Influence Of Creative Freedom In Educational Institutions On The Quality Of Education
Resumen
The work analyzes the cause-effect relationships of creative freedom and the educational quality. Freedom of creativity and educational quality is included in a broader concept of well-being – a state of comfort, a person’s satisfaction with their life as a whole, prospects and opportunities in the future. Creative freedom and the quality of education were assessed during a survey of 1,700 respondents. The study revealed that restricted freedom of creativity at universities significantly reduces quality of education. In turn, low quality of edu- cation significantly reduces motivation for creative self-expression.Citas
ADORNO, Th. W. 2013. Against Epistemology. Polity Press. Cambridge (Great Britain).
CHIANG, Li-Ch. 2004. The relationship between university autonomy and funding in England and Taiwan. Higher Education. Vol. 48: 189-212. Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted by popular vote 12.12.1993) (as amended by the Laws of the Russian Federation on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of December 30, 2008 N6-FKL and N7-FKL, February 5, 2014 N2-FKL, July 21, 2014 N11-FKL) / Art. 44.
CRAFT, A. 2010. The Limits to Creativity in Education. Dilemmas for the Educator. British Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. 51. No 2: 113-127. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00229. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
DIM, R. 2004. ‘New Managerialism’ and Higher Education: Quality and Productivity Management at British Universities. Educational Issues. Vol. 3: 44-56.
FELT, U. and GLANZ, M. 2003. University Autonomy in Europe: Chang- ing Paradigms in Higher Education Policy. Special Case Studies Deci- sion-Making Structures and Human Resources Management in Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. University of Vienna, 3.
GRIFFITHS, M. 2014. Encouraging Imagination and Creativity in the Teaching Profession. European Educational Research Journal. Vol. 13. No 1: 117-129. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.1.117. Ac- cessed on 07.07.2019.
GRUSHIN, B.A. 1988. Opportunity and prospects of freedom (10 polem- ical questions and answers). Issues of Philosophy. No 5: 5-20. GUMPORT, P. J. 2000. Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change and Institutional Imperatives. The International Journal of Higher Educa- tion and Educational Planning. No 39: 67-91.
GUSTAFSSON, J.-E. 2008. Effects of International Comparative Studies on Educational Quality on the Quality of Educational Research. European Educational Research Journal. Vol. 7. No 1: 1-17. Available at: http://dx. doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2008.7.1.1. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
HAERTEL, T. and TERKOWSKY, C. 2016. Creativity in Engineering Ed- ucation. The International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving. Vol. 26. No 2.
HENKEL, M. 2007. Can academic autonomy survive in the knowledge society? A perspective from Britain. Higher Education Research and De- velopment. Vol. 26. No 1: 87-99.
HOPKINS, B. C. 2011. The Philosophy of Husserl. Acumen. Durham (Great Britain).
ILLICH, I. 2006. Liberation from schools. Proportionality and the modern world. Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. Moscow (Rus- sia).
IVANOV, A. V. 1990. On freedom of definition and on the definition of freedom. Philosophical Studies. Vol. 11.
JING-JYI, W. and DALE, L. 2013. Albanese Imagination and creativity: wellsprings and streams of education – the Taiwan experience. Education- al Psychology. Vol. 33. No 5: 561-581. Available at: https://doi.org/10.108 0/01443410.2013.813689. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
KAN-KALIK, V. A. and NIKANDROV, N. D. 1987. Pedagogical creativ- ity. Nauka. Moscow (Russia).
KEITH, K. M. 1996. “Faculty Attitudes toward Academic Freedom: Ten- ure, Teaching and Research”. Dissertation Abstracts International. 58-01A, AAG9720245.
LANKFORD, E. L. 1994. Freedom and Outrage in Art Education. Journal of Aesthetic Education. Vol. 28. No 4: 540-62.
MICHEL, D. 2007. University intelligentsia and bureaucracy: the struggle for university freedoms in post-Soviet Russia. The Untouchable Reserve. Vol. 1. No 51.
MIRZEKHANOV, V. S. 2013. Academic freedoms as a factor in quality education in a modern university. The World History. Available at: http:// worldhist.ru/library/publication/449/9425/. Accessed on 07.07.2019. NAKHROV, D. Yu. 2010. The interaction of the teacher and student of a modern university: problems of sociological research. Bulletin of RUDN, No 4: 66-73.
NAZAROVA, I. B. 2006. Teachers’ typology of higher education. Socio- logical studies. No 11: 115-119.
NIETZSCHE, F. 2000. About the future of our educational institutions. Potpourri. Moscow (Russia). Available at: www.e-reading.club/book. php?book=83494. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
PENG, Shu-Ling, CHERNG, Biing-Lin and CHEN, Hsueh-Chih. 2013. The effects of classroom goal structures on the creativity of junior high school students. Educational Psychology. Vol. 33. No 5: 540-560. Avail- able at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.812616. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
POLANI, M. 1985. Personal knowledge. Progress. Moscow (Russia). RITZER, G. 2011. McDonaldization of society. Praxis. Moscow (Russia). ROSE, M. 2017. Liberal Education for Freedom. National Affairs. No 33. Available at: https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/liberal-educa- tion-for-freedom. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
SHCHERBAKOVA, T. N. 2013. “Creativity in the activities of a modern teacher”. In: Actual problems of modern pedagogy: works of the 4th In- ternational scientific conference. Leto. Ufa (Russia). Available at: https:// moluch.ru/conf/ped/archive/97/4472/. Accessed on 07.07.2019. SHCHERBAKOVA, T. N. 2014. “Improvisation as a creativity component of a modern teacher”. In: Pedagogical excellence: works of the 4th Inter- national scientific conference. Buki-Vedi. Moscow (Russia). Available at: https://moluch.ru/conf/ped/archive/100/5010/. Accessed on 07.07.2019. SLAUGHTER, S. and LESLIE, L. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Johns Hopkins UP. Baltimore (USA).
STIVERS, R. 2006. The Need for a “Shadow” University. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. Vol. 26. No 3: 217-227.
TANATOVA, D. K., POGOSYAN, V. G., and KOROLYOV, I. V. 2018. Russian Education for Chinese Students: Reasons of Demoting. The 34th International scientific conference on economic and social development – the 18th International Social Congress (ISC-2018) on Economic and So- cial Development.
TANATOVA, D.K., POGOSYAN, V.G., and KOROLYOV, I.V. 2019. Teaching Chinese students at Russian universities: motivation and demoti- vation. Sociological studies. No 5: 150-157.
TANGGAARD, L. 2014. A Situated Model of Creative Learning. Euro- pean Educational Research Journal. Vol. 13. No 1: 107-116. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2014.13.1.107. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, May 23, 1949. Available at: https://www.1000dokumente.de/?c=dokument_deand doku- ment=0014_gruand l=enand object=translation. Accessed on 07.07.2019. THOMPSON, R. 2010. Creativity, knowledge and curriculum in further education: a Bernsteinian perspective. British Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. 57. No 1: 37-54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8527.2008.00424.x. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
UNESCO/ILO Recommendation on the Status of Teachers of 1966 and UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of Teachers of Higher Education Institutions, 1997. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000160495_rus. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
VIRTANEN, T. 1999. “Finland: Searching for performance and flexibili- ty”. In: FARNHAM, D. (ed.). Managing Academic Staff in Changing Uni- versity Systems. Open University Press. Buckingham (Great Britain). VOLOSNIKOVA, L.M. 2008. Principles of Academic Autonomy. Council of Rectors. No 9: 17-25.
WHITE, J.P. 2010. Creativity and education: A philosophical analysis. British Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. 16. No 2: 123-137. Avail- able at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.1968.9973213. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
YOKOYAMA, K. 2007. Changing Definitions of University Autonomy: The Cases of England and Japan. Higher Education in Europe. Vol. 32. No 4: 400-409.
ZAHAVI, D. 2003. Husserl’s Phenomenology. Stanford University Press. Stanford: (Great Britain).
ZHANG, Li-fang. 2013. Conceptions of creativity among Hong Kong uni- versity students. Educational Psychology. Vol. 33. No 5: 521-539. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.812615. Accessed on 07.07.2019.
