Abstract
This study substantiates that a methodological approach grounded in the ethics of professional attentiveness can substitute administrative control while preserving analytical rigor, particularly in resource-constrained regional contexts. Rather than proposing a ready-made instrument, the article introduces a conceptual framework: a three-component model that enables substantive discussion of educational quality without displacing existing assessment procedures, thereby safeguarding space for non-quantifiable learning outcomes. Methodologically, the analysis integrates Scriven's distinction between summative and formative assessment, activity theory, and institutional analysis, each adapted to the specifics of Russian higher education with due attention to regional asymmetry. The proposed quality assessment framework encompasses three interrelated dimensions: educational achievements, the learning process, and participants' personal engagement — the latter treated as an independent analytical category reflecting the Russian pedagogical tradition of subject formation. The article demonstrates that digital assessment systems relying on behavioral metrics may inadvertently amplify institutional asymmetry and generate new forms of illusory objectivity, especially in regional technical universities. As an alternative to vertical control mechanisms, a horizontal audit approach implemented through peer-based assessment laboratories is presented, supported by pilot validation data. The study contributes to the sociology of educational management by analyzing institutional mechanisms for bridging formal-substantive gaps in quality assurance systems. Conclusion: reliable quality diagnostics is feasible only through collaborative, ethically grounded professional inquiry. Reproducing the formal-substantive divide does not foster substantive quality development; instead, context-sensitive diagnostic practices are required to align federal mandates with local educational realities.
Keywords
- formative assessment
- learning analytics
- professional agency
- institutional decoupling
- horizontal audit
- pedagogical diagnostics
References
- Starichenko, B.E. Digitalization of Education: Illusions and Expectations. Pedagogical Education in Russia. 2020. No. 3. Pp. 49–58. https://doi.org/10.26170/po20-03-05 (In Russian).
- Scriven, M. The methodology of evaluation. In: Tyler, R.W., Gagné, R.M., Scriven, M., eds. Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967. Pp. 39–83.
- Kupavtsev, A.V. Subjective learning as a deep postulate of the modern concept of higher (university) education. Alma Mater (Vestnik Vysshey Shkoly). 2024. No. 2. Pp. 76–84. https://doi.org/10.20339/AM.02-24.076 (In Russian).
- Dyulicheva, Yu.Yu. Application of Learning Analytics in Higher Education: Datasets, Methods and Tools. Higher Education in Russia. 2024. Vol. 33. No. 5. Pp. 86–111. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2024-33-5-86-111 (In Russian).
- Vilkova, K.A., Zakharova, U.S. Learning Analytics in Conventional Education: its Role and Outcomes. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2020. Vol. 24. No. 3. Pp. 59–76. https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2020.03.026 (In Russian).
- Gelman, V.Ya. Influence of the accuracy of academic performance assessment on the effectiveness of education at University. Alma Mater (Vestnik Vysshey Shkoly). 2023. No. 12. Pp. 43–47. https://doi.org/10.20339/AM.12-23.043 (In Russian).
- DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review. 1983. Vol. 48. No. 2. Pp. 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
- Ozerova, G.P. Usage of Learning Management System Web Analytics in Blended Learning Self-Study Evaluation. Higher Education in Russia. 2020. Vol. 29. No. 8–9. Pp. 117–126. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-8-9-117-126 (In Russian).
- Serditova, N.E., Belotserkovsky, A.V. Education, Quality and the Digital Transformation. Higher Education in Russia. 2020. Vol. 29. No. 4. Pp. 9–15. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-4-9-15 (In Russian).
- Valeyeva, G.V. Digital Ethics Principles in Higher Education. Gumanitarnye vedomosti TGPU im. L.N. Tolstogo. 2025. No. 2 (54). Pp. 61–71. https://doi.org/10.22405/2304-4772-2025-2-61-71 (In Russian).
- Nanavyan, A.M., Rybakova, I.S. Problems of quality assessment of higher education and the dynamics of admission and graduation in universities in the regions of Russia. Regional Economy and Management: Electronic Scientific Journal. 2025. No. 2 (82). Art. 8206. URL: https://eee-region.ru/article/8206/ (accessed: 2026-08-17). (In Russian).
- Rubin, Yu.B., Soboleva, E.Yu. Independence of Higher Education Quality Assurance: Criteria, Principles, Realities. Higher Education in Russia. 2021. Vol. 30. No. 3. Pp. 26–42. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-3-26-42 (In Russian).
- Meyer, J.W., Rowan, B. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology. 1977. Vol. 83. No. 2. Pp. 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
- Subbotina, Ia.V. Practical Implementation of the Internal System for Assessment of Education Quality in a Higher Education Institution. Bulletin of Prikamsky Social Institute. 2024. No. 3 (99). Pp. 66–69. EDN: RKHMCT. (In Russian).
- Senashenko, V.S., Zhalnina, N.V. Transformations of the domestic system of higher education: problems of quality. Alma Mater (Vestnik Vysshey Shkoly). 2026. No. 1. Pp. 9–20. https://doi.org/10.20339/AM.01-26.009 (In Russian).