Russian Traditions in the System of Student Government

Students’ Satisfaction with Interactive Forms of Training with Elements of Gamification

“…The quality of personal education [1], the study of the problems of education [2], as well as the study of its quality as a particular aspect [3], students' satisfaction with the quality of training become relevant in the context of socio-economic changes, the financial and economic crisis, globalization of social relations. The most relevant is the effective use of human resources [4].…”

Student representation and participation in institutional decision-making: the perspective of AAU student representatives, Ethiopia

“…Recognizing and providing students with the legal framework to have representation and participation in university governance is a landmark for fostering students’ participatory engagement in the institutional affairs. Gostev and Demchenko (2014) and Meyer (2007) argue that, for student representatives to take part in the formulation and implementation of administrative decisions, it is important that the university has to provide legal base that confer on them the right to monitor college and university administrations.…”

“…Student representatives should be offered information and support on important issues concerning the roles that they are expected to play in institutional decision-making. Providing them with training and interactive opportunities with other university community will enable them not only to actively participate in university affairs but also help them visualize the link between academic learning and their future adult role ( Cruz and Jimenez, 2015 ; Gostev and Demchenko, 2014 ). It is also important for the universities to conduct both need assessment and students’ satisfaction survey and present the findings back to students in order to improve its services and foster the trust between the two.…”

“…Previous studies about student participation in university decision-making focused more on theoretical or conceptual aspect ( Hawes and Trux, 1974 ; Johnson and Deem, 2003 ; Luescher-Mamashela, 2013 ; Zuo and Ratsoy, 1999 ); department or course level decision-making ( Carey, 2013 ; Lizzio and Wilson, 2009 ; or on student government in general ( Gostev and Demchenko, 2014 ; Klemenčič, 2014 ; Wimpenny and Savin-Baden, 2013 ).…”

“…Finally, three forms of relationships between university and representatives of student structures are identified in the literature. First, in ‘authoritarian-paternalistic’ approach, student government is integrated into the institutional structure and given limited discretion for involvement on issues strictly concerning students (such as student services, teaching quality) and only in an advisory rather than co-decision making ( Denton and Zeytinoglu, 1993 ; Gostev and Demchenko, 2014 ; Klemenčič, 2014 ). Second, the ‘democratic collegiate approach, on the other hand, assumes the existence of fairly autonomous student union in higher education institutions usually as legal body and student representatives, as an internal constituency, are granted participation in institutions and often co-decision rights on all decision-making issues ( Apkarian et al., 2014 ; Denton and Zeytinoglu, 1993 ; Klemenčič, 2014 ).…”