IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTINUITY IN TERMS OF EDUKATIONAL STANDARDIZATION (example of architecture and art education)
O. L. Kosheutova1,2, M. A. Abramova2,3
1Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
2Novosibirsk State University of Architecture and Design, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
3Institute of Philosophy and Law SD RAS, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
Keywords: архитектурно-художественная подготовка, федеральные государственные образовательные стандарты (ФГОС), федеральные государственные требования (ФГТ), Architecture and Art training, Federal State Educational Standards (FSES), Federal State Requirements (FSR)
Abstract
The paper explores changes in reviewing the Federal state educational standards as a “mimimum” and “degree” to “competencies” on the basis of works prepared by V. P. Bespalko, M. A. Kondakov, V. V. Kraevskiy, N. D. Nikandrov, M. V. Ryzhakov and V. D. Shadrikov. The authors analyze the Federal State Educational Standards applied in secondary education, Federal requirements for children's Art schools and training requirements to the applicants. The article raises a problem of inconsistency that causes the discontinuity of pre-University and professional training of students at Architecture and Art Universities. The authors analyzed Federal state educational standards for General secondary schools, Federal government requirements for children's schools of art and training requirements of entrants. The analysis raises the problem of the existence of inconsistencies. This problem causes breaches in continuity and pre-University training of students of Architectural and Art universities. The paper highlights the reasons that cause the problems: the destruction of the Soviet system of lifelong architectural education and implementation of dual leadership in the post-Soviet period by the Ministry of education and science of Russia and the Ministry of culture of Russia, the institutions of further training in the field of Art belong to. The subjects as Fine Art and Sketching contribute to students’ spatial reasoning, visual skills; these subjects are included into the educational standards of secondary education and they are not taught to the pupils of 10-11 forms. Therefore, the secondary educational programme does not cover pre-university training in this field. The new category of "General educational program" has ambiguous interpretation as specific training and it is reviewed as an elective course. . Thus, the lack of a clear understanding of the place and role of pre-University training in professional education, as well as leveling the values of artistic skills for personal development not only leads to the discontinuity between pre-University and professional training, but also contributes to the reduction of the value of aesthetic personal education.
|
