Vestnik Vysshey Shkoly
Sign inSign upJoin
Submit an articleSubmit
2026, no. 9
EDUCATION: PERSPECTIVES AND ASPECTS

CHALLENGES FACING MODERN ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Alexey I. RazumowskyORCID

DOI 10.20339/am.09-26.019pp. 19–23UDC 378::6280 RUB

PDF

Bookmark

Abstract

This article examines the profound distortion of the core meaning of higher engineering education under the influence of generative neural networks. It identifies a conflict between a culture of rapid access to ready-made solutions (AI) and classical pedagogy, which demands the development of analytical thinking and personal responsibility. Based on a review of research, it concludes that the dominant applied approach to AI ignores systemic threats — the imitation of knowledge acquisition and the loss of key engineering competencies. Using programming and the paradigm of ‘vibe coding’ as an example, the article demonstrates how replacing the holistic problem-solving process with a dialogue with an AI ‘black box’ deprives students of the critical experience of analysis, design, and debugging. The methodological core being lost in this shift is presented as a proposed tetrad of engineering education: “hypothesis – context – solution – responsibility.” Its abandonment leads to a systemic decline in the quality of training. It is important to rethink and rework the very foundations of the educational process so that there is no significant place for neural network services within it, rendering their key advantages obsolete. This will help renew the educational environment, where — regardless of the future specialist’s wishes — artificial intelligence cannot serve as their intellectual substitute or assistant.

Keywords

  • neural networks
  • artificial intelligence
  • engineering education
  • black box
  • engineering thinking
  • analytical skills
  • personal responsibility

References

  1. Aletdinova, A.A., & Antonyants, E.N. The Use of Generative Neural Network Assistants in the Educational Process: Threats and New Opportunities. Vocational Education in the Modern World. 2025, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 305–313.
  2. Golubeva, L.L., & Azarov, N.A. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Modern Educational Process. Bulletin of Education. 2025, No. 8 (272), pp. 15–23.
  3. Gruzhdkov, A.A. Teaching Mathematics in Light of Advances in Artificial Intelligence Technologies. Current Issues in Mathematics Education at Technical Universities. 2025, No. 12, pp. 33–37.
  4. Petrunin, Yu.Yu. Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Consciousness. Public Administration. Electronic Journal. 2025, no. 112, pp. 78–92.
  5. Feshchenko, A.V., Malkova, I.Yu., & Buyakova, K.I. Feedback in Education Using AI: An Analysis of the User Experience. Pedagogy and Education. 2025, no. 3, pp. 23–40.
  6. Shchuchkin, E.Yu. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Learning Process: A Pilot Study at a Technical University. Continuum. Mathematics. Computer Science. Education. 2025, No. 2 (38), pp. 122–130.
  7. Yakovlev, V.F., Borodulina, E.A., Borodulin, B.B., & Yakovleva, E.V. Analysis of Students’ Use of AI Services in Technical, Humanities, and Medical Education. Mathematical Methods in Technology and Engineering. 2025. no. 12-1, pp. 79–82.
  8. Almetov, N. et al. Engineering Education: Problems of Modernization in the Context of a Competence Approach. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy. 2020. v. 10, no. 6, pp. 7–20.
  9. Ceylan, M., Mnzile, J.Y. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in educational setting. Economic and political consequences of AI: Managing creative destruction. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2025. Pp. 395–414.
  10. Cushing, F.H. Manual concepts: A study of the influence of hand-usage on culture-growth. American Anthropologist. 1892; 5 (4): 289–318.
  11. Downey, G. Are engineers losing control of technology?: From ‘problem solving’ to ‘problem definition and solution’ in engineering education. Chemical Engineering Research and Design. 2005, v. 83, no. 6, pp. 583–595.
  12. Dym, C.L. et al. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of engineering education. 2005, v. 94, no. 1, pp. 103–120.
  13. Gadde, A. Democratizing software engineering through generative ai and vibe coding: The evolution of no-code development. Journal of Computer Science and Technology Studies. 2025; 7 (4): 556–572.
  14. Hargreaves, S. (Vibe) Coding a Simulated Client Using Generative AI. The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper. 2025, no. 2025-28.
  15. Hayek, F.A. The use of knowledge in society. In: Modern understandings of liberty and property. Routledge; 2013. Pp. 27–38.
  16. Kalogiannakis, M., Papakonstantinou, N., Sotiropoulos, D. From Support Tool to Learning Partner: A Systematic Review of GenAI Integration in University Science Labs. Creative Education. 2025; 16 (9): 1364–1401.
  17. Knobel, C., Radziwill, N. Vibe coding: Is human nature the ghost in the machine? [10409] arXiv:2508.20918
  18. Meske, C. et al. Vibe coding as a reconfiguration of intent mediation in software development: Definition, implications, and research agenda. IEEE Access. 2025; 13: 213242–213259.
  19. Pradhan, A. et al. Exploring Vibe Coding Practices in Computer Science Education. ICERI2025 Proceedings. IATED, 2025, pp. 5153–5162.
  20. Thring, M.W., Laithwaite, E.R. How to invent. London: Macmillan, 1977.
  21. Yadav, P. et al. Generative design for conceptual installations. ShodhKosh Journal of Visual and Performing Arts. 2025, 6 (3), pp. 21–30.
Rubrics
EDUCATION: PERSPECTIVES AND ASPECTS