The student social experience in individual versus cohort-based learning
https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2025-10-160-189
Abstract
Introduction. The introduction of programmes with individual learning pathways in Russian universities, where students study in temporary rather than permanent academic groups, emphasises the issue of their impact on students’ social experience and integration. Aim. The present study aimed to identify differences in the social integration of students in programmes with traditional cohort-based learning compared to those following an individual learning pathway. Methodology and research methods. As part of the qualitative methodology, 15 semi-structured interviews were conducted with students from both study models, followed by a thematic analysis of the transcripts. Results. The research findings demonstrated that stable groups foster the development of enduring social ties, yielding both positive effects (such as motivation through group norms) and negative effects (including pressure and conflict). In the context of individual learning pathways, the inconsistency of study groups diminishes motivation to sustain long-term relationships, thereby increasing autonomy but restricting opportunities for social integration, which adversely affects the university experience. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty of this study lies in its shift of focus from academic to social aspects of individual learning pathways. Practical significance is in providing data to university administrators responsible for student adaptation and academic performance.
Keywords
individual learning pathway,
social integration,
student experience,
cohort-based learning,
student group cohesion
Supporting agencies: Maloshonok N.G. received support from the Basic Research Programme at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University).
About the Authors
Y. V. Sibiriakova
HSE University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yuliya V. Sibiriakova – PhD Student, Institute of Education,
Moscow.
N. G. Maloshonok
HSE University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia G. Maloshonok – Cand. Sci. (Sociology), Senior Researcher, Centre for Sociology of Higher Education,
Moscow.
References
1. Klimova T.A., Kim A.T., Ott M.A. Individual learning paths as a condition for quality university education. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2023;27(1):23–33. (In Russ.) doi: 10.15826/umpa.2023.01.003
2. Gavrilyuk T.V., Pogodaeva T.V. Transition to individual learning paths: students’ and teachers’ assessments (case study of Tyumen State University). Sotsiologicheskiy zhurnal = Sociological Journal. 2023;2:51–73. (In Russ.) doi: 10.19181/socjour.2023.29.2.3
3. Muzyka P.A. Features of individualization implementation in Russian higher education. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2024;28(4):67–81. (In Russ.) doi: 10.15826/umpa.2024.04.035
4. Elliott R.W., Paton V.O. US higher education reform: origins and impact of student curricular choice. International Journal of Educational Development. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.11.008
5. Mercer G.E. Thomas Jefferson: a bold vision for American education. International Social Science Review. 1993. Accessed May 14, 2025. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41882084
6. Carpenter H.C. Emerson, Eliot, and the elective system. The New England Quarterly. 1951;24(1):13–34. doi: 10.2307/361254
7. Morris P., Castro-Faix M., Hengtgen K., Rapp K., Winkler C., Xu T. Virtues of academic exploration: impact of major changes on degree completion. Journal of College Orientation Transition and Retention. 2023;30(1). doi: 10.24926/jcotr.v30i1.4904
8. Dekker T. The value of curricular choice through student eyes. The Curriculum Journal. 2020;32. doi: 10.1002/curj.71
9. Stevens M., Harrison M., Thompson M., Lifschitz A., Chaturapruek S. Choices, identities, paths: understanding college students academic decisions. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2018. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3162429
10. Crossing S. The student experience: how can universities meet student demands? Studiosity Blog. 2018. Accessed March 23, 2025. https://www.studiosity.com/blog/the-studentexperience-how-can-universities-meet-student-demands
11. Gordeeva T.O., Sychev O.A., Osin E.N. The Academic Motivation Scale questionnaire. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psychological Journal. 2014;35(4):96–107. (In Russ.) Accessed March 23, 2025. https://publications.hse.ru/pubs/share/folder/y93jdtmioo/122549995.pdf
12. Gordeeva T.O., Sychev O.A., Osin E.N. Internal and external academic motivation of students: their sources and impact on psychological well-being. Voprosy psikhologii = Psychology Questions. 2013;(1):35–45. (In Russ.) Accessed March 23, 2025. https://publications.hse.ru/pubs/share/folder/2qgr5z65t0/76388979.pdf
13. Maloshonok N.G. Student engagement as a tool for assessing the quality of education in Russian universities. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2023;27(2):45–58. (In Russ.) doi: 10.15826/umpa.2023.02.012
14. Shcheglova I.A., Koreshnikova Yu.N., Parshina O.A. The role of student engagement in the development of critical thinking. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2019;(1):264–289. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17323/1814-9545-2019-1-264-289
15. Terentiev E.A., Gruzdev I.A., Gorbunova E.V. The court is in session: teachers’ discourse on student dropout. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2015;(2):129–151. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17323/1814-9545-2015-2-129-151
16. Gorbunova E.V., Mayukova E.V., Ovakimyan E.V., Pavlyuk D.M. Difficulties of integration as a reason for the dropout of olympiad winners. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2024;(4):33–60. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17323/vo-2024-17714
17. Bondarenko V.V., Polutin S.V., Tanina M.A., Yudina V.A. Post-effects of the COVID-19 pandemic: international students’ satisfaction with distance learning in Russian universities. Integratsiya obrazovaniya = Integration of Education. 2022;26(4):671–687. (In Russ.) doi: 10.15507/19919468.109.026.202204.671-687
18. Maltsev D.V., Repetskii D.S. Students’ satisfaction with the quality of educational services at a technical university. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2020;(5):45–52. (In Russ.) doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-5-45-52
19. Tinto V. Classrooms as communities: exploring the educational character of student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education. 1997;68(6):599–623. doi: 10.1080/00221546.1997.11779003
20. Dremova O.V., Shcheglova I.A. Uchebnye soobshhestva na baze obshhezhitij: opyt zarubezhnyh vuzov i vozmozhnosti realizacii v Rossii = Learning Communities in Dormitories: International Experience and Implementation Possibilities in Russia. Moscow: HSE; 2020. 32 p. (In Russ.) Accessed May 14, 2025. https://ioe.hse.ru/pubs/share/direct/430139936.pdf
21. Strayhorn T.L. College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All Students. New York: Routledge; 2012. 160 p. doi: 10.4324/9780203118924
22. Feldner M., Brent R. Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching. 1996;44(2):43–47. doi: 10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425
23. Zeff L.E., Higby M.A., Bossman L.J. Permanent or temporary classroom groups: a field study. Journal of Management Education. 2006;30(4):539. doi: 10.1177/1052562905280778
24. Ullah H., Wilson M.A. Students’ academic success and its association to student involvement with learning and relationships with faculty and peers. College Student Journal. 2007;41(4):1192–1203. Accessed May 14, 2025. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ816846
25. Gaudet A.D. Small-group learning in an upper-level university biology class enhances academic performance and student attitudes toward group work. PloS One. 2010;5(12). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015821
26. Tenenbaum H.R., Winstone N.E., Leman P.J., Avery R.E. How effective is peer interaction in facilitating learning? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020;112(7):1303–1319. doi: 10.1037/edu0000436
27. Tinto V. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1993. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226922461.001.0001
28. Chrysikos A., Ahmed E., Ward R. Analysis of Tinto’s student integration theory in first-year undergraduate computing students of a UK higher education institution. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development. 2017;19(2/3):97–121. doi: 10.1108/IJCED-10-2016-0019
29. Castro-Montoya B., Vélez-Gómez P., Segura-Cardona A., French B.F. A cultural adaptation of Tinto’s student integration theory in undergraduate students of a private university in Colombia. Cogent Education. 2025;12(1):2479384. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2479384
30. Samoila M.E., Vrabie T. First-year seminars through the lens of Vincent Tinto’s theories of student departure. A systematic review. Frontiers in Education. 2023;8:1205667. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1205667
31. Braxton J.M. Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition by Vincent Tinto. Journal of College Student Development. 2019;60(1):129–134. doi: 10.1353/csd.2019.0012
32. Pascarella E.T., Terenzini P.T. Interaction effects in Spady and Tinto’s conceptual models of college attrition. Sociology of Education. 1979. Accessed May 14, 2025. https://clck.ru/3NSzeM
33. Thompson B.M., Haidet P., Borges N.J., Carchedi L.R., Roman B.J., Townsend M.H., et al. Team cohesiveness, team size and team performance in team-based learning teams. Medical Education. 2015. doi: 10.1111/medu.12636
34. Treen E., Atanasova C., Pitt L., Johnson M. Evidence from a large sample on the effects of group size and decision-making time on performance in a marketing simulation game. Journal of Marketing Education. 2016. doi: 10.1177/0273475316653433
35. Rombokas M. High School Extracurricular Activities & College Grades. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse; 1995. 36 p. Accessed May 14, 2025. https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/5590377
36. Ahmad M., Rahman M.F., Ali M., Rahman F.N., Al-Azad M. Effect of extra curricular activity on student’s academic performance. Journal of Armed Forces Medical College, Bangladesh. 2015;11(2):41–46. doi: 10.3329/jafmc.v11i2.39822
37. Fuchs L.S., Fuchs D., Kazdan S., Karns K., Calhoon M.B., Hamlett C.L., et al. Effects of workgroup structure and size on student productivity during collaborative work on complex tasks. Elementary School Journal. 2000. doi: 10.1086/499639
38. Wiley J., Jensen M. When three heads are better than two. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2006:2375–2380.
39. Millis B.J., Cottell P.G. Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty. Phoenix: Oryx; 1998. Accessed May 14, 2025. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED415756
40. Michaelsen L.K., Fink L.D., Knight A. Designing effective group activities: lessons for classroom teaching and faculty development. To Improve the Academy. 1997;16:373–398. Accessed May 14, 2025. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad/385
41. Lake D.A. Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-based course compared with the same course utilizing group discussion. Physical Therapy. 2001;81(3):896–903. doi: 10.1093/ptj/81.3.896
42. Machemer P.L., Crawford P. Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2007;8(1):9–30. doi: 10.1177/1469787407074008
43. Webb N.M., Nemer K.M., Zuniga S. Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal. 2002;39:943–989. doi: 10.3102/00028312039004943
44. Terenzini P.T., Cabrera A.F., Colbeck C.L., Parente J.M., Bjorklund S.A. Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: students’ reported learning gains. Journal of Engineering Education. 2001;90(1):123–130. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00579.x
45. Murphy P.K., Greene J.A., Firetto C.M., Li M., Lobczowski N.G., Duke R.F., et al. Exploring the influence of homogeneous versus heterogeneous grouping on students’ text-based discussions and comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2017;51:336–355. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.09.003
46. Ash M.G. Bachelor of what, master of whom? The Humboldt myth and historical transformations of higher education in German-speaking Europe and the US. European Journal of Education. 2006;41(2):245–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2006.00258.x
47. Androushchak G., Poldin O., Yudkevich M. Role of peers in student academic achievement in exogenously formed university groups. Educational Studies. 2013;39(5):568–581. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2013.814561
48. Poldin O.V., Yudkevich M.M. Co-learning effects in higher education: review of theoretical and empirical approaches. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2011;4:106–123. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17323/1814-9545-2011-4-106-123
49. Lewin K. Frontiers in Group Dynamics. Human Relations. 1947;1:5–41. doi: 10.1177/001872674700100103
50. Kozlowski S.W.J., Klein K.J. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein K.J., Kozlowski S.W.J., eds. Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000:3–90. Accessed July 28, 2025. https://goal-lab.psych.umn.edu/orgpsych/readings/2.%20Multilevel%20and%20Methods/Kozlowski%20&%20Klein.pdf
51. Andrushchak G.V., Poldin O.V., Yudkevich M.M. Effects of co-learning in administratively formed student groups. Prikladnaya ekonometrika = Applied Econometrics. 2012;2(26):3–16. (In Russ.) Accessed May 14, 2025. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/effekty-soobucheniya-v-administrativno-formiruemyh-studencheskih-gruppah
52. Bandura A. Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. In: Adair J.G., Bélanger D., Dion K.L., eds. Advances in Psychological Science. Vol. 1. Hove: Psychology Press; 1998:51–71. Accessed May 14, 2025. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-07769-003
53. Durkheim E. Samoubijstvo: sociologicheskij jetjud = Suicide: A Study in Sociology. St. Petersburg: I.P. Karabasnikov Publishing; 1912. 399 p. (In Russ.) Accessed May 14, 2025. https://www.psychiatry.ru/siteconst/userfiles/file/PDF/1706/4.pdf
54. Bekova S.K. Academic suicide: вropout scenarios in Russian graduate schools. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2020;2:83–109. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17323/1814-9545-2020-2-83-109
55. Pavlovskij A.I. Philosophy in mass education system: teaching as a mimetic practice. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2022;24(3):78–103. (In Russ.) doi: 10.17853/1994-56392022-3-78-103
56. Estimurti E.S., Pantiwati Y., Latipun L., In’am A., Huda A.M., Bulkani B. Development of the PLONG learning model as an innovation to develop communication and collaboration skills. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2024;26(10):82–105. doi: 10.17853/1994-5639-202410-82-1
57. Baepler P., Walker J.D., Brooks D.C., Saichaie K., Petersen C.I. A Guide to Teaching in the Active Learning Classroom: History, Research, and Practice. Routledge; 2016. doi: 10.4324/9781003442820
58. Inkelas K.K., Jessup-Anger J.E., Benjamin M., Wawrzynski M.R. Living-Learning Communities that Work: A RESEARCH-BASED MODEL for Design, Delivery, and Assessment. Taylor & Francis; 2023. doi: 10.4324/9781003445777
Review
For citations:
Sibiriakova Y.V., Maloshonok N.G. The student social experience in individual versus cohort-based learning. The Education and science journal. 2025;27(10):160-189. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2025-10-160-189
Views:
142
Email this article 