DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/1813-4718.2605.07
UDC: 
378.016:62
Vayndorf-Sysoeva Marina E.
Доктор педагогических наук, Deputy Director for Science at the Institute of Physics, Technology and Information Systems, Professor at the Department of Theory and Practice of Primary Education, Moscow State Pedagogical University, me.vajndorf-sysoeva@mpgu.su, Moscow
Subocheva Marina L.
Доктор педагогических наук, Associate Professor, Moscow State University of Sport and Tourism, subo4eva.marina@yandex.ru, Moscow
Devochkа Viktoria V.
Deputy Director for Academic Affairs, Secondary School No. 129 of Minsk, vikakonf2025@mail.ru, Minsk

Diagnosing the “Triple Gap” in the Scientific and Methodological Support of Technological Education at a Pedagogical University

Abstract: 
The article examines the acute problem of the insufficient scientific and methodological foundation of technological education in pedagogical universities that have switched to a hybrid learning format. The authors propose and substantiate the concept of the “triple gap,” which describes a set of systemic inconsistencies – between regulatory requirements, educational content, the teaching methods used, and the existing infrastructure. Previously, these obstacles were not analyzed as a single interconnected system. The aim of the study is to identify the main challenges in the scientific and methodological support of the technological training of future teachers in a blended learning environment, as well as to develop reliable tools for identifying and quantitatively assessing these challenges. The methodological basis of the study is based on a mixed strategy: a qualitative review of scientific publications (42 sources), content analysis of 8 curricula from 4 major pedagogical universities, a survey of 35 teachers, and testing of the assessment rubric on a sample of 56 students. The theoretical foundation is based on the “Six Sigma” deviation management concept and the TPACK model, which is used to assess teachers’ digital competencies. The conclusion is that the current state of the scientific and methodological support for technological education is characterized by low adaptability to the conditions of hybrid learning (75% of programs are classified as low level). The developed and validated structural-criterion model for assessing adaptability (7 criteria, Cronbach’s α = 0.79) and the rubric for remote assessment of practical skills (Spearman’s ρ = 0.84) make it possible to diagnose systemic deficits and require management decisions at the level of departments and faculties.
Keywords: 
scientific and methodological support; technological education; triple gap; hybrid learning; diagnostics; adaptability assessment model; TPACK; Six Sigma
References: 

1. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., 2024. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, pp. 101–111. (In Eng.)
2. Naumkin, N. I., Shekshaeva, N. N., Kupryashkin, V. F., Zabrodina, E. V., 2022. Training Future Teachers for Innovative Activities in a Pedagogical and Technological Educational Environment. Education and Science, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 124–164. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
3. Uvarov, A. Yu., 2020. Digital Transformation and Scenarios for the Development of General Education. Moscow: HSE University, 108 p. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
4. Barannikov, K. A., Ananin, D. P., Strikun, N. G., Alkanova, O. N., Bayzarov, A. E.,
2023. Hybrid Learning: Russian and Foreign Practices. Issues in Education, no. 2, pp. 33–69. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2023-2-33-69. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
5. Afanasyeva, O. Yu., Smirnova, M. V., Fedotova, M. G., Radyuk, Yu. G., 2020. Hybrid educational environment in teacher training. Bulletin of the South Ural State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, no. 6 (159), pp. 7–17. DOI: 10.25588/CSPU.2020.159.6.001. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
6. Raikulova, A. S., Sarybaeva, M. K., 2024. Digital Didactics as a Condition for the Formation of Professional Competencies of a Future Teacher. Bulletin of Science and Practice, no. 7, pp. 491–499. DOI: 10.33619/2414-2948/104/58. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
7. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., 2020. Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 555–575. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2. (In Eng.)
8. Trevisan, O., De Rossi, M., 2025. Blending and flipping preservice teacher education: A phenomenological study. Italian Journal of Educational Technology. DOI: 10.17471/2499-4324/1443. (In Eng.)
9. Vayndorf-Sysoeva, M. E., Subocheva, M. L., 2025. The Sigma Effect in the Practice of Organizing University Education. Bulletin of Tomsk State University, no. 518, pp. 160–170. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
10. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., 2024. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, pp. 101–111. (In Eng.)
11. Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., 2009. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 123–149. (In Eng.)
12. Stavermann, K., 2025. Online Teacher Professional Development: A Research Synthesis on Effectiveness and Evaluation. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, vol. 30, pp. 203–240. DOI: 10.1007/s10758-024-09792-9. (In Eng.)