Stakeholder involvement in the curricula modernisation through a virtual foresight laboratory

Introduction. Involvement of stakeholders into curricula modernisation in modern educational institutions has always been significant due to the existing misbalance between the social requirements and outdated educational materials.

Aim. The aim of the research is to analyse the three dimensions of stakeholder involvement into curricula modernisation in education on the basis of Kostanay regional university named after A.Baitursynov (Kostanay, Kazakhstan): maximal involvement, partial involvement, and formal participation.

Methodology and research methods. The research is based on the 10 sessions 1.5 h each organised on the platform of the virtual foresight laboratory (VFL) specially designed for the realisation of maximal involvement of the participants. Two in-depth face-to-face interview sessions with the focus groups (FG) participants (1 entry interview and 1 post-sessional interview) were organised and processed.

Results. The results of the sessions with 6 stakeholders represented focus group 1 that demonstrated the new maps of the future curriculum and modernised the text of the existing educational curriculum in terms of the goals, content and competencies requirements. The highlights include the following results of the study: the FG1 participants  indicated  their synergy in foreseeing the future through mapping, trends design and discussions  in VFL; there was the increase of the learning gain among FG1 stakeholders in terms of the structure of the curriculum, educational programme, types of competencies,  foresight research; the personal growth of stakeholder  involvement  into curricula modernisation  was directly observed, as their gained experience was reflected in further modernisation  of educational programmes  of other majors.

Scientific novelty. The research presents the key theoretical role of virtual foresight laboratory in curricula modernisation, basic theoretical issues on design of the future maps and foresight planning.

Practical significance. Practical outcomes in curricula modernisation can be adapted to any educational institutions aimed at perspective planning and foresight applications.

1. Fitzgerald H., Bruns K., Sonka S., Furco A., Swanson L. The centrality of engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2012; 16 (3): 7–28.

2. Gašević D., Tsai Y.-S., Drachsler H. Learning analytics in higher education – Stake-holders, strategy and scale. The Internet and Higher Education. 2021; 5: 1008–1033. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100833

3. Longoria L. C., López-Forniés I., Cortés Sáenz D., Sierra-Pérez J. Promoting sustainable consumption in higher education institutions through integrative co-creative processes involving relevant stakeholders. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 2021; 28: 445–458. DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.009

4. Fissi S., Romolini A., Gori E., Contri M. The path toward a sustainable green university: The case of the University of Florence. Journal of Cleaner Production [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Mar 08]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343681582_The_path_toward_a_sustainable_green_university_The_case_of_the_University_of_Florence

5. Levina E. Yu. To the problem of the management of the developing education: Stake-holder approach. Kazanskij pedagogicheskij zhurnal = Kazan Pedagogical Journal [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Mar 09]; 6 (1). Available from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/k-probleme-upravleniya-razvitiem-obrazovaniya-steykholderskiy-podhod (In Russ.)

6. Patrakhin A. I. Stakeholder management in modern educational organization. Molodoi issledovatel’ = Young Researcher [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Mar 08]; 22 (126): 184–186. Available from: https://moluch.ru/archive/126/34951/ (In Russ.)

7. Yekshikeev T. K. Stakeholders of the educational market. Sibirsky tekhniko-ekonomichesky zhurnal = Siberian Technical-Economic Journal [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2022 Mar 01]. 9. Available from: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/steykholdery-rynka-obrazovatelnyh-uslug (In Russ.)

8. Taut S., Rakoczy K. Observing instructional quality in the context of school evaluation. Learning and Instruction. 2016; 46: 45–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.003

9. Tazhitdinov I. A. The applying stakeholder approach to strategic management of territories development. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of Regions. 2013; 2 (34): 17–27. (In Russ.)

10. Hage M., Leroy P., Petersen A. C. Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures. 2010; 42: 254–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.011

11. Ivashkovskaya I. V. Finansovye izmerenija korporativnyh strategij. Stejkholderskij podhod = Finance measurements of corporate strategies. Stakeholder approach. Moscow: Publishing House INFRA-M; 2008. 257 p. (In Russ.)

12. Tikhonova A. D. Interaction with stakeholders as a factor in increasing the effectiveness of universities. Kreativnaya ekonomika = Creative Economy [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Mar 01]; 11 (12): 1315–1328. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322501987_Vzaimodejstvie_so_stejkholderami_kak_faktor_povysenia_effektivnosti_deatelnosti_vuzov (In Russ.)

13. Guidance on Social Responsibility. ISO office on authorship [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Mar 02]. Available from: http://17.www.iso.org

14. Savvinov V. M., Strekalovsky V. N. The account of stakeholder interests in managing the education. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsiy = Bulletin of International Organisations [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2022 Feb 27]; 1 (40). Available from: https://iorj.hse.ru/data/2013/04/10/1297551100/6.pdf (In Russ.)

15. Mazur-Wierzbicka E. E-communication and CSR – a new look at organizations’ relations with stakeholders in the time of digitalization. Procedia Computer Science. 2021; 192: 4619–4628. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.240

16. El Akremi A., Gond J.-P., Swaen V., De Roeck K., Igalens J. How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management. 2018; 44 (2): 619–657

17. Rohrbeck R., Thom N., Arnold H. IT tools for foresight: The integrated insight and response system of Deutsche Telekom Innovation Laboratories. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2015; 97: 115–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.015

18. Selin C. Merging art and design in foresight: Making sense of emerge. Futures. 2015; 70: 24–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.12.006

19. Yatsyna A., et al. Konstruktor formatov NTI 20.35 = 20.35 NTI formats constructor [Internet]. Available from: https://leaderid.s3.amazonaws.com/upload/1922136/60c-b379973c24830932719.pdf (In Russ.)

20. Gibson E., Daim T., Garces E., Dabic M. Technology foresight: A bibliometric analysis to identify leading and emerging methods. Foresight and STI Governance. 2018; 12 (1): 6–24. DOI: 10.17323/2500-2597.2018.1.6.24

21. Grabher G., Stark D. Organizing diversity: Evolutionary theory, network analysis and postsocialism. Regional Studies: The Journal of the Regional Studies Association. 1997; 31 (4): 411–423.

22. VFL of BKRU [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Mar 09]. Available from: http://foresite.kspi.kz/forecast/future-map

23. Atlas of Emerging Jobs. Russia [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Mar 09]. Available from: https://atlas100.ru/en

24. Atlas of new professions and competencies in the Republic of Kazakhstan [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Mar 09]. Available from: https://www.enbek.kz/atlas/en