UDC 37.01-042.3:614.4
https://doi.org/10.20339/AM.11-20.007
P.I. Ananchenkova is Cand.Sci. (Economics), Cand.Sci. (Sociology), Prof. at Аcаdemy of Lаbor аnd Sociаl relаtions, Moscow e-mail: ananchenkova@yandex.ru; N.M. Novikova is Cand.Sci.(Pedagogy), Senior lecturer at Krasnodar University of Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia — Novorossiysk Branch e-mail: tanm75@mail.ru
Researched is the most significant event in socio-economic, political and other spheres of life in the period of 2019–2020 COVID-19 pandemic that significantly “reshaped” principles and technologies of functioning of certain social institutions that traditionally play a stabilizing function in society. The social institute of education is one of these systems. Under the influence of the coronavirus crisis, education as a social institution has shown its strengths and weaknesses in terms of providing a stabilizing function. The dys-functionality of education is most clearly manifested in the lack of readiness of its subjects for a rapid technological transition from full-time to distance learning. The article considers the main forms of dys-functionality of education, expressed in such types of unpreparedness as technological, infrastructure, personnel, skill, and mental, and presents their characteristics and main forms of manifestation. It is concluded that, on the one hand, the coronavirus crisis was a powerful factor in the destabilization of all economic and social systems and caused their dys-functionality. On the other hand, and this was most evident for the Institute of education, it accelerated technological modernization and the rapid transition to innovative forms and technologies of education, followed by an increase in technological literacy of teachers and students, revision of methodological and didactic materials, and a change in the paradigm of managing the educational process directly in educational institutions and in General national education systems.
Key words: coronavirus, education, unpreparedness, crisis, dys-functionality, innovation.
References
1. Coronavirus as a driver for market of online education. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4301803
2. Coronavirus strengthens educational inequality. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4343122
3. Murzin, A.D. Economy of education and culture in the period of pandemia. Vektor ekonomiki. 2020. No. 4 (46). P. 36.
4. Nikolaeva, N.S. Education as social institution: functions and dis-functions. Uchyonye zapiski ZabGGPU. 2011. No. 6. P. 174.
5. Parshin, I. What will be with Russian market of online education after coronavirus pandemia? URL: https://incrussia.ru/understand/edtech/
6. Rykova, A., Poletaeva, P. Labor fever: what professions mightn’t be called for after the end of coronavirus pandemia. URL: https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/734167-professii-pandemiya-koronav...
7. Sukharev, O.S. Dis-function of education and science of Russia: trajectories of overcoming, Prioritety Rossii. 2014. No. 1 (238). P. 3.
8. Tishchenko, A.S. Influence of pandemia on economy of education. Ekonomicheskoe razvitie Rossii. 2020. No. 5. P. 90–97.
9. Tonkonog, V.V., Ananchenkova, P.I. E-learning: would it replace distant traditional form of education? Trud i social’nye otnosheniya. 2017. No. 4. P. 119–128.
10. 3 ways the coronavirus pandemic could reshape education. URL: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/3-ways-coronavirus-is-reshaping-e...
11. COVID-19 Educational Disruption and Response. UNESCO. 2020-03-04.
12. The impact of coronavirus on higher education. URL:https://www.timeshighereducation.com/hub/keystone-academic-solutions/p/i...
.png)
