Modeling master’s students’ competence development based on the variational principle

 
Audio is AI-generated
0

Abstract

Context and relevance. Despite the widespread adoption of the competency-based approach in higher education, a gap remains between the understanding of competence as a dynamic process and the tools available for its design and management. Dominant practices of learning outcomes assessment rely on static “snapshots,” which limits the possibilities for forecasting and purposeful development of competence. In this context, there is a growing need for formal modeling of competence development trajectories based on principles of optimality derived from the mathematical theories of the calculus of variations and optimal control. Objective. To develop and empirically test a model of master’s students’ competence development based on the variational principle, which conceptualizes the educational process as a problem of optimal control over the trajectory of key competence formation. Methods and materials.The study involved 24 first-year master’s students enrolled in the program School Leadership and Educational Policy (83% women). Competence was assessed using seven indicators reflecting the ability to establish causal relationships between norms and practices (scale 0–3; total score range 0–21). Data were collected across three measurement points during the completion of an analytical learning task. The theoretical model was constructed using tools of the calculus of variations (Euler–Lagrange equations, transversality conditions), and the empirical validation was conducted through multilevel regression analysis with random effects models. Results. The analytical solution of the extremal problem demonstrated that the optimal trajectory of competence development is linear in nature and corresponds to the principle of minimizing the “length” of the educational path, interpreted as the minimization of cognitive and motivational overload. Empirical data confirmed a predominantly linear pattern of competence growth for most students. The multilevel regression model revealed a statistically significant increase in performance across measurement points, as well as a negative association between initial competence level and growth rate, indicating a compensatory pattern of development. The high value of the conditional coefficient of determination highlights the crucial role of individual trajectories in competence formation. Conclusions. The findings suggest that competence development should be conceptualized as a non-ergodic process, which requires a shift from the analysis of interindividual differences to the modeling of intraindividual dynamics. The variational approach provides a foundation for the normative design of educational trajectories and enables the integration of mathematical models of optimality into educational analytics and learning support systems. The proposed model is recommended as a tool for forecasting and planning pedagogical interventions aimed at fostering sustainable and resource-efficient development of students’ key competencies.

General Information

Keywords: competence, master’s student, variational principle, functional, extremal trajectory

Journal rubric: Method of Teaching

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/mda.2026160110

Received 15.01.2026

Revised 23.01.2026

Accepted

Published

For citation: Kolachev, N.I., Adamsky, A.I., Drozdov, D.S., Zaslavskiy, A.A., Podbolotova, M.I., Ustyugova, O.B. (2026). Modeling master’s students’ competence development based on the variational principle. Modelling and Data Analysis, 16(1), 157–176. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/mda.2026160110

© Kolachev N.I., Adamsky A.I., Drozdov D.S., Zaslavskiy A.A., Podbolotova M.I., Ustyugova O.B., 2026

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

References

  1. Выготский, Л.С. (2005). Психология развития человека. М.: Смысл; Эксмо. 1136 с.
    Vygotsky, L.S. (2005). Psychology of human development. Moscow: Smysl Publ.; Eksmo. (In Russ.).
  2. Фрумин, И.Д., Добрякова, М.С., Баранников, К.А., Реморенко, И.М. (2018). Универсальные компетентности и новая грамотность: чему учить сегодня для успеха завтра. Предварительные выводы международного доклада о тенденциях трансформации школьного образования. Москва: НИУ ВШЭ.
    Frumin, I.D., Dobryakova, M.S., Barannikov, K.A., Remorenko, I.M. (2018). Universal competencies and new literacy: What to teach today for success tomorrow. Preliminary findings of an international report on trends in school education transformation. Moscow: HSE University. (In Russ.).
  3. De Baker, R.S.J., & Inventado, P.S. (2014). Chapter X: Educational data mining and learning analytics. Comput. Sci, 7, 1–16.
  4. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
  5. Fisher, A.J. (2015). Toward a dynamic model of psychological assessment: Implications for personalized intervention. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(4), 362–373.
  6. Fisher, A.J., Medaglia, J.D., & Jeronimus, B.F. (2018). Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(27), E6106–E6115.
  7. Hamaker, E.L. (2012). Why researchers should think “within-person”: A paradigmatic rationale. In: M.R. Mehl & T.S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 43–61). New York: The Guilford Press.
  8. Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315650982
  9. Molenaar, P.C. (2008). On the implications of the classical ergodic theorems: Analysis of developmental processes has to focus on intra‐individual variation. Developmental Psychobiology, 50(1), 60–69.
  10. Øksendal, B. (2003). Stochastic differential equations. In: Stochastic differential equations: An introduction with applications (pp. 38–50). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
  11. Ram, N., & Gerstorf, D. (2009). Time-structured and net intraindividual variability: Tools for examining the development of dynamic characteristics and processes. Psychology and Aging, 24(4), 778.
  12. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  13. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J.J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292.
  15. Van Der Maas, H.L., Kan, K.J., Marsman, M., & Stevenson, C.E. (2017). Network models for cognitive development and intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 5(2), 16.

Information About the Authors

Nikita I. Kolachev, Candidate of Science (Psychology), Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3214-6675, e-mail: nkolachev@hse.ru

Aleksandr I. Adamsky, Candidate of Science (Education), Associate Professor, Directorate of Educational Programmes, Moscow City Pedagogical University, Scientific Director, Institute for Problems of Educational Policy “Evrika”, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5395-9464

Danila S. Drozdov, PhD Student, Research Assistant, Department of Psychology, HSE University, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2940-813X, e-mail: Drozdov.D.S@hse.ru

Aleksey A. Zaslavskiy, Candidate of Science (Education), Associate Professor, Directorate of Educational Programmes, Moscow City Pedagogical University, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4994-8971, e-mail: zaslavskijjaa@mgpu.ru

Marina I. Podbolotova, Candidate of Science (Education), Associate Professor, Directorate of Educational Programmes, Moscow City Pedagogical University, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4208-1385, e-mail: podbolotovami@mgpu.ru

Olga B. Ustyugova, Senior Lecturer, Directorate of Educational Programmes, Moscow City Pedagogical University, Deputy Director of the Eureka Institute for Educational Policy Problems, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0886-2185, e-mail: ustyugovaob@mgpu.ru

Contribution of the authors

Nikita I. Kolachev — application of mathematical and statistical methods for data analysis; conduct of the study; data collection and analysis; visualization of the research results; manuscript annotation, writing, and preparation.

Alexander I. Adamsky — study design; supervision of the research process.

Danila S. Drozdov — study design; data collection; supervision of the research process.

Alexey A. Zaslavskiy — study design; data collection; supervision of the research process.

Marina I. Podbolotova — study design; data collection; supervision of the research process.

Olga B. Ustyugova — study design; data collection; supervision of the research process.

All authors participated in the discussion of the results and approved the final text of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Metrics

 Web Views

Whole time: 0
Previous month: 0
Current month: 0

 PDF Downloads

Whole time: 0
Previous month: 0
Current month: 0

 Total

Whole time: 0
Previous month: 0
Current month: 0