Creat ive Educati on 2014. Vo l.5, No.2, 86-92 Published Online February 2014 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.d oi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.520 14 Implementation of Creative Education Policy in Russian Higher Education Curricula Tamara Savelyeva Department of International Education and Lifelong Learning, The Hong Kong Institu te of Education, Hong Kong, China Email: tamara@ied.edu.hk Received December 18th, 2013; revised January 18th, 2014; accepted January 25th , 2014 Copyright © 2014 Tamara Savelyeva. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all Copyrights © 2014 are reserved for SCIRP and the owner of the intellectual property Tamara Savelyeva. All Copyright © 2014 are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian. An ongoing restructuring of Russian higher education prioritizes development of a “creative educational syst e m” as on e of it s p ol icy direc t io ns . Fol l owi n g thi s recent p oli cy man da te, R us si a n uni ver si ti es ha ve b e e n intr oducing new cur ricular models , which the y adop t from the W estern ac ademic sc hool of teac hing and lear ning. How ever, Wes ter n-design ed curr ic ular novelti es a nd method ologies that suppor t crea tive educa- tion p oli c ies have b ee n cr i ti c iz ed f or l a ck i ng suc c es s i n Rus si a n H E du e t o ke y di ff er enc es i n t ra di ti ona l c ul- tures of educa t iona l syst ems. How do fa cult y faci l itat e curr icul ar changes i n s uppor t of the cr eat ive educ a- tion policy? This study addresses this question by exploring the implementation of a specific curricular module in the field of creative education—the Sustainability project in two Russian universities. The re- sulting descriptive model comprises antecedents, processes, and contents of the project implementation under three broad categories of the university restructuring: organization, environment, and relation. I discuss the fi ndings i n terms of t he tw o i mp or ta nt charac t erist ic s of t he res ult ed cur ri c ular impl ementa t ion model : (1) the cul turally sens itive na ture o f cr eative educa tion cur ricula r adapta tion in pos t-Soviet hi gher educ a- tion, and (2) non-linear ity of the curricular educat ion polic y enactment in Russian univer sity classrooms. Key words: Cultural Diversification Framework; Creativity Education; Non-Linearity; Curricular Implem entation Model; Policy Enactment; Post-Soviet E nvironment; Re-Structuring; Rus sian Higher Education Introduction Educational restructuring (Gumport, 2000)1 is not a choice but an imperative for ce of a “glo balized” real ity in man y coun- tries. Within the educational realms of Russian higher educa- tion (HE), institutional policy emphasis on university restruc- turing goes back to the adoption—on Dec. 29, 2012—of the new Federal Educatio nal Law. Si nce the en actment of th is law, Russian universities have been officially operating in a new policy environment, driven by the philosophies of economic rationalism (Pusey, 1991) and managerialism (Pollitt, 1990). As a result , th e demand for a “creat ive edu cati on al syste m” in Rus- sian HE considers the requirements o f the mar ket-driven educa- tional policy environment and emphasizes scarcity, competition (Marginson, 1993), accountability, excellence, and efficiency (Welch, 1996). New to Russian faculty and educational admin- istrators, the 3E (efficiency, excellence, and economy) aca- demic value system (Welch, 1998) requires universities to align their traditional curricular structures and praxis with the newly adopted policy guidelines. The demand for a “creative educa- tional system”, which followed these recent shifts in the phi- losophy and administration of Russian HE, led to drastic changes in the universities’ curricular structures and methodol- ogies. How do universities under condition of restructuring promote creative education methodologies? How do faculty facilitat e curricu lar changes i n support of th e creative edu cation policy? My study is based on the assumption that in Russian univer- sity environments, faculty and students approach a mandatory implementation of the creative education policy agenda with a baggage of cultural beliefs and knowledge of their traditional educational systems. This determines their reasoning behind adapting a particular curricular project and teaching-learning methods in their courses and classrooms, and, most importantly, defines the longevity of the implemented project. By empha- sizing the role of culture in curricular practices, I only aim to acknowledge, without further exploration, that curricular prac- tices and their implementation depend on a societal culture, within which they are performed. In this study, I address the problem of implementing new curricu lar modules in support of the creative educati on po licies in universities under condition of restructuring. I propose a descriptive model, which consists of three contextual categories of curricular implementation in the restructuring university: organizational, environmental, and relational. This model was created based on the results of a two-year empirical study of a 1Gumport viewed university restructuring as a complex phenomenon that involves rethinking of the ways universities allocate recourses, generate revenue, and align their structures with the external demands of the society. OPEN ACCE SS 86
T. SAVE LYEVA Sustainability project, a creative education initiative piloted by the faculty and students at two Russian universities in 2010. Drawing on the project’s data, I suggest that the resulted model of curricular implementation might be best articulated within the research frames that reference two features: (1) cultural sensitivity of curricular adaptation and (2) non-linearity of the curricular education policy enactment in Russian university classrooms. Before discussing the study, I would like to intro- duce two themes that provide a broader context to the inquiry. One of the themes has to do with a historical account of the creative education policy and its effects on a curricular struc- ture in Russia; the other has to do with the challenges of im- plementin g creative ed ucation agenda due to cultural di ffer enc- es between Russian and Western academic traditi ons. Creative Education in Russian HE Among many new curricular areas recently introduced into the Russian system of HE (e.g. business management, market economics, sociology and political studies), creative education did not stand alone as a separate area of study. Treated as a methodological package to acco mpany Western-designed busi- ness education curricula, creative education at first stayed within the borders of Russian business schools. Consequently, creative education has first emerged as a new curricular me- thodology, which aimed to align the educational policies for building a “creative educational system” with the universities’ classroom practices. Coming from a business-education sector of the restructuring university system, creative education built up its conceptual frames by initiating academic discourses about methodological applications of the Western-designed management training programs for academic systems under- going restructuring. Resulting from a brief exchange of aca- demic opinions in Russian academic meetings, the creative educati on was connected with a philosophical current of Amer- ican pr agmatis m and given new terminological tools to operate in the academic area of educational policy and administration in Russia. Following the foundations of creative education of John Guilford (1950), creative education in Russia was broadly de- fined as a process of “organizing and managing one’s creative process for the purpose of producing a required [creative] product” (Arich, 2008). A new Russian term “kreativnost,” meaning “cr eative [ edu cation]” was directl y translated fro m the American English dictionary to explain the new phenomena in the edu cational policy arena o f in quiry; for clarit y, it was co m- pared with the traditional u se of a creat ivit y co ncep t i n t he Rus- sian school of developmental psychology (Freud, Fromm, Maslow, etc.). A successful business educator Elena Arich (2008), points out the difference between creativity and creative education as follows: Creativity and creative [education] are not synonyms. A classic creativity discourse approaches the phenomena as a free motion of an inspired person, that has to do with inspirational factors, range of creative abilities the person possess, his or her beliefs, and the traditions that the per- son follows. In contrast, the idea of creative education views the phenomena from a standpoint of pure pragmat- ism, considering practical grounds for any creative motion. Under the framework of pragmatism, an initial creative motion of a person has to do with his or her knowledge of why, for whom, how, and what exactly needs to be created (p. 5). In accordance, the importance of creative education to the pursuit of the university restructuring objectives had been clearly acknowledged and accepted-though not thoroughly theorized or contextualized-within the management-oriented realms o f education al policy and administr ation fields of study. The Russian Acade my of Natu ral Sci ences, th e most influ ential scientific structure of the Russian Federation, defined goals, means, and set the ends of creative education for meeting the newly established policy directions. According to Gordashno- kov and Osin (2009), creative education aims to “awake one’s creative po wers and d evelop on e’s inherent creativity; cultivate boldness of thought and strong belief in one’s creative potential; nurture ability to generate new and exciting ideas of universal value, which shall not harm nature, and the inherent need for a creative way of life” (p. 44). In Russian context, creative edu- cation is approached as a process with four characteristics: (1) continuity and life-long orientation; (2) active student involve- ment into learning; (3) independent management of creative proesses, and (4) alignment between creative knowledge and relevant assessment criteria (Gordashnokov & Osin, 2009). Applied to the HE system, creative education in Russian HE can be est ablished by means of: • Information Technology (IT). IT can be employed for a didactic support of intellectual processes and critical think- ing; • Holistic educational strategies. Holistic nature of know- ledge, which o ne acq u ires through university education, can be achieved by integrating disciplinary resources specified in federal educational standards; • Emphasis on intellectuality. Intellectual approach to crea- tive problem solving might include such strategies as iden- tificatio n and formulati on of a creative task, tar geted search for various solutions, evaluation and choice of optimal so- lutions, to match the educational s t a nda r ds ; • Docendo docimus principle. Applying the “learning while teaching” principle to teaching and learning helps monitor and assess progress o f a creative activity; • Integration of theoretical and methodological aspects of creativit y for developing professional curiosity and occupa- tional excellence. The pol icy move toward a “creative edu cational system” n ot only proposed clear means of implementing creative education at universities, but also proposed assessment criteria to monitor the process. Lonchakov (2004) appeals to principles of holism, uncert ain ty, and systemi c anal ysis an d propo ses two asses sment criteria t o monitor students’ creative learnin g: students are able to perform a systemic analysis of a problem by deriving a core fro m a complex issue, formulating the problem, and managing the issue in a non-standard way to reach the best possible solu- tion. Creative education is also considered a priority for nurturing highly qualified faculty teachers and researchers. The practical model of creative educat ion relies on a gradu al implemen tation of new Western-designed teaching and assessment methodolo- gies into existing university curricula. While Russia has been displaying strong values and orienta- tions toward the adaptation of Western-designed curricular modules in its educational system, it faces strong cultural bar- riers to a successful p oli cy implemen tation . One of th e barri ers, which has implications for the HE system in Russia, is the his- tory of collectivism, as it defines structures of a former Soviet Russian society. Unlike Western individualistic systems of OPEN ACCE SS 87
T. SAVE LYEVA teaching and learning, the traditional educational system in past Russia carried the goal of upbringing a whole-round person who is capable of effacing an individual freedom for the sake of the collective good. In classrooms, the collectivism principle manifested in an application of “whole-class” teaching and assessment strategies, serving an entire class proceeded toward a common collective goal. The Russian curricula had less em- phasis on an ideal of an individual learner, whereas learner- centered curricular strategies were tied to a greater collective outcome. A drastic surge of globalization has brought about an instant change of the collectivism-oriented curricular metho- dologies and strategies toward more individualistic teaching and personalized learning. However, years after, individualistic teachin g and lear nin g remains slow paced and sh arp ly criti cized in Russian society. As a result, Russian universities have failed to fully introduce and accommodate creative education-related courses and initiatives. An additional problem is that Russian faculty simply had no time to adapt new curricular methodolo- gies and adjust their programs to the new creative education agenda o f their universities. The proposed study timely follows up a policy aspect of university restructuring that requires an installment of a “crea- tive edu cational syste m” in Russia. Under condition of restruc- turing, faculty are required to perform a quick adaptation to the new curricular models, methods, and initiatives. However, their access to information about what creative education really is and what new creative education methodology demands of them is very limited. Creative education, as a method and as a concep t, is not taught in faculty training programs or widely used in universities. Making faculty and students work with a customized version of creative education curricula allowed me to gain insightful knowledge about how to sustain the new me- thodology in Russian university classrooms. The study also fulfilled the demand for soft, non-revolutionary re-enact ment of new policies in university curricula in the HE institutions under condition of restructuring. Research Scope I used t he case of the Sustainability pro ject as an example o f creative education curricular implementation in Russian uni- versities. The project was launched in 2010 in two Russian universities, and it included one undergraduate-level course, collaboratively taught by Russian students and faculty with four other universities from the US, China, Australia, and Latin America The course included extensive use of Western-de- signed methodologies, such as case studies, on-line communi- cation via Web 2.0 platform (Ning social network), student-led international videoconferences, and alternative assessment me- thods. The two research objectives of my study were: (1) to determine t he aspect s of the creat ive educat ion in itiative, which enabled its steady implementation over a period of time in the university under condition of restructuring; and (2) provide a description of contextual restructuring categories, which al- lowed faculty to adapt the creative education policy and facili- tate changes in th eir curricular methods. Research Design I conducted the descriptive study of the Sustainability curr i- cular initiative using a qualitative research design to provide a detailed and rich description of the contextual restructuring categories that allowed faculty to adapt the creative education policy and facilitate changes in their curricular methods. I si- tuated the study within one of the streams of the organizational change conceptual framework (De Ven & Huber, 1990) and focused on antecedents and consequences of change in univer- sity structure in relation to implementation of the creative edu- cation course into university classrooms. Instrument and Data Collection The survey instrument consisted of an open-ended question- naire b ased upon the data abou t curricular imple mentations and restructuring available in the literature. For observations, I adapted and modified the Cresswell (2003) template by includ- ing specific items to capture instances of curricular implemen- tation and adaptation in a university classroom. My choice of the observation items reflected the dat a der ived from the survey responses. For the document analysis, I used a summary form adapted from Miles and Huberman (1994). The paper and on-line survey questionnaire were distributed as part of the course evaluation package at the end of the academic year. I conducted the observation and document analyses of the Sus- tainability curricular initiative during the fall 2009-spr ing 20 10 semesters at the two universities in Russia. Data Analy sis Proc edu re Data analysis began as soon as I had access to documents. I analyzed the first survey transcript using an open-coding fea- ture of the NVivo® qualitative data analysis software, which allowed me to code interview and observation passages in the margins. First, I broke down the data for the appearance of patterns and themes. Second, I analyzed and open-coded the resulted categories into “thought units” (Butterfield, Reed, & Lemak, 2004). I applied a coding-recodin g strategy to my anal- ysis to make sure my findings are dependable. Next, I grouped toget her the emergin g codin g categories o f codes u sing an axial coding strategy to ensure the similarity of “thought units” within categories and, at the same time, the greatest difference among them. Finally, I further collapsed some of these codes and derived categories for creative education curricular imple- mentation at the university under condition of restructuring. Findings: The Descriptive Model of Creative Education Curricular Implementation The findings from this study revealed three broad contextual categories of creative education curricular implementation in Russian universities: organization, environment, and relation (Figure 1 ). I interpreted the sub -themes, which emerged within each contextual category, through the relevant theoretical frameworks of organizational theory. The first organization category included sub-themes of structural adaptation and in- stitutional survival; the environment category included sub- themes of project transparency and flexible project dynamics; and the relation category included sub-themes of internal and external, formal and informal relationships. Organization Under this category, I put issues related to the university’s internal management processes that either promoted or limited coordination, operation, and implementation of the Sustainabil- ity creative education initiative. Although classic organizational OPEN ACCE SS 88
T. SAVE LYEVA Figure 1. Contextual categories of creative education curricular implementation. theory stresses an importance of administrative control and managerial coordination within formal educational structures (Lǽggard & Bindslev, 2006), this finding points out a different motivator for welcoming creative education methodologies into Russian university classrooms. The faculty’s autonomy and lack of administrative pressure to implement the new policy stimulated their openness to the new, previously unknown ways of teaching. Without formal enforcement, faculty tested, mod- ified, and adapted the creative education initiative due to their natural curiosity and high professional standards. Collaborating with other universities helped faculty to establish themselves as “global” players in the HE arena. They used the new metho- dologies following an example of their colleagues from differ- ent countries, and managed the project collaboratively within their institutions. The transparency of the project structure and its flexible dynamics were essential to ensure participants’ commitment to the task of implementation. In reverse, lack of transparency to the managerial staff and faculty themselves, in some instances, have slowed down the implementation of the course. Explaining the unusual curricular structure of the new course and its methods to the participating faculty aided their involvement. However, formal “marketing” of the course’s innovative features (a new case study methodology, different assessment techniques, and the use of social networking) to university administration would speed the process of imple- mentation even further. Answering such questions as—Why did we choose this design for the course? Why are we using case studies and student assessments? Who are our sponsors? —prior the beginning of the course would address a more gen- eral issu e of makin g the entire process of designing and operat- ing th e initiative more comprehensive. Environ me nt Under th e enviro nmental category, I classifi ed “externaliti es,” or issues related to the participants’ awareness about the exter- nal challenges, pressures, and causes of the university restruc- turing. Generally, the participants responded with skepticism to the idea of global competitiveness as a driving motivator of curricular change in their university. The administrative 3E (economy, effectiveness, and efficiency) focus of creative edu- cation policy was not total ly rejected, bu t rather taken as ir rele- vant to classroom activities of the teaching faculty. Faculty justified the reasons for them implementing the course with such motivators, as their personal professional standards and academic pr in cip les. This fin di ng go es agai nst existi ng res ear ch arguments about university restructuring, which list competi- tion (Smart & Hitt, 1994), policy changes, and lack of resources (Meyer, Brooks, & Goes, 1990) as triggers for faculty to bring change in to t he classro om. At the level of cu rricu lar imple men- tation and in the minds of the teaching facult y, creative educa- tion was not connected with the changes in educational policies and university’s responses to externalities. Students, on the other hand, viewed the course novelties as part of their tuition pay-off, and they were, in some instances, concerned with the faculty not arranging even more curricular “fit” with their schedule, living location, translation, travel plans etc. In this regard, some students behaved as outsiders, projecting the new course methodologies as new “products” that the university was “selling” to them at the costs of their tuition. Externalities, therefore, did not trigger a massive implementation of creative education methodologies in the classrooms, but were present in students’ attitudes about the course organization and its purpose. The faculty’s notion of “external” included federal and state governing bodies and global agencies, such as World Bank. In contrast, the students’ notions of “externalities” were much more localized, and included industries and potential regional employers. This difference between faculty and students’ un- derstanding of “externalities” might be viewed as a result of recent “commercialization of Russian HE, and an attempt to treat students as “customers” and “consumers.” In this sense, students’ limited view of what “externalities” shaped their course experiences reflects their stance as customers to a new educati onal product—creative education. Students’ stance as “passive recipients of whatever the institute decides to dish out” (Schwartz man, 1 995: p. 7), points out a problem of “marketiza- tion” of education and its influence on students’ involvement into shaping the curricular changes at th e university. The facu l- ty’s larger notion of “externalities” features another effect of “marketizat i on”: faculty invest more into exploration of the new methodologies. Although the research literature (Dill & Sporn, 1995) reports globalization and academic competitive- ness as triggers for restructuring, the findings of this study suggest that the faculty has changed its curricular practices out of professional curiosity and intrinsic academic beliefs. This finding contradicts much of the literature that criticizes the marketizat ion forces and the resultin g HE competiti veness (Dil l, 1997) by providing empirical evidence that the “marketization” and an emphasis on globalization and competition might be positive and encourage implementation of new curricula in universities. Relation Under this category, I classified the importance of inter- nal-external, formal-informal relationships in the process of course implementation. The research not only shows the essen- tial role of the relationships, both professional and personal, in implementing creative education policy in the classrooms, but also describes the dynamic of this process. So, the change from formal to informal mode of relation among the participants brought about changes in the classroom practices an d made th e OPEN ACCE SS 89
T. SAVE LYEVA process more interactive. For example, a shift from an official control over the course implementation by university officials to informal participants’ self-reporting boosted up the speed of faculty experimen ting with the new features of the course. They invited faculty members from other institutions to be part of their methodological experiments and used social networking to solidify the fluent communication and visibility of all the par- ticipants. Online social networking reengaged the participants into the conversation about the educational matters, and took their discussions beyond the topic of creative education. At the theoretical level, this finding supports the concepts of relational cohesion, where repeated exchanges among participants serve as a unifying force, enhance commitment, and reduce uncer- tainty (Lawler & Yoon, 1993). Discussion The two important characteristics of the resulted curricular implementation model included (1) the culturally sensitive nature of creative education curricular adaptation and (2) non- linearity of the curricular education policy enactment in Rus- sian university classrooms. These characteristics suggest that a phenomenon of creative education policy implementation might be best articulated within social frameworks of cultural diver- sity, which complement the organizational research approach used in studies of educational restructuring. These two features of the resulted model also open new interpretation venues for a descriptive modeling method in studies of university restruc- turing. The first featu re of the resu lted model suggests t hat the i ssue of a curricular innovation implementation in post-Soviet uni- versities lies in the area of diverse educational cultures that is concep tually different fro m the area of organ izational resear ch. Contemporary researchers of the policy implementation arena devote much attention to organizational aspects of fostering curricular changes in the university classrooms (Savelyeva, 2013), organizational frameworks alone might be insufficient for explaining changes in educational systems, which were established based on the dramatically different principles of a non-market economy and a politically different social order. Establ ished at the break of the Socialist revo lution in 19 18, the Russian educational system aimed for a collective good to build a new class-free society. The current restructuring of this well- structured system, which functioned in Russia for almost 90 years, has challenged the former culture of “all embracing … consistently democratic system of public education (Skatkin & Tsov’janov, 1994: p. 52). The rapid shift toward a totally dif- ferent set of pedagogical values and methods, which would benefit an individual learn er and teacher, re-orientation to mar- ket-based approaches of system’s management, required Rus- sian faculty to change their educational philosophy and quickly adapt the new policy directions. In this sense, I argue that an adaptation of creati ve education policy in modern Russia can b e viewed in line with sociocultural frameworks that praise con- textual nature of policy research and focus on the culturally sensitive nature of curricular implementation. Early sociologists have identified some of the policy imple- mentati on asp ects that resonated with the cultural view of orga- nizational changes, for example, in their discussions of policy as a way to enhance social reproduction (Bourdieu, 1990 ) and exercise social powers (Foucault, 1983). Most recently, Neder- veen Pieterse (2009) drew attention to the “incr eas ing silence of cultural differences” (p. 43) in sociological discourses of globa- lization by distinguishing three positions on cultural differences: cultural differentialism, cultural convergence, and cultural hy- bridization. He pointed out that “the clash between cultural diversity and globalization may well be considered a creative clash” (p . 60), as the awareness o f cultu ral differen ces has b een growing and it can be approached as a major function of globa- lization. My proposed model of the university restructuring follows on Nederveen Pieterse’s taxonomy of cultural diversity. Placed within a globalization framework, the university under re-structuring can be viewed as a “hybrid formation”, where th e “hybrid” aspects concern the participants’ experiences and interpretations of the re-structuring processes. Illustrating the “hybridity” of the university restructuring, the culturally sensi- tive mod el of a curricular ad aptatio n takes into accoun t diverse logics and mixed interpretations of all the stakeholder of re- structuring. Approached this way, university re-structuring appears as a con struct ive, r ath er than a destru cti ve (Beck, 2001) process, capable of increasing the range of organizational choices. The plurality of organizational choices might lead to different forms of cooperation, both local and international (Chan, 2004), among faculty and also at the level of university administration. The insights of the cultural diversification framework can be applied to the second feature of the resulted model, the non- linearity of the curricular education policy enactment in Rus- sian university classrooms. Approaching a mandatory imple- mentation of the creative education policy agenda with a bag- gage of cultural beliefs and knowledge of their traditional edu- cational systems, faculty and students simply may not be fully equipped to meet challenges of the curricular adaptation. Con- sidering the significance of cultural diversification in policy implementation processes, my findings suggest a methodologi- cal importance of keeping the research emphasis on the “im- plementators”, people who shape and unfold the policy, rather than policy itself. The second feature of the model, a non-linearity of the cur- ricular education policy enactment, follows the recent devel- opments of the education policy implementation research that draw on methodological and conceptual complexity of “imple- mentability”. Honig (2006) points out the complexity of policy dynamics and describes new directions of policy studies on “implementability” as follows: Implementability… [is] the product of interactions be- tween policies, people, and places—the demands specific policies place on implementers; the participants in im- plementation and their starting beliefs, knowledge, and other orientations toward policy demands; and the places or contexts that help shape what people can and will do. Implemen tati on res earch s hou ld aim to reveal th e pol icies , people, and places that shape how implementation unfolds and provide robust, grounded explanations for how inte- ractions among them help explain implementation out- comes. The essential implementation question then be- comes not simply “what’s implementable and works” but what is implementable and what works for whom, where, when, and why? (p. 2). Building on Honig’s perspective, I suggest that the resulted creative edu cation poli cy imple mentation model can be viewed as a complex process and a product of interactions among the policy’s structures, implementers, and the environment. The OPEN ACCE SS 90
T. SAVE LYEVA three aspects of the resulted model—organization, environment, and relation-reflect on this three-folded definition of the crea- tive education policy implementation by keeping the research focus on the interdependent complexity of the involved “people, policies, and places,” (Honig, 2006). From this perspective, my model also complements the existing policy implementation research models (e.g. “communication model” by Goggin, Bowman, Les ter, & O’Toole, 1990) By shifting the focus of the study toward a complexity of the policy implementation process and elements, I address the challenge of the perpetual discrepancy between educational policy goals and classroom practices, which is well defined in the po licy research . Bu ilt on a p remise that ed ucati onal policies are rarel y consis ten t with teach ers’ cl assro om pract ices, most of the policy studies (Blignaut, 2006) draw on the “implementa- tion problem” (McLaughlin, 2000) of discrepancy between policy and its practical implementation. The results of my stud y suggest a different approach to a discrepancy problem of im- plementation, by focusing on the non-linearity of the imple- mentation process, particularly, its organization, environment, and relation aspects. This approach allows deeper insights into “how policy is interpreted and transformed at each point in the process, and … the response of the individual at the end of the line” (p. 72). The non-linear approach to the curricular policy implementation challenges a common research premise of a wel l-established university infrastructure with a st eady cu rricu- lar supply base for implementing the creative education policy in Russian universities. The feature of non-linearity accounts for different levels of chaos in which the creative education policy emerged in the post-Soviet university environments and considers the unequal educational contexts that Russia has in- herited from its Imperial and Soviet stages of educational re- structuring. The rapid shift of the Russian educational system to its new ideolo gical, systemi c, and economic stages, r evealed the essen- tials of the creativity idea that forms its conceptual core across cultu res. The first is that creat ivity appears to have been a criti- cal component of educational inquiries in developmental psy- chology, educational philosophy, and sociology for many years and acro ss all major scien tific scho ols and cultures. Regardless of their origins, theories of creativity include objective, sym- bolic, individual, and social components that are integrated und er a lar ger umbrel la of a speci fic cu ltu re. These components appear to be a prerequisite for any empirical exploration of creativity in culturally different educational environments. A second universal f eature o f creati vit y is that, in its most gen eral und erstanding, it is viewed as a holi stic and continuous state of human and social developments that are guided by the universal rules of natural and social evolvements. These larger notions of creativity project themselves into different phenomenological worlds, where they manifest as specific constructs, forms, poli- cies, and structur es of a particular educational system. The aspects of creativity theory, which are specific to the West, concern empirical approaches that Western scientists employ to study the phenomena. Guided by ideas of pragmat- is m, We stern empirical models of creativity include domains of creative processes, products, and environments at the individual or a group levels. In contrast, Russian empirical traditions ap- proach creativity in all its universality, treating it as original, self-sustaining, and dynamic phenomenon that can be observed and experienced, rather that induced and organized. Scientific investigations of creativity in Russian academic culture, there- fore, deal with a much broader range of creativity manifesta- tions at individual and social levels. Following this approach, the empirical studies are concern ed with the practical issues of effective problem-solving, freedom of self-realization, and creative di alogues, as well as theoretical accounts o f creativity. Conclusion The recent re-structuring of the Russian HE system aims to quickly overcome centuries of educational traditions and place Russian universities on a competitive path of the market econ- omy. Responding to the demands for building a “creative edu- cation al syste m”, the Education Law 2012 required the Russian universities to adapt new curricular programs, modules, and methodologies. My study of the “creative education” Sustaina- bility module in two Russian universities provided insights of the cultu ral barri ers to the policy implementation and suggested three catego ries of the curricular implementation (organizati on, environment, and relation). Two important and theoretically grounded features of the resulted model included the culturally sensiti ve nat ure o f th e curr icu lar adap tati on an d non -linearity of the policy implementations in the university classrooms. These findings outlined the need to shift the organizational focus of policy studies toward frameworks concerned with complexity, contextuality, and cultural sensitivity of policy implementations for future studies on policy “implementation dilemma” in uni- versity classrooms. REFERENCES Arich, E. (2008). What is creative education? In E. Arich (Ed.), The art of creat ive thinking (pp. 1-13). Moscow: Mir. Beck, U. (2001 ). What is globa lization? Cambridge: Polity. Blignaut, S. (2006). Teachers’ interpretation and enactment of curri- culum pol icy . Frankfurt: VDM Verlag. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduc ti on in education, society , and cu lture ( 2nd ed.). Thousand O aks, CA: Sage. Butterfield, K., Reed, R., & Lemak, D. (2004). An inductive model of collaboration from the stakeholder’s perspective. Business and So- ciety, 43, 162-195. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/0007650304265956 Chan, W. (2004). Interna tiona l cooperati on in higher educ ation: Theor y and practi ce. Jour nal of Studie s in International Education, 8, 32-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028 315303254429 Cresswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixe d metho d a pproac hes (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. De Ven, A., & Huber, G. (1990). Longitudinal field research methods for studying process es of org an izat ion al ch ange. Organi zati on Sc i en- ce, 1, 213-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.3.213 Dill, D. (1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy, 10, 167-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8733(97 )00011-1 Dill, D., & Sporn. B. (l995). The implications of a postindustrial envi- ronment for the university: An introduction. In D. Dill, & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass da rkly (pp. l-1 9). Oxford: Pergam on. Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus, & P. Ra- binow (Eds.), Mi ch el F ou cau l t: Beyond struc tural ism and hermen eu- tics (2nd ed., pp. 208-226). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Goggin, M., Bowman, A., Lester, J., & O’Toole, L. (1990 ). Implemen- tation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Gordas hnok ov, V., & Osin, A. (2009 ). Education and health of medical college students. Moscow: Academy of Natural Sciences. Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 39, 67-91. OPEN ACCE SS 91
T. SAVE LYEVA http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:10 03859026301 Guilford, J. (1950). Creativity. American Psyc h ol og ist , 5, 444-454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h006 3487 Honig, M. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the fi eld. In M. Hon ig (Ed.), Ne w dir ecti ons in education policy imple mentation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-22 ). Albany, NY: The State University of New York. Lawler, E., & Yoon, J. (1993). Power and the emergence of commit- ment behavior in negotiated exchange. American Sociological Re- view, 58, 465-481. http ://dx.doi .org/10.2307/2096071 Lonchakov, A. (2004). Reforms of law and polytechnic higher educa- tion systems: Continues typologies and creative education. In T. Gomza (Ed.), Issues of higher education (pp. 53-55). Khabarovsk: KGTU. Lǽggard, J., & Bindslev, M. (2006). Organizational theo ry. Frankfurt: Ventus. Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia. Mel- bourne, Vic: Cambridg e Univ ersity. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559389 McLaughlin, M. W. (2000). Listening and learning from the field: Tales of policy imp lementa tion and si tuated pr actice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International hand book of educational change (pp. 70-84). B oston, MA: Kluwer Academic. Meyer, A., Brooks, G., & Goes, J. (1990). Environmental jolts and industry revolutions: Organizational responses to discontinuous change. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 93-110. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sa ge. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2009). Globalization and culture: Global mélange. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the public services: The An- glo-American experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Pusey, M. (1991). Economic rationalism in Canberra: A nation build- ing state change s its mind. Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University. Savelyeva, T. (2013). Toward a conceptual synthesis and ecological approa ch t o case stud i es of cu rric ula r inn ovat ion i mplemen ta ti on an d university restructuring in Russian HE. International Journal of Higher Education, 2, 228-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v2n4p228 Schwartzman, R. (1995). Students as customers: A mangled managerial metaphor. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 022, Charlot te, NC: Ca r olinas Speech Communication Association. Skatkin, M., & Tsov’janov, G. (1994). Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya. In J. Tedesco, & Z. Mor s y ( Eds.), Thinkers on education, Vol. 3 (pp. 49-60). Paris: UNESCO. Smart, D., & Hitt, M. (1994). A mid-range theory regarding the ante- cedents of restructuring types: An integration of agency, upper eche- lon and resou rce-based perspectives. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff, & J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in strategic management, Vol. 10A (pp. 159-186). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Welch, A. (1998). The cult of efficiency in education: Comparative reflection on the reality and rhetoric. Comparative Education, 24, 157-175. http://dx.doi.or g/10.1080/030500698 28252 OPEN ACCE SS 92
|