Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2017, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 212–231
© Osipenko L. E., 2017
UDC: 
37.012.7

Integration of science, education, business within the framework of scientific-practical learning of schoolchildren

Osipenko L. E. 1 (Moscow, Russian Federation)
1 State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education "Moscow City Pedagogical University",
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 3997
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article presents an analysis of recent research investigations emphasizing the need for a systematic approach to the integration of learning, science and business within a single educational phenomenon – the scientific-practical learning of schoolchildren. The purpose of the research is to justify the structure of the model of schoolchildren’s scientific-practical learning as a prototype of a technology park and to prove the advantages of scientific-practical learning in comparison with the traditional formats of school education.
Materials and Methods. The research methodology includes theoretical analysis of foreign and domestic scientific literature, analysis of different systems on the basis of the isomorphism principle, modeling, questionnaire survey, generalization and interpretation of empirical data using of the methods of mathematical statistics.
Results. The literature analysis enables the author to conclude that synergy of education with science, production and business, united in a single phenomenon of the scientific-practical learning of schoolchildren, is an effective direction of its development. The idea of didactic adaptation and extrapolation of the methodology of the technology park to educational issues is logically justified and embodied in the model of the scientific-practical learning of schoolchildren. The main components of the model are identified. Its structure is determined by the following ones: fundamental training and research and project activities. It is proved that the complex of these components within the structure of the scientific-practical learning of schoolchildren ensures the formation of the basic scientific and project competence, as well as, information mathematical, social and communicative ones. The advantages of the scientific-practical learning are mathematically grounded in comparison with traditional formats of school education.
Conclusions. The basic structural components of the model of schoolchildren’s scientific-practical learning are generalized. The author identified the prospects of its development as a matrix element of the ecosystem: school – university – business.

Keywords: 

Science; Education; Technology park; Integration; Scientific-practical learning; Human capital; Giftedness; Knowledge; Competence; Innovation

95.452 Business Incubation | Science Parks | Incubators

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?src=s&origin=cto&ctoId=CTODS_1...

Integration of science, education, business within the framework of scientific-practical learning of schoolchildren

For citation:
Osipenko L. E. Integration of science, education, business within the framework of scientific-practical learning of schoolchildren. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2017, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 212–231. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1706.13
References: 
  1. Bokova T. N. Main trends of education in the us and Russia in the XX century. Bulletin of Moscow State Regional University, 2014, no. 1, p. 14. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21421422
  2. Bolotov V. A., Serikov V. V. Competence model: from idea to educational program. Pedagogy, 2003, no. 10, pp. 8–14. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21847503
  3. Bukharina A. Y. Talent management: what to teach employees today to survive tomorrow. Social Psychology and Society, 2017, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 144–162. (In Russian). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17759/sps.2017080109
  4. Erokhina E. L. Research and Project Activities of Students: Distinction between Concepts. Elementary School Plus Before and After, 2013, no. 8, pp. 3–6. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=20378154
  5. Zernov V. A. Is it possible to have in Russia our own Stanford? Higher Education in Russia, 2014, no. 2, pp. 16–22. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21176421
  6. Karnyshev A. D. Isomorphism and emergence as the phenomena of neurophysiology and organizational psychology. Organizational Psychology, 2015, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 26–48. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26435269
  7. Kartashov S. A., Odegov Yu. G., Shatalov D. V. Talent management as HR-technology. Herald of Omsk University. Series Economics, 2013, no. 1, pp. 85–94. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19401854
  8. Kondratiev V. V., Gurier L. I., Kuznetsova M. N. Main Characteristics of Technology of Development of Competence of the Research and Educational Staff of National Research Universities. KazanScience, 2015, no. 10, pp. 14–20. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=24831106
  9. Lavrent’eva E. A. Applied Bachelor Degree: Prospects and Problems. Higher Education in Russia, 2014, no. 5, pp. 54–60. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21519001
  10. Osipenko L. E. Scientific-practical learning: from model to technology of organization. Moscow, Moscow Region State University Publ., 2015, 258 p. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=28975480
  11. Pakhomova N. Y. Educational projecting as an activity. Bulletin of Moscow state regional University. Series Pedagogy, 2010, no. 2, pp. 57–63. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=15566964
  12. Polat E. S. Project method: the history and theory of the problem. School Technologies, 2006, no. 6, pp. 43–47. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=9453683
  13. Senashenko V. S., Mednikova T. B. On the application of the competence approach to the higher school and the corporate world. Comparative analysis. Alma Mater (Bulletin of High School), 2015, no. 5, pp. 60–66. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23479801
  14. Sergeev A. M. Talent Management as a Factor in the Formation of the Organizations Potential of Innovations. Russian Journal of Entrepreneurship, 2011, no. 10-2, pp. 17–22. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17088050
  15. Yusuf S. From creativity to innovation (2007. Elsevier Ltd. Translated from English by A. Pinskaya). Issues of Education, 2007, no. 4, pp. 159–172. (In Russian). URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=9947058
  16. Bergmann H., Hundt C., Sternberg R. What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Business Economics, 2016, vol. 47, issue 1, pp. 53–76. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9700-6
  17. Blankenburg J. S., Höffler T. N., Parchmann I. Fostering Today What is Needed Tomorrow: Investigating Students’ Interest in Science. Science Education, 2016, vol. 100, issue 2, pp. 364–391. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21204
  18. Breiner J. M., Harkness S. S., Johnson C. C., Koehler C. M. What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 2012, vol. 112, issue 1, pp. 3–11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00109.x
  19. Cadorin E., Johansson S. G., Klofsten M. Future developments for science parks: Attracting and developing talent. Industry and Higher Education, 2017, vol. 31, issue 3, pp. 156–167. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0950422217700995
  20. Cervantes M. Higher Education Institutions in the Knowledge Triangle. Foresight and STI Governance, 2017, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 27–42. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2017.2.27.42
  21. De Corte E. Giftedness considered from the perspective of research on learning and instruction. High Ability Studies, 2013, vol. 24, issue 1, pp. 3–19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2013.780967
  22. Farré-Perdiguer М., Sala-Rios М., Torres-Solé T. Network analysis for the study of technological collaboration in spaces for innovation. Science and technology parks and their relationship with the university. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 2016, vol. 13, issue 8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0012-3
  23. Ferrara M., Lamperti F., Mavilia R. Looking for best performers: a pilot study towards the evaluation of science parks. Scientometrics, 2016, vol. 106, issue 2, pp. 717–750. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1804-2
  24. Fındıkoğlu F., İlhan D. Realization of a Desired Future: Innovation in Education. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2016, vol. 4, issue 11, pp. 2574–2580. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.041110
  25. Jansen S., Van de Zande T., Brinkkemper S., Stam E., Varma V. How education, stimulation, and incubation encourage student entrepreneurship: Observations from MIT, IIIT, and Utrecht University. The International Journal of Management Education, 2015, vol. 13, issue 2, pp. 170–181. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2015.03.001
  26. Maltese A. V., Melki C. S., Wiebke H. L. The nature of experiences responsible for the generation and maintenance of interest in STEM. Science Education, 2014, vol. 98, issue 6, pp. 937–962. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21132
  27. McClelland D. C. Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence.”American Psychologist, 1973, vol. 28 (1), p. 14. Google Scholar
  28. Mietzner D., Kamprath M. A Competence Portfolio for Professionals in the Creative Industries. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2013, vol. 22, issue 3, pp. 280–294. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/caim.12026
  29. Minguillo D., Tijssen R., Thelwall M. Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK. Scientometrics, 2015, vol. 102, issue 1, pp. 701–725. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1435-z
  30. Pikkarainen E. Competence as a Key Concept of Educational Theory: A Semiotic Point of View. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 2014, vol. 48, issue 4, pp. 621–636. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12080
  31. Pisanu F., Menapace P. Creativity & Innovation: Four Key Issues from a Literature Review. Creative Education, 2014, vol. 5, issue 3, pp. 145–154. Article ID: 42953. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.53023
  32. So W. W. M. Connecting mathematics in primary science inquiry projects. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2013, vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 385–406. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9342-3
  33. Tsupros N., Kohler R., Hallinen J. STEM education: A project to identify the missing components. Pittsburgh, PA: Intermediate Unit 1 and Carnegie Mellon University, 2009. Google Scholar
  34. Unger M., Polt W. The Knowledge Triangle between Research, Education and Innovation – A Conceptual Discussion. Foresight and STI Governance, 2017, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 10–26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2017.2.10.26
  35. Shavinina L. How to develop innovators? Innovation education for the gifted1. Gifted Education International, 2013, vol. 29, issue 1, pp. 54–68. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261429412440651
  36. Steffen M. O., Oliveira M., Balle A. R. Knowledge sharing among companies in a science and technology park. Business Information Review, 2017, vol. 34, issue 2, pp. 101–108. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266382117711331
  37. Tekkumru-Kisa M., Stein M. K., Schunn C. A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Task analysis guide in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2015, vol. 52, issue 5, pp. 659–685. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21208
  38. Wang X. Why students choose STEM majors: Motivation, high school learning, and postsecondary context of support. American Educational Research Journal, 2013, vol. 50, issue 5, pp. 1081–1121. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831213488622
Date of the publication 30.12.2017