC 37.04+378
https://doi.org/10.20339/AM.08-20.032
A.A. Soloviev is Cand.Sci. (Philosophy), doc. at Volgograd State Technical University e-mail: lokotigr@mail.ru ; L.S. Solovieva is Cand.Sci. (Philosophy), doc. at Volgograd State University e-mail: solovieva_ls@volsu.ru
Undertaken is an attempt to analyze theoretical bases of establishing compliance between the real level of competencies of students and results recorded by traditional verification forms. Interconnection of different types of competencies is presented, and attention is drawn to precariousness of some indicators of knowledge and skills. Separate factors have been named that lead to increase in importance of indicator itself, regardless of its compliance with tested content. In this regard, the concept of “alternative form of demonstration competencies” is proposed. Consideration of this construct is reduced to theoretical identification of mechanisms, demonstrating attainment of training skills without actually mastering them. The author insists, that recognition of alternative forms of demonstrating competencies as relevant to traditional indicators must have objective reasons. Various phenomena are presented, that contribute to orientation of students towards the search for non-traditional forms self-presentation in the education. In addition to striving to break rules and thereby reduce time spent on training, the reason may also be possibility to demonstrate skills and abilities that have unique meaning both in educational process and in professional practice. However, effectiveness of these kinds of skills, in turn, is determined by social collisions, which is why the author questions their social value.
Key words: education, educational activity, subject of education, competences, verification of competences, philosophy of education, method of discussion.
References
1. Dewey, J. The School and society. Chicago, 1902.
2. Giluk, T.L., Postlhwaite, B.E. Big Five Personality and Academic Dishonesty: A Meta-Analytic Review. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015. No. 72. P. 59–67.
3. Marques, T., Reis, N., Gomes, J. A Bibliometric Study on Academic Dishonesty Research. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2019. Vol. 17. P. 169–191.
4. Brazevich, D.S., Safronova, Zh.S. Aspects of Professional Formation of Young Lecturer in Humanitarian Disciplines at Technical College. Alma mater (Vestnik vysshei shkoly). 2017. No. 9. P. 58–61.
5. Lunev, V.V., Luneva, T.A. Higher Education: Looking to the Future. Kazan Science. 2015. No. 9. P. 173–175.
6. Ortega-y-Gasset, J. Mission of the University. Minsk, 2005.
7. Roshchina Ya.A. How to Prevent Students from Cheating during the Midterms. Moscow University Bulletin. 2017. No. 2. P. 107–127.
8. Soloviev, A.A., Solovieva, L.S. Freedom of the Choice in Educational Activity. Alma mater (Vestnik vysshei shkoly). 2017. No. 9. P. 35–38.
9. Shmeleva, E.D. Plagiarism and Cheating in Russian Universities: The Role of Learning Environment and Personal Characteristics of Students. Voprosy obrazovaniya. 2016. No. 1. P. 84–109.
.png)
