Implementation of Creative Education Policy in Russian Higher Education Curricula

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2014.52014   PDF   HTML     4,074 Downloads   5,415 Views   Citations


An ongoing restructuring of Russian higher education prioritizes development of a “creative educational system” as one of its policy directions. Following this recent policy mandate, Russian universities have been introducing new curricular models, which they adopt from the Western academic school of teaching and learning. However, Western-designed curricular novelties and methodologies that support creative education policies have been criticized for lacking success in Russian HE due to key differences in traditional cultures of educational systems. How do faculty facilitate curricular changes in support of the creative education 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 resulting 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 findings in terms of the two important characteristics of the resulted curricular implementation model: (1) the culturally sensitive nature of creative education curricular adaptation in post-Soviet higher education, and (2) non-linearity of the curricular education policy enactment in Russian university classrooms.

Share and Cite:

Savelyeva, T. (2014). Implementation of Creative Education Policy in Russian Higher Education Curricula. Creative Education, 5, 86-92. doi: 10.4236/ce.2014.52014.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Arich, E. (2008). What is creative education? In E. Arich (Ed.), The art of creative thinking (pp. 1-13). Moscow: Mir.
[2] Beck, U. (2001). What is globalization? Cambridge: Polity.
[3] Blignaut, S. (2006). Teachers’ interpretation and enactment of curriculum policy. Frankfurt: VDM Verlag.
[4] Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[5] Butterfield, K., Reed, R., & Lemak, D. (2004). An inductive model of collaboration from the stakeholder’s perspective. Business and Society, 43, 162-195.
[6] Chan, W. (2004). International cooperation in higher education: Theory and practice. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 32-55.
[7] Cresswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[8] De Ven, A., & Huber, G. (1990). Longitudinal field research methods for studying processes of organizational change. Organization Science, 1, 213-219.
[9] Dill, D. (1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy, 10, 167-185.
[10] Dill, D., & Sporn. B. (l995). The implications of a postindustrial environment for the university: An introduction. In D. Dill, & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly (pp. l-19). Oxford: Pergamon.
[11] Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus, & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 208-226). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
[12] Goggin, M., Bowman, A., Lester, J., & O’Toole, L. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
[13] Gordashnokov, V., & Osin, A. (2009). Education and health of medical college students. Moscow: Academy of Natural Sciences.
[14] Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 39, 67-91.
[15] Guilford, J. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
[16] Honig, M. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-22 ). Albany, NY: The State University of New York.
[17] Lawler, E., & Yoon, J. (1993). Power and the emergence of commitment behavior in negotiated exchange. American Sociological Review, 58, 465-481.
[18] Lonchakov, A. (2004). Reforms of law and polytechnic higher education systems: Continues typologies and creative education. In T. Gomza (Ed.), Issues of higher education (pp. 53-55). Khabarovsk: KGTU.
[19] Laggard, J., & Bindslev, M. (2006). Organizational theory. Frankfurt: Ventus.
[20] Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia. Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University.
[21] McLaughlin, M. W. (2000). Listening and learning from the field: Tales of policy implementation and situated practice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 70-84). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
[22] Meyer, A., Brooks, G., & Goes, J. (1990). Environmental jolts and industry revolutions: Organizational responses to discontinuous change. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 93-110.
[23] Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[24] Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2009). Globalization and culture: Global mélange. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
[25] Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the public services: The Anglo-American experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[26] Pusey, M. (1991). Economic rationalism in Canberra: A nation building state changes its mind. Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University.
[27] Savelyeva, T. (2013). Toward a conceptual synthesis and ecological approach to case studies of curricular innovation implementation and university restructuring in Russian HE. International Journal of Higher Education, 2, 228-237.
[28] Schwartzman, R. (1995). Students as customers: A mangled managerial metaphor. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 022, Charlotte, NC: Carolinas Speech Communication Association.
[29] Skatkin, M., & Tsov’janov, G. (1994). Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya. In J. Tedesco, & Z. Morsy (Eds.), Thinkers on education, Vol. 3 (pp. 49-60). Paris: UNESCO.
[30] Smart, D., & Hitt, M. (1994). A mid-range theory regarding the antecedents of restructuring types: An integration of agency, upper echelon and resource-based perspectives. In P. Shrivastava, A. Huff, & J. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in strategic management, Vol. 10A (pp. 159-186). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
[31] Welch, A. (1998). The cult of efficiency in education: Comparative reflection on the reality and rhetoric. Comparative Education, 24, 157-175.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.