METHODOLOGICAL TRAINING OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY ENGINEERS IN THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF UNIVERSITY–INDUSTRY PARTNERSHIP

Nazym Sabitova

doi:10.28925/2663-4023.2026.34.1297

Автор(и)

Nazym Sabitova Yessenov Univesity, Aktau, Kazakhstan https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2531-5653

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.28925/2663-4023.2026.34.1297

Ключові слова:

methodological competence, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), Bachelor’s degree program 6B061, ontological approach, ontology modeling; Challenge-Based Learning (CBL), ); Four-Component Instructional Design (4C/ID, complex learning, university–industry partnership, engineering education, ; Republic of Kazakhstan, digital transformation of education, adaptive expertise, curriculum design

Анотація

In the context of the accelerating digitalization of the economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the transition to a new paradigm of industrial development, the requirements for the education and training of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) professionals have increased substantially. A modern ICT engineer is expected not only to master software development tools but also to possess methodological competence—the ability to independently formulate research problems, select appropriate mathematical methods, justify architectural decisions, and critically evaluate the limitations of the approaches employed.

However, an analysis of the current educational practice within the Bachelor’s degree program 6B061 Information and Communication Technologies at Kazakhstani universities reveals a persistent gap between academic training, which remains largely focused on the transmission of established knowledge and the development of narrowly defined practical skills, and the actual demands of the ICT industry, which requires professionals with well-developed adaptive expertise and the ability to solve complex, ill-structured engineering problems independently.

This study substantiates the necessity of transitioning from a reproductive model of instruction to a competency-based educational approach integrating contemporary pedagogical strategies. Based on a comprehensive review of international research, the author proposes an integrated didactic system for developing the methodological competence of ICT professionals. The proposed system comprises three complementary layers: (1) an ontological layer, which provides a formalized representation of educational content based on competencies and interdisciplinary relationships; (2) a Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) layer, which generates authentic professional contexts through complex interdisciplinary challenges; and (3) a Four-Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) layer, which supports the acquisition of complex cognitive skills through the sequential completion of learning tasks accompanied by adaptive instructional support. An integrative mechanism connecting these layers ensures alignment among educational content, learning context, and instructional processes, while a reflective assessment component enables the evaluation of methodological competence and facilitates the continuous adjustment of individual learning trajectories.

The practical significance of the proposed system lies in its potential application within Kazakhstani universities to modernize educational programs in the Bachelor’s degree program 6B061 Information and Communication Technologies. The paper also outlines directions for future empirical research, including a pedagogical experiment to validate the effectiveness of the proposed model, the development of an ontology-based competency model, and the design of methodological assessment tools for evaluating graduates’ methodological preparedness.

Завантаження

Дані завантаження ще не доступні.

Посилання

Evain, N., Exposito, E., Gueye, M. L., & Arnould, P. (2024). Ontology-driven approach for competency-oriented and student-centered engineering education. In 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1-10). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578793

Aminah, S., Krisnadhi, A. A., & Hidayanto, A. N. (2025). Ontological framework for the analysis of outcome-based curriculum in higher education. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3542881

Piriyapongpipat, P., Goldin, S., & Ditcharoen, N. (2024). An alternative approach to ontology-based curriculum development in higher education. Smart Learning Environments, 11, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00307-8

Barron, J., Feldhausen, R., & Bean, N. H. (2026). Towards a computer science topics ontology. In Proceedings of the 57th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (pp. 101–106). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3770762.3772566

Kovaliuk, T., Kobets, N., Pasichnyk, V., & Kunanets, N. (2020). Ontological approach to the development and accreditation of the educational programs for the training of IT specialists of Ukraine. In 2020 IEEE 15th International Conference on Computer Sciences and Information Technologies (CSIT) (Vol. 2, pp. 281-286). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSIT49958.2020.9321967

Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 45-73. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/8505/

Romero, L., Saucedo, C., Caliusco, M. L., & Gutierrez, M. (2019). An ontology for describing competency-based curriculum at engineering careers. In 2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI) (pp. 1-7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI.2019.8760918

Cassel, L. N., Sloan, R. H., Davies, G., Topi, H., & McGettrick, A. (2007). The computing ontology project: The computing education application. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 519-520). Association for Computing Machinery.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Educational Technology Publications.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504993

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Frèrejean, J. (2024). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0

Karstina, S. G. (2022). Engineering training in the context of digital transformation. In 2022 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1062-1068). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.9766473

Karstina, S. G. (2021). Educators training in the context of socio-economic and technological trends of Kazakhstan. In M. E. Auer & T. Rüütmann (Eds.), Educating Engineers for Future Industrial Revolutions (Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 1329). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68201-9_7

Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.F3

Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1002

Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046

Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem-based learning meta-analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1061

Loyens, S. M. M., Jones, S. H., Mikkers, J., & Van Gog, T. (2015). Problem-based learning as a facilitator of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 38, 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.03.002

Yew, E. H. J., & Goh, K. (2016). Problem-based learning: An overview of its process and impact on learning. Health Professions Education, 2(2), 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2016.01.004

Nichols, M., Cator, K., Torres, M., & Henderson, D. (2016). Challenge based learner user guide. Digital Promise.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC Horizon Report: 2015 higher education edition. The New Media Consortium. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/171478/

Malmqvist, J., Rådberg, K. K., & Lundqvist, U. (2015). Comparative analysis of challenge-based learning experiences. In Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference (pp. 87-94). Chengdu University of Information Technology.

Piironen, A., Ikonen, A., Saurén, K., & Lankinen, P. (2009). Challenge-based learning in engineering education. In Proceedings of the 5th International CDIO Conference. Singapore Polytechnic.

Membrillo-Hernández, J. M., Ramírez-Cadena, M. J., Martínez-Acosta, M., et al. (2019). Challenge-based learning: The importance of world-leading companies as training partners. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 13, 1103-1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00569-4

Gallagher, S., & Savage, T. (2020). Challenge-based learning in higher education: An exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863354