DISTANCE EDUCATION IN RUSSIA: Between the Past and the Future

Distance education first appeared in prerevolutionary Russia in the form of correspondence education. The history of open and correspondence education began in 1870, when Karl Muzing, a famous Russian mathematician, engineer, and educator, opened the first classes and vocational schools for adults in Moscow and St. Petersburg. This initiative was supported by the Imperial Russian Technical Society, which also played an important role in opening special educational institutions for adults called workers’ courses and workers’ departments. In 1908, under the direction of Stolipin, Milukov, and other public figures, the Moscow City Public University for Workers and Peasants opened, becoming the first correspondence education providing institution in Russia. These educational institutions allowed adults who were looking for secondary and higher education, but who belonged to underprivileged social groups, to combine study and work (Zukerman, 1990).

The system of laborers’ courses for adult learners was further developed in the 1920s when the the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) since 1918 was recovering from civil war and postrevolutionary economic collapse. There was a vital need to fight illiteracy. It could only be eradicated through the involvement of thousands of school teachers. The problem of illiteracy was solved by opening training centers which used the method of correspondence learning and assisted adults in receiving rudimentary education.

Some of the first training activities at these centers were Correspondence Courses for Teachers of the Moscow Region. These courses did not have the objective to provide learners with systematic knowledge; instead, they taught students the ideological issues and basics of Soviet pedagogy. Their model of learning was in fact very similar to the modern Russian notion of correspondence learning. First, students received topics and material to be studied (including a list of recommended literature); then, after completing the reading, they wrote essays either individually, or in small groups, and sent them to consultants who later gave students grades for their work and provided feedback. This system of studying was supported by the creation of a network of teacher training institutes, separate from the existing specialized pedagogical universities and functioned as a short-term training alternative for those who wanted to become teachers, but had no higher pedagogical education. This early system was convenient for those who wanted to get an education without quitting their jobs.

The relationship between jobs and education underwent another change in the late 1920s as the Russian society industrialized. Industrialization gave a boost to the formation of the correspondence learning system on the national level. The growing economy and developing industry demanded more and more educated and skilled workers, especially engineers. In 1927, Glavprofobr (Ministry of Professional Education) created the national system of correspondence learning (zaochnoye obuchenyie in Russian) in order to meet this demand. On February 22 of that year, Glavprofobr officially inaugurated the Bureau of Correspondence Learning as a department of Moscow State University. This date is regarded as the birthday of higher correspondence education in Russia.

Following this act, correspondence schools mushroomed throughout Russia. Initially, they were more or less self-sustainable, but their independence ended in 1932 when the majority of them were restructured and united into a single body, the All-Union Correspondence Institute of Technical Education with a network of branch departments in the republics of the USSR (now Moscow State Open University). In the 1940s, there were 18 correspondence learning institutes, tens of specialized correspondence learning laboratories and centers busying themselves with research into teaching methodology; and with the development of educational toolkits for learners with a focus on correspondence learning. During those years, most of the classical universities opened their own departments of correspondence learning, and several correspondence learning secondary schools opened (Gustir’, 2000).

In the 1950s, the status of correspondence learning changed from a supplementary to a formally recognized form of education, such as full-time or part-time university education (Ovsyannikov & Gustir’, 2001). The change in legal status of correspondence learning caused the following important changes in its structure and functioning:

• regulated, planned, and state budget funded;

• programs and courses were certified, curriculum fixed;

• diplomas obtained after completing correspondence learning courses became equivalent to those received through full-time, or part-time traditional education;

• systems of entrance exams, grading and evaluation became the same as those in full-time and part-time education;

• working students received financial compensation;

• establishment of a huge network of more than 200 training and consulting centers in the USSR for providing students with timely support; and

• a centralized system of research and instructional design centers was opened to explore the potential of correspondence learning and working out the appropriate method for teaching adults.

Thus, the Soviet system of correspondence learning became the first well-structured and organized model of nationwide distance learning.

An important difference between the Soviet system of education (especially higher education) and that of Western countries was the large number of students, around one third, enrolled in external or correspondence programs at almost all Soviet universities. For instance, in the 1970s, approximately 180,000 secondary school teachers received their diplomas via the correspondence learning system each year. The national system of correspondence learning included public institutes, departments of correspondence learning at traditional universities, and a system of professional development and in-service training (Lazarev, 1996). The most prominent institutions were, and still are, Moscow State Open Pedagogical University (more than 16,000 students and 26 areas of professional specialization by the year 2000) and Moscow State Open University (about 70,000 students). Some institutes of correspondence learning focused on a particular area of specialization such as the Correspondence Learning Institute of Finance and Economics, Textiles, Agriculture, etc. (Gustir’, 2000).

There were other organizations in the former USSR that played a major role in the development of the system of public education and correspondence learning. The Knowledge Society (Obshestvo Znaniye) and regional People’s Universities (Narodniye Universiteti), for instance, ran programs for people who attended on an auditing basis (Kashitsin, 1996). These universities were not degreegranting institutions. People’s Universities organized programs from 6 months to 4 years, they had a decentralized administrative structure, and used part-time instructional teaching personnel. These universities were committed to spreading the political ideology of the Party, disseminating information on scientific achievements and, in a way, instilling the practice of self-education.

The Soviet model of correspondence learning in the period of 1930-1990s acquired all the features of a well-developed network of branch departments and training centers. For economic reasons, the core of the learning materials was printed—long-distance telephone calls were (and still are) rather expensive and unreliable; so too was the postal service. Most of the student-teacher interaction occurred face-to-face at biannual sessions. As for technological aspects of the system, there have been numerous experiments done to implement new technology into correspondence learning. The first came in 1928 when the First Workers and Peasants’ University of Radio opened. Or later, in the 1950s, when each department of a correspondence learning institute was obliged to build its own multimedia center, mediateka, to store audiotapes with recorded lectures of famous professors and instructional films or slides (Sharikov, 1990). Later, in 1964, there was another project with TV versions of the lectures involved. These lectures were videotaped and broadcast on the central TV station from Moscow to all the regions of the Russian Federation to support correspondence learning students. In the mid 1990s, a special TV studio, “Russian Universities,” was opened, but was soon closed because of the commercialization of Russian TV in post-Soviet years and the lack of governmental funding.

Over the last 5 years, the system of correspondence learning in Russia has been undergoing a deep crisis. In this period, only about 10% of the total federal annual budget for education has been spent on correspondence learning in Russia, and less than 3% of the total budget for correspondence faculty salaries (Gustir’, 2000). This small portion of funding has proven inadequate; for example, in academic year 1992-1993, of the 2,638,000 students enrolled in higher education, 980,000 studied through correspondence and evening courses. Hence, there is a great disproportion in the funding for correspondence learning.

In the late 1990s, correspondence learning institutions were not included in national programs for modernization and computerization of the Russian educational system, including the program Creation of the Unified educational Information Environment 2002-2006. Additionally, they were not supported by any existing Russian or international grant program or initiative. As a result of the exclusion, correspondence learning institutions are becoming more disadvantaged in comparison with classical universities and higher education institutions, which actively implement information and communication technology into the educational process. The gap between these institutions and those of correspondence learning is increasingly evident.

Also, the modern system of correspondence learning needs to be reconsidered. As it was built on the restrictive and authoritative Soviet educational system, it has several negative features that worsen every year. There was a crisis of the entire system of correspondence learning in the 1990s, when funding became very limited because of deep economic troubles and the reformation of the existing educational system. The main problems of the system were the following:

• inflexibility and unnecessary time and place restrictions as a result of the usage of the same examination and evaluation systems like a full-time institution (i.e., strictly fixed obligatory face-to-face sessions);

• poor quality of teaching (i.e., lack of effectiveness, quality and motivation in teachers due to nominal budget);

• insufficient student motivation, formalization of this form of learning made it the source of getting an easy diploma; and

• inadequate practical work, as the system was built mostly on rote methods of teaching and theoretical materials.

The model of correspondence learning which has been, and still is, a recognized form of education in Russia, is a historical variety of distance education. The experience of the early Soviet system of correspondence learning has been put into the basis of similar systems developed in the countries of the former USSR and other Eastern Bloc countries. However, because of the lack of governmental support, formalization, and lowering of the quality of teaching in the mid 1990s, this form of distance education has lost its position and status in Russian education and acquired the reputation of an old, traditional, and outdated form of learning—distinct from modern technologybased distance learning. Thus, while it may be seen as the mother of modern distance education in Russia, traditional correspondence learning is steadily losing its position and is being forced out of the educational market by other forms of education that are permeated with modern information and communication technology.

So, if correspondence learning and distance learning are regarded as different forms of learning in a modern system of education in Russia, then what is understood by distance education and distance learning? The historical separation of correspondence learning from distance learning influenced the formal interpretation of these terms in ways unique to Russian pedagogy.

Recent years of distance education in Russia have been marked by a parade of thesauruses. There are several interpretations of the notion distance learning that are suggested by Russian ideologists of this system. Some of them consider distance learning a new form of learning, which is distinguished by the intensive use of information and communication technologies and which inherited the best from full-time learning, correspondence learning and independent learning (Polat & Moiseeva, 1998).

Others say distance learning is a technology, or the combination of technologies, that could be implemented into all formally legalized in Russia forms of learning—full-time, part-time, and independent learning (external studies) (Tikhonov & Nezhurina, 2002). Each of the existing forms of learning could integrate these technologies in appropriate proportion to face-to-face learning. This approach was fixed in current Laws on Education of the Russian Federation.

And according to the third (and derivative of the second) view, distance education should be called open education, or open and distance education and understood as a new, integrative form of education that unites all existing forms of education on the base of modern distant (information and communication) technologies, means, and tools.

Since the 1990s, the system of education in Russia has gone through a transitional period. The reforms in higher education, undertaken by governmental bodies (State Committee for Higher Education, etc.), pursue the following main objectives:

• structural reformations and decentralization of the system;

• expansion of the autonomy of higher education institutions;

• development of new curricula and new methods of teaching; and

• integration of Russian higher education into the world system through increased academic mobility and applied new information and telecommunication technologies in education.

This reformation, or modernization of the Russian education system was supported by intensive development of telecommunication infrastructure and provided educational institutions with access to computers and the Internet. The education sector of the Russian Internet included several networks that played a significant role in the development of Internet-based distance learning. There are the federal university computer network RUNNet, scientific and educational network Relarn, RBNet (backbone network for science and higher schools needs), MSUNet (Moscow State University Computer Network), and RSSI (Russian Space Science Internet).

In the regions of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yaroslavl, Chelyabinsk, Ekaterinburg, Samara, and others, Russian universities have carried out a number of experiments and grant programs (sponsored by international organizations and companies like NATO, Soros Foundation-Open Society Institute, IREX, Project Harmony Inc., and others) related to the use of new information technologies in distance education. The State Committee for Higher Education has approved the concept and adopted the “Decision About Creation of the System of Distance Education in Humanities in Russian Federation.” In 1993, the Association for International Education (AIE), a nonprofit organization, was established within the framework of research into the long-term forms of universities’ interaction for introducing distance learning models. The association was one of the organizers of the First International Conference “Distance Learning and New Information Technologies in Education,” which was held in July 1994. It played a prominent role in the mid 1990s, supporting the opening of the first specialized distance learning centers, which later became leaders in distance education in Russia, such as Moscow Institute of Electronics and Mathematics (MIEM), Moscow Institute of Aviation Technology (MATI), and Moscow N. Bauman State Technical University (MGTU). AIE linked those universities with international partner universities that already have basic experiences in distance learning. Moreover, the system of interregional university distance teaching was tested at the sites of Moscow Power Engineering Institute, Ryazan Radio Engineering Institute, and Mari Polytechnic Institute.

Most of the experimental projects were executed in collaboration with international partner universities, mostly from the United States and/or Great Britain. As an example, the International Institute of Management LINK became the partner of the British Open University Business School and developed the system of MBA courses and professional development courses for adults. Later, this model of distance learning was called in Russian publications on distance learning the case-method model. The Distance Learning Center at MIEM (Moscow Institute of Electronics and Mathematics), established in 1993, was involved in a series of joint projects with the State University of New York (United States), Monash University (Australia), the European project DELPHI EDRUS 9706 within TACIS programs, and so forth. Such collaboration between Russian and international universities in the early to mid 1990s helped to realize the existing potential and the ways of possible integration of educational systems. Also, it contributed greatly the exchange of experiences of different systems of education, and leveling of the technological base of distance learning.

This time period was also marked by first experiments in implementing information and communication technologies at secondary school level. In 1989, several schools from Moscow and St. Petersburg were involved in a U.S.-Russia telecommunication project, “School Electronic Mail” (Uvarov & Prussakova, 1992). Later, in 1990-1992, within the IBM-State Committee for Public Education of Russian Federation “Pilot Schools” joint project (when the first 1,000 IBM computer classes came to Russian schools), the first educational telecommunication network, called “PilotNet,” was organized. Both of the projects resulted in understanding of the importance and didactic possibilities of telecommunications in education and acquiring experience in distance learning and teaching. Due to participation of Russian secondary school students and their teachers in such projects as the National Geographic Society Kid’s Network and the same type of Russian telecommunication projects, students learned about projectbased learning, cooperative learning, and the learner-centered concept of learning in general. These projects gave an impulse to the team of researchers from the Laboratory of Distance Learning at the Russian Academy of Education (Polat, & Moiseeva, 1998) to investigate the implementation of new methods of teaching into Internet-based model of distance learning. The research ended in the publication of a series of books and articles that covered various theoretical and practical issues of collaborative learning and distance education.

The next stage in the development of distance learning in Russia began in May 1993, when the State Committee for Higher education of the Ministry of Science, Education and Technical Politics approved the strategic decision stating that networks using distance learning and providing the use of new information technologies to deliver instruction and information should become integral to Russian higher education. Within the same period the group of rectors of leading Russian universities developed the draft of the Basic Principles of the Concept of a Russian System of Distance Learning.

Later, the working group from the Ministry of Education developed a Concept on the Creation of the National System of Distance Education in the Russian Federation. This concept was approved by the Ministry of Education in May 1995. The planning system should be built on international best practices and models of distance learning that have already shown their effectiveness, but also considering national conditions and specifics of Russian education. All the follow-up discussions of the concept were concentrated on the dilemma— what didactic approach should be the basis of this system—a learner-centered approach, or a technological one? The first supposed the flexibility of the distance learning model, the possibility to combine different forms of learning, high interactivity of the learning process and instructional materials, and the use of new methods of teaching built on permanent interactions between all the participants of the learning process. But the technological approach, which was more economic and didn’t require much funding, has won (Ovsyannikov & Kashitsin, 2001). It resulted in standardization of course curriculum and programs, understanding of distance education as a combination of educational services.

The concept was not very welcome for most of the educational institutions involved in distance learning activities because the idea of creation of the unified national system of distance education was considered as the infringement of the existing autonomy of Russian universities and their independence in decision making regarding all aspects of Development of distance education at their own premises.

Later, leading Russian universities, academicians, and educators were involved in an experiment, initiated by the Ministry of education in 1997 (Philippov & Tikhomirov, 2000). Two years of experiments resulted in the following:

• three models of distance learning were tested—case technologies (the inverse wave of correspondence learning which came to Russia from Great Britain), Internet-based (network) technologies, and television and satellite technologies;

• a network of 588 training centers was developed and 206,000 students trained in various distance learning courses;

• more than 13,000 teachers and online tutors were involved; and

• hundreds of electronic and multimedia textbooks and educational software tools, testing systems, and collections of multimedia resources were designed and developed, and new methods of teaching and instructional design approaches were tested.

By the end of 1999, 85 universities and institutes were developing their own distance learning programs, and half of them had already piloted the implementation of distance learning technologies into the educational process. Among the most prominent institutions that are regarded as leaders in distance education in Russia are: MESI Institute of distance learning (the Moscow State University of Economy, Statistics and Informatics), RUDN Institute of Distance Learning (The Russian University of People’s Friendship), the Institute of Distance Learning of the Tomsk State University, the International Institute of Economy and Law, the Center of Distance Learning at Moscow State Institute of Electronics and Mathematics, the International Institute of Management LINK, and others.

At the secondary general education level there are several interesting projects that have existed for several years and have contributed much to the implementation of this system into everyday school practice and teachers’ in-service training. Tens of distance learning projects are suggested to students and teachers through the Moscow center of FIO (Federation of Internet Education, nongovernmental organization, funded by UKOS company), Tomsk State University, Internet Access and Training Program (executed by Project Harmony, Inc.), the Intel “Teach to the Future” program, Center of Distance Education “Eidos,” and regional initiatives, supported by regional distance learning centers in Yaroslavl, Voronezh, Samara, Krasnoyarsk, and other cities of the Russian Federation. All these distance learning programs suggest school children or their teachers take courses in various subject areas within the public schools standard curriculum. They are organized in a form of a typical Webbased training in which students use the Webtextbook and communication tools like Webforums, chats, or e-mail. Project-based learning is currently the most popular method of teaching typical for the majority of distance learning programs for secondary school students.

Using TV technologies in distance learning for secondary school students was piloted in 2000 through the “Teleschool” project. The project concentrated on two forms of education: independent learning (external studies), which gives an opportunity to earn the legal certificate of completed secondary education, and optional education enabling students— subscribers of the educational TV channels— to get learning materials via satellite digital television channels (home tutor).

There are several tendencies that could characterize the current situation in Russian distance education and help to get a vision of the near future. First, there are the organizational changes in the system of distance education. In an attempt to overcome the unfavorable situation with demographical changes (since the mid 1990s, the population of Russian has shrunk), the universities are building partnerships and consortia to reach larger audiences of students, enlarge the lists of specializations and subjects suggested to students, and redistribute existing distance learning technological and intellectual resources properly.

In some cases, such consortia help to reach the outside educational markets (Russianspeaking nationals in the countries of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Israel, and others). The most famous among consortia created since the mid 1990s are: the Association of International Education, the Association “Open University of West Siberia,” the Eurasian Association of Distance Education, the International Academy of Open Education, and others.

In addition, distance education contributed to the integration of international educational systems and their mutual adaptation. The first experiments in cooperation between Russian and international universities within distance learning programs and courses demonstrated the necessity of integration of the existing systems of education at different levels—technological (compatibility of software and hardware), curricular, methodological (grading, control, methods of teaching used, etc.), and legal (recognition of diplomas). Each collaborative distance learning project is a learning laboratory for all participants involved bringing together concepts of learning, educational experiences and national traditions in learning.

Second, distance education in Russia is still a factor of integration at the national level. In 2002, the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation worked out the draft of the new target program “Development of a Unified Educational and Information Environment for 2002-2006.” The main goal of the program is the formation of a unified educational and information environment aimed at improvement of the quality of Russian education on the basis of new information and communication technologies, and providing conditions for all citizens of Russia to have equal opportunities in obtaining education at all possible levels and in earning degrees. The other program that focuses on integration of higher education institutions was written and approved by the Ministry of Education in 2000 and is called “Creation of the System of Open Education.” The program’s objective is to support the initiatives in distance learning of any Russian university and provide the technological basis for such initiatives using the unified distance learning platform (Federal Portal of Open Education, at http://www.openet.ru).

Third, the development of distance education depends on the existing level of information and communication technologies. Currently, accessibility of distance forms of learning in remote regions of the Russian Federation still has limitations, such as slow communication channels and moderate possibilities of the networks used. Thus, the further dissemination of distance learning in distant regions depends upon the creation of modern telecommunication infrastructure and establishing basic educational institutions with a developed regional infrastructure of representations or consulting centers.

Fourth, the quality and effectiveness of technology-based distance learning established the objective (as in early years of 1920s, when thousands of teachers were needed) to bring up a new generation of e-teachers and instructional designers to provide professional approach to each piece of instructional materials and learning environment developed for distance learners.