Institute of Education

Research & Expertise to Make a Difference in Education & Beyond

The HSE Institute of Education is a leading interdisciplinary research centre specialising in the study of education systems, policies and practices. With a faculty of over 250 researchers and educators, including internationally renowned scholars, the Institute is a hub for high-impact research, teaching and policy engagement in education.

As part of its Strategy 2030, the Institute is developing into a world-class research school, focusing on understanding educational development and assessing the impact of educational policies. These priorities are reflected in the Institute’s key areas: 

— Artificial Intelligence in Education
— Well-being in Education
— Education and the Labour Market
— Instructional Design
— Comparative Analysis of Education Policy
— Management in Education

Read more

Subscribe to Newsletter

News

What different routes do students take when moving from vocational education to higher education? And how might students’ backgrounds and the institutions they attend shape these pathways? These questions provide a starting point for a new study by Elizaveta Korotkikh, Research Assistant at the Centre for Vocational Education and Skills Development, and Vera Maltseva, Director of the Centre.
September 09
How has research into online learning evolved over the past decade? What insights can researchers offer into how students learn, interact with educational technologies, and manage their own learning? Established in 2011, the International Laboratory of Research and Design in eLearning at the Institute of Education was one of HSE’s first international laboratories. Initially, its researchers focused on large-scale studies of educational inequality. Over time, their work shifted towards exploring the potential of digital technologies to address educational challenges, particularly through experimental research on digital learning.
September 02
Summer is traditionally a busy time for international research visits for colleagues at the International Laboratory of Research and Design in eLearning. This year, the Laboratory’s researchers presented their work at two major European education conferences.
August 26

Publications

  • Book

    Mehrotra S. K., Singh A. P.

    Reconfiguring India’s Qualifications Architecture: TVET Reform from the National Skills Qualification Framework to the National Credit Framework

    Under what institutional conditions do qualifications frameworks become trusted mechanisms for progression, mobility, and labour-market signalling? This paper starts with this question, and then examines the evolution of India’s qualifications architecture through the trajectory of the National Skills Qualification Framework (NSQF) and the emergence of the National Credit Framework (NCrF). More specifically, it addresses the question: why did the NSQF fall short of becoming a trusted qualifications framework, and to what extent can the NCrF overcome these limitations to create an integrated and credible qualifications system? The NSQF, introduced in 2013 as a learningoutcomes-based framework, sought to improve progression, portability, and comparability across education and training. However, its implementation became concentrated on short-duration skilling programmes and fragmented institutional arrangements, resulting in weak assessment credibility, limited labour-market recognition, and constrained learner progression. Drawing on policy documents, implementation evidence, and comparative institutional analysis, the paper argues that these shortcomings were structural rather than technical: qualifications frameworks cannot generate trust or mobility without robust institutions for assessment, certification, quality assurance, and recognition. Against this backdrop, the NCrF (2023), introduced under the National Education Policy 2020, represents a second-generation reform. By integrating school education, higher education, technical and vocational education and training (TVET), and experiential learning within a unified credit architecture, it has become the organising framework of India’s qualifications system. The paper shows that India has effectively moved from a single-framework model centred on the NSQF to a more complex architecture incorporating the NHEQF, NSEQF, and NCrF. It further argues that the alignment of the NSQF and NCrF has transformed India’s qualifications structure from what is commonly described as an eight-level framework into a 13-level progression system through the introduction of intermediary levels between Levels 2 and 7, with important implications for progression, comparability, and learner mobility. Drawing on international experience, the paper concludes that successful qualifications reform depends less on framework design than on trusted certification, visible progression pathways, and employer recognition. India’s next phase of reform must therefore shift from training expansion to assessment-based trust, progression-oriented qualifications, and stronger integration with domestic and international labour markets.

    Vol. 18709. IZA Discussion Paper, 2026.

  • Article

    Yu E. C., Lui A. M., Andrade H. L. et al.

    College Students’ Responses to Automated Feedback on Self-Regulated Learning

    Feedback often promotes student learning. Research has focused on delivering high-quality feedback, yet too little is known about how students respond to feedback, and whether and why it serves its intended purposes. This study is an investigation of how college students responded to feedback on their self-regulated learning (SRL). After taking an online assessment of their SRL skills, newly enrolled students at one online and one traditional university received tailored feedback. They then wrote an essay in which they summarized their results and feedback, identified strategies for improving their SRL, and committed to using them. Content analysis of 97 essays revealed key components of feedback-processing models, including judgment, meaning making, and decision making, as well as variation in students’ uptake of the recommended strategies. Exploratory correlational analysis suggested that lower commitment to strategy use was associated with lower academic success. Implications for college readiness and advising are noted.

    Educational Assessment. 2026. P. 1-26.

  • Book chapter

    Koroleva D., Jogezai N.

    Navigating the Blessing–Curse Paradox: An Ecological Perspective of Cultivating a Culture of Responsible Generative AI Use in Higher Education

    The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative artificial intelligence (GAI), has positioned educational institutions and individual learners at the crossroads of opportunity and risk, highlighting both significant benefits and potential drawbacks. In this context, fostering a culture of responsible and meaningful GAI use has become essential for leveraging its advantages while mitigating associated challenges. This chapter presents the results of two phenomenological qualitative studies that explore this cultural dimension. Study one examined Russian university professors' perspectives on the articulation of individual and organizational GAI standards, while Study two investigated the views of Russian educational managers, aiming to provide a balanced assessment of guidelines at both levels. Employing semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions, the findings illuminate how individual or microsystem, and organizational, or mesosystem interactions and tensions shape the development of guidelines and practices that promote a responsible approach to GAI use in higher education. At the microsystem level, individual faculty seek awareness, autonomy, and ethical engagement with GAI, while at the mesosystem level, organizational structures, guidelines, and policies mediate these efforts, negotiating the balance between individual practices and institutional support and accountability. The results highlight that responsible GAI governance emerges not as a set of static rules but through ongoing interactions between individual agency and organizational frameworks. Future research can incorporate observational data, longitudinal designs, or cross-cultural comparisons to further validate and extend these insights.

    In bk.: GenAIED: Cultural and Pedagogical Catalysts in Higher Education. L.: Routledge, 2027. Ch. 16. P. 247-272.

  • Working paper

    Antipkina I., Ivanov A., Guzhelya D.

    Explicit continuum scale format reduces the ceiling effect in self-report questionnaires comparing to Likert response format

    This study presents a methodology for developing a new questionnaire format called explicit continuum scenario scales, in the example of a client focus questionnaire. Elements of the Rasch Guttman scenario scale methodology were used in its development. In three consequent studies, different aspects of the scale functioning were investigated. In Study 1, on the sample of 100 respondents, it was shown that the explicit continuum scale produces reliable results and helps avoid the ceiling effect shown in the Likert response format version of the client focus questionnaire. In Study 2, the scale was administered in a competition environment, in a sample of 735 people. Despite the positive shift of scores, the instrument shows excellent psychometric characteristics and still resists the ceiling effect. In Study 3, new items were included, and the scale was presented in an interactive format. In the sample of 65,000 university students, it demonstrated the robustness of its psychometrics characteristics including dimensionality. The results of the three studies show that the explicit continuum format has the advantage of the stable dimensionality similar to the expanded format and is promising for measurement in social sciences.

    Basic research program. WP BRP. National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2024

All publications

Contacts

Email us: ioe_hse@hse.ru
  • Underground Stations: Lubyanka, Turgenevskaya, Chistye Prudy, Sretenskiy Bulvar.

Office of IOE Director Evgeniy Terentev:

+7 (495) 623-52-49.

Graduate School of Education:

Svetlana Zhuchkova
szhuchkova@hse.ru

International Affairs Office:

Maksim Nikitin
Tel: + 7 (495) 772-95-90, ext. 22928
menikitin@hse.ru