The paper delivers the results of the study analyzing the established advanced practices of combining distance and face-to-face forms of learning in higher education. The key criterion for hybrid learning is the ratio of synchronous and asynchronous online formats in the learning process, and its essential basis - the learner's agency. The praximetric analysis of the sources and cases of foreign and Russian universities resulted in peculiarities of hybrid learning models. In-depth interviews with representatives of 14 universities allowed us to specify organizational and didactic features of the hybrid learning as well as its advantages and its limitations. The geography of respondents from foreign universities (Harvard Business School, Stockholm School of Economics, University of Arizona) and leading Russian universities (St. Petersburg State University, ITMO University, Higher School of Economics, Tomsk State University, Moscow City University, Ural Federal University, Moscow School of Management SKOLKOVO, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, University of Tyumen) makes the study representative. Based on the comprehensive analysis of the interviewees' answers, the authors consider the hybrid format not as a universal solution for higher education, but as an opportunity to solve specific educational goals, individualize learning and attract new target groups. The study focuses on the flexible hybrid format (HyFlex), which gives students the choice of attending the class on campus (face-to-face), participation of classes via videoconferencing, or studying the course completely asynchronously, i.e., from class recordings and other materials.

In this chapter, we try to summarize the attempts to change school education and integrate key competences as a mandatory learning outcome. We explore the experience of the countries discussed in this volume, as well as in some recent publications. In our analysis of this diverse experience, we use several theoretical lenses: theory of educational change by Michael Fullan (which emphasizes the involvement of teachers and parents) and Michael Barber (who highlights the role of clearly set targets); institutional theory by John Meyer which demonstrates the limitations and barriers of change, as well as neo-institutional theory which draws attention to interaction between changing organizations and the role of their environment. Our analysis of competence-based curriculum reforms reveals: there is no single correct path to this goal. Coordinated efforts of various mechanisms are needed to advance the new and mitigate resistance of the old.

This chapter presents the authors’ attempt to develop a conceptual framework of key competences and new literacies. We aspire to identify theoretical roots underpinning most of the other frameworks of the twenty-first century skills and, thus, offer a clue to their diversity. We analyzed over 180 national and international frameworks of key competences, trying to align them with seminal theories of cognition, development, language, personality, and learning. First, we learn to differentiate between synonyms and conceptually different elements in the frameworks, sorting out competences and literacies. Second, we divide the pool of new literacies into two fundamentally different sets: domain-general and domain-specific literacies (this lets us explain the substantive difference between, e.g., digital literacy and health literacy). Finally, we discuss the structural place of such influential concepts as problem-solving, decision-making, and learning-to-learn. The resulting framework accommodates the thinking and reasoning competence, the interpersonal competence, and the intrapersonal competence. Together with the instrumental (tool-mediated) kind of literacies (i.e., the wide use of communication tools based on sign systems), they are nested under the domain-general umbrella. Other new literacies belong to specific domains and require domain-specific knowledge, as well as domain-general competences and literacies as their prerequisites.

The article considers last three years’ changes of higher education quality from the perspective of university teachers as key actors of an educational process. The study focuses on the main factors infl uencing the quality of higher education and the nature of changes in the post-pandemic educational environment, in particular, through the use of digital solutions. The authors deliver primary (general) results of Russian university teachers’ poll regarding the triggers for changing the quality of higher education, the eff ectiveness of educational and pedagogical activities in the digital environment, as well as points to be paid attention at in ensuring the quality of higher education. The results of the poll show signifi cant changes in higher education over the period studied, especially in applied teaching practices and in lesson formats, these shifts contributing to the change of education quality in general. Global, institutional, and individual infl uencing factors together give multidirectional impact on the quality of education, thus forming diff erent experiences and perceptions of higher education quality dynamics. University teachers, however, are quite diff erently engaged in the university education quality assessment. Due to understanding themselves as key stakeholders in education quality assurance, university teachers identify their course load and additional non-curricular functions as the main barriers in developing their own eff ectiveness. The article is addressed to heads of academic programs and educational institutions, to executive authorities responsible for quality assurance and assessment in higher education, as well as to the representatives of research community in Russian higher education.

The chapter covers almost a century of Russia’s balancing between two competing models: knowledge-oriented education (aiming at memorization and reproduction of knowledge) and competence-oriented education (allowing to apply knowledge and solve real-life problems). Despite the competence-oriented curriculum, real school practice tends to stick to the soviet path: disciplinary contents to be memorised and reproduced is described in great detail. In the last 30 years, a number of independent attempts have appeared suggesting various ways to update the disciplinary contents, assessment, and teaching practice so as to integrate the task of developing key competences. Competence-based approach is impeded mostly by the system of interim and summative assessment, inadequate pre-service and in-service teacher training, as well as conservative expectations and ideas about education prevailing among certain social groups.