Science for Education Today, 2025, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 116–140
© Tarasov S. V., Spasskaya E. B., Proekt Y. L., 2025
UDC: 
65.011.56+378.14+316.77

Evaluating models of interaction between the pedagogical university and the regional educational system: Guidelines and expectations of the stakeholders

Tarasov S. V. 1 (St.Petersburg, Russian Federation), Spasskaya E. B. 1 (Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation), Proekt Y. L. 1 (St.-Petersburg, Russian Federation)
1 Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 16
Abstract: 

Introduction. Changes in the position of the pedagogical university in the regional education system determine the need to harmonize the goals and expectations of the stakeholders in order to improve the quality of their joint activities. The aim of this study is to compare the perceptions of the academic staff and the teaching staff of regional educational setting about the interaction between the pedagogical university and the regional education system, reflecting their experiences, expectations and evaluation of the interaction.
Materials and Methods. The research methodology was based on the typology of models of interaction between a pedagogical university and regional education: presence, cooperation and integration. The empirical base of the study is formed by the survey data of 2205 respondents from different regions of Russia, representing pedagogical universities and regional education systems. The respondents were asked to evaluate the involvement of a pedagogical university in the regional education system, to choose the preferred and rejected forms of interaction, to report on their direct experience of participation in the interaction between a pedagogical university and a regional education system.
Results. The findings of the study indicated that there were discrepancies in the perceptions of the utility and accessibility of diverse models of interaction among representatives of universities and regional education systems. Academic staff demonstrates a greater degree of engagement in diverse formats of interaction with regional education systems. However, their priorities diverge from the expectations espoused by representatives of the regional education. The discrepancy between the emphasis on the model of presence, which defines the core function of the university as supplying teaching staff for the education system, and its inadequate efficacy in addressing the deficit of teachers, has been identified. It has been demonstrated that respondents with greater experience of collaboration are inclined towards the integrative model of interaction and are more satisfied with its outcomes.
Conclusions. The study has demonstrated that the models of interaction between teacher education institutions and regional education systems require transformation towards greater integration and cooperation. This is necessary in order to eliminate divergent expectations and create conditions for sustainable cooperation. Strengthening coordination mechanisms, developing practice-oriented and integration formats of interaction, and creating a system for monitoring the effectiveness of interaction will facilitate this transformation.

Keywords: 

Regional educational system; Pedagogical universities; Interaction formats; Models of interaction; Integration; Cooperation; Teaching staff

For citation:
Tarasov S. V., Spasskaya E. B., Proekt Y. L. Evaluating models of interaction between the pedagogical university and the regional educational system: Guidelines and expectations of the stakeholders. Science for Education Today, 2025, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 116–140. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2501.06
References: 
  1. Dautov D. F. Cognitive and emotional statements as components of reciprocal interaction in network thinking. Vestnik of Samara State Technical University. Series Psychological and Pedagogical Sciences, 2023, vol. 20 (2), pp. 153-170. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=54342219 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17673/vsgtu-pps.2023.2.12
  2. Kadakin V. V., Shukshina T. I., Zamkin P. V. The role of pedagogical higher education establishment in the system of children additional education development of the region. The Humanities and Education, 2017, no. 3, pp. 56-64. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30016677
  3. Korotkov A. M., Zemlyakov D. V., Karpushova O. A. Training methodology of teachers to the professional activities in the network format in the context of the integration of the pedagogical university with the regional system of education. Izvestia. Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2022, no. 8, pp. 4-11. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=49736313
  4. Krolevetskaya E. N., Isaev I. F. Socio-cultural educational environment of the university as a factor in the development of future teacher’s polysubjectness. Higher Education in Russia, 2022, vol. 31 (6), pp. 114-135. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=48967420 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2022-31-6-114-135
  5. Lazarenko I. R. Regional context of planning and delivering academic programmes in teacher training higher education institutions. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2015, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 7–14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1506.01
  6. Mukina I. V., Sokolova L. Y., Mukin V. A. Correlation between regional culture and the social space of a flagship university. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 153–172. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1802.09
  7. Permyakov A. V., Petryakov P. A., Shirin A. G., Tsyvunina A. D., Pevzner M. N. Professional and personal development of newly-qualified teachers as a factor in sustainable development of the region. Science for Education Today, 2024, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 158–180. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2405.08
  8. Reprintseva Yu. S. Development of a model of regional scientific and pedagogical cluster educational systems of the Amur region. Bulletin of Amur State University. Series: Humanities, 2023, no. 102, pp. 82-84. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=54592917 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22250/20730284_2023_102_82
  9. Sityaeva S. M., Yaremtchuk S. V., Bakina A. V., Gotnoga A. V. The dynamic cluster model of scientific interaction between pedagogical universities and educational development institutes. Society: Sociology, Psychology, Pedagogy, 2021, no. 12, pp. 263-271. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?ysclid=m38jltlaw4357326322&id=47546677 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24158/spp.2021.12.40
  10. Tarasov S. V., Proekt Yu. L. Interaction practices between pedagogical universities and regional educational systems: Indicators of scientific and educational effectiveness. Science for Education Today, 2023, vol. 13 (6), pp. 121-144. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=58731700 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2306.06
  11. Shalamova L. F., Marusyak D. M., Vladimirova T. N., Leskonog N. Y. Regional model of teacher education as a research problem. Science for Education Today, 2022, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 99–125. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2201.05
  12. Yakovleva N. O., Bukhtiyar E. S., Shlyk M. F. Model of interaction of a modern pedagogical university with the regional education system. Pedagogical Perspective, 2023, no. 3, pp. 29-38. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=54321395 DOI: https://doi.org/10.55523/27822559_2023_3(11)_29
  13. Asghari H., Kilbrink N., Johansson A. E. Professional development in teacher education: (Vocational) teacher students’ descriptions. Scandinavian Journal of Vocations in Development, 2024, vol. 9 (1), pp. 137–154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7577/sjvd.5753
  14. Bakioglu A., Kirisci Sarikaya A. University-school partnership: Feedback and assessment. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 2022, vol. 22 (32), pp. 269-290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14689/enad.32.789
  15. Bernay R., Stringer P., Milne J., Jhagroo J. Three models of effective school-university partnerships. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 2020, vol. 55 (1), pp. 133-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00171-3
  16. Bogdan P. C., Dolcos F., Moore M., Kuznietsov I., Culpepper S. A., Dolcos S. Social expectations are primarily rooted in reciprocity: An investigation of fairness, cooperation, and trustworthiness. Cognitive Science, 2023, vol. 47 (8), pp. e13326. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13326
  17. Kawamura Y., Kusumi T. Altruism does not always lead to a good reputation A normative explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2020, vol. 90, pp. 104021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104021
  18. Lipscombe K., Tindall-Ford Sh., Kirk M. Leading a top down directive from the bottom up: A school and university partnership. Leading and Managing, 2019, vol. 25 (1), pp. 29-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.757473251939271
  19. Miller L. School-university partnerships and teacher leadership: Doing it right. The Educational Forum, 2015, vol. 79 (1), pp. 24-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2015.972810
  20. Romano A., Saral A. S., Wu J. Direct and indirect reciprocity among individuals and groups. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2022, vol. 43, pp. 254-259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.003
  21. Takács K. A Reputation-centered theory of human cooperation and social organization. Sociologica, 2022, vol. 16 (2), pp. 11-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/14196
  22. Zakaria H., Kamarudin D., Fauzi M. A., Wider W. Mapping the helix model of innovation influence on education: A bibliometric review. Frontiers in Education, 2023, vol. 8, pp. 1142502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1142502
  23. Zhao K. Educating for wholeness, but beyond competences: Challenges to key-competences-based education in China. ECNU Review of Education, 2020, vol. 3 (3), pp. 470-487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120935463
Date of the publication 28.02.2025