Communicating change in academic environment

4. Would you define HSE academic environment as change-oriented?

5. How would you define HSE environment in terms of policy definition(strong/loose)?

6. How would you define HSE environment in terms of the control of the implementation (strong/loose)?

7. What channels are used to communicate change at the SoFL?

8. Are students notified about the upcoming change in advance? If yes, when, approximately?

9. Do students receive the communication support about change? (Are they able to ask for a clarification?)

The sampling for the interview was determined by the fact that the expert knowledge about the change communication model at the School of Foreign Languages. To collect this information, it was necessary to include the actors from all the levels of change introduction. Therefore, the list of the interviewees included: the department head, deputy head of the School, academic supervisor, and the head of the study office. The first three of the list create the vision and the structure of the change model, whereas, the study office is responsible for the communication of the change and its communication support.

The process of the interview was completed in an online format due to the quarantine measures. The respondents were asked to either answer the questions during a video conference or to complete the questions via e-mail. The possible limitation here could be created by the diversity of the interview format. However, the list of questions was the same for all respondents and, therefore, should not have been affected by the duration of the answer dramatically.

The information provided by the expert interview is analyzed with the use of the content analysis. The interpreted results are utilized to provide a complex overview of the change communication process at the HSE university, as it allows seeing it not only from the perspective of the students but also from the viewpoint of the university's administration. The outcomes were compared to those of the poll and resulted in the complex interpretation of the qualitative part of the research.

2.2 Findings

The participants of the questionnaire were 105 HSE students who are of different gender and different year of study. The representation of respondents turned out as follows.

Considering the year of study, 21 (20%) of the respondents were in their first year of study, and the same amount of people in their third year. 38 (36%) were second-graders and 25 (24%) in their fourth year of study. The visual representation of this data may be seen in chart 1. Such representation creates an almost even

The gender representation was by the vast majority female (82,9%). However, other gender representatives have participated as well. Thirteen of them (12,4%) were male and five (4,8%) -- non-binary.



Chart 1. The distribution of the respondents concerning their current year of study.

All of the questions of the poll except for numbers 3,4, 24 are analyzed in this section. Listed questions were sources for the quantitative part of the research and are examined in section 3.4.

First, it is necessary to provide a description of the findings from each of the three sections of the poll (overall perception of change, academic change, adaptivity to change). Each section's results provide a picture of a current attitude to change from the perspective of the NRU HSE students. The answers of the respondents represent their view on the academic environment they study at. Therefore, according to the rational choice and methodological individualism theories (North, 1993), the synthesis report of the answers may be considered an average response among the students of the SoFL.

In the first meaningful part of the poll, students were asked if they agree with the statements. The choice was fixed and the same for all the questions (5-10) and was either “true”, or “false”, or “not sure”. The answers “true” / “false” may be easily interpreted since they provide concrete information. However, the answers “not sure” create a certain degree of uncertainty. Here, such answers are addressed as ambiguous and are interpreted as “depends on the situation”. The reason for such exegesis is that not all of the questions in this section contain a specific example which could be a reference point for the respondent.

Question 5 was aimed to analyze students' perception of change as an inevitable process. It is interesting that none of the respondents has pointed out that change is unnecessary. The prevailing majority of students (93,3%) have said that change is a necessary process and the rest (6,7%) was unsure of their answer.

Question number 6 was more specific. Its aim was to assess if students are comfortable with the idea of the upcoming change. The distribution of the answers may be seen in chart 2. Interestingly, almost half (47%) of the respondents reported being comfortable thinking about the change in the future tense. On the contrary, 21% of the students marked the idea of the transformation uncomfortable. At the same time, 32% of the respondents were unsure about their feelings towards change. The reason for this could be that the nature and the scale of change were not specified here. It is probable, that for the 32% of the respondents the attitude is shaped by the change itself.

Chart 2. Question 6, answers distribution.

The next question's goal was to find what is the see the most convenient environment for students to discuss the change. Eighty-five (81%) answers marked that the overwhelming majority of the students are quite comfortable with discussing the change with their peers since only 6% of the students find it uncomfortable to discuss the transformation with their peers.

This information highly correlates with the data gathered from the question 12. There, students were asked if they find it comfortable to discuss change with the university administration. The results (see chart 3) depict that a far less number of students (33%) is comfortable to discuss transformation with the study office or the department management. Moreover, the number of students who find it uncomfortable is reasonably higher (32%) as well. Therefore, it could be beneficial for the awareness of students to enhance this peer communication between students and to find a way to augment the number of students who are well aware of the upcoming change so they could spread the correct information through the student community.

Nonetheless, the data presented in question 13 illustrates that the immense majority of the students (67%) agree that it is convenient for them to ask for clarification at the study office. In this light, it may be suggested to build a communication model in a way that includes a special branch in a university structure that is intended to provide the necessary information support for the students.

Question 8 of the poll gathered information about how students perceive their capacity to adapt to change (chart 4). Slightly more than half (54.3%) of the students assume themselves as easily adapting. At the same time, only fifteen of them (14.3%) face some difficulties in the process of adaptation. At the same time, 31.4% of the respondents consider a particular situation to be a determining variable to affect their adaptive probability.



Chart 3. Question 12, answers distribution.

The following question addresses how often the respondents have to deal with change in their everyday life. The answers turned out to be allocated almost even between three offered options. Thirty-nine (37%) respondents have stated that change is a part of their everyday life. Thirty-four (32%) of them have stated that they do not face change often.

Chart 4. Question 8, answers distribution.



However, the data provided from question 11 reflects that nearly eight out of 10 respondents (77%) find the HSE environment to be highly change-oriented, whereas, only one respondent out of ten (9%) marked this statement as untrue. There could be two possible interpretations of these statistics when observed in contrast to questions 8 and 9. The first one suggests that students' capacity to adapt is partially formed by the fickle nature of the university environment. Another one is that the academic environment almost completely affects students' adaptivity. Although, there is no sufficient cause to assume the second interpretation is true. Furthermore, the percentage gap across these three questions is not tremendous. Therefore, the most probable assumption here is that constant change in university affects adaptivity only partially.

In question number ten, respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement: “I find adaptivity to change an important skill”. Roughly nine out of ten (93%) of the students has agreed with the statement, none disagreed. Consequently, the vast majority of students believe that adapting to change is a beneficial skill in the contemporary community. This corresponds with the declaration of values of the HSE university which states: “We aim to continuously improve the quality of our performance, whether it concerns our educational, academic or peer review work” (HSE Statement of values, n.d.). That reinforces the idea that shifting the academic environment contributes to the development of this competency.

The second section of the questionnaire was dedicated to students' experience with change specifically in an academic setting. Some of the findings from this section were provided above (questions 11, 12, and 13) since they were more relevant to be inspected in comparison to the findings of the previous section. Therefore, the presentation of the results continues from question 14.

Its aim was to depict student's take on the contribution that is made by the department management (academic supervisor, department head, study office) to the process of change introduction. The turnout is quite promising. A slight majority (56%) of the students feel the encouragement that comes from the management. At the same time, one out of ten (9%) people marked this statement as false. The rest (34%) was unsure. Therefore, it may be concluded that university staff does support the process of transformation, however, it may not be that transparent from the perspective of a student.

The outcomes of the next entry seem to correspond highly with the previous one. Out of one hundred and five respondents, sixty-one (58.1%) agreed that the university ensures that the change is communicated to the students. Seventeen respondents (16%), however, seem to not have experienced feedback communication requests from the management. Thus, it may be suggested that students should be encouraged to provide some additional feedback on the change.

Question 16 addressed the temporal aspects of change introduction at the university. According to the students' response, 40% of them receive information about upcoming transformation in advance, meanwhile, the rest of them seems to either not be provided with preliminary support (27%) or not sure if they are (33%).

Questions 17-22 address the attitude towards the change of different aspects of the educational setting. The aim of this question set was to see, what aspects of the academic environment are accepted more keenly. The questions were formulated as statements. The response was measured with the use of a Likert-scale, where 1 -- strongly disagree, 5 -- strongly agree. For the sake of clarity, the answers were interpreted in the following way. Answer “1” was marked as an absolutely negative attitude towards the hypothetical situation. At the same time, answer “5” evaluated as an absolutely positive attitude. Therefore “3” in this scale denotes a moderate standpoint.

Chart 5 depicts the information about the students' answers to question 17. Here, students were asked to express to what extent they agree with the statement: “I feel comfortable about the change of professor”. As may be seen from the pie chart, the prevailing majority of students (67%) demonstrates a rather negative (blue, green, yellow) attitude to the change of the teacher. These numbers may seem quite odd for those responsible for change introduction since the scale of such change is considered small. However, these numbers may reflect the psychological attachment students experience with particular professors. Therefore, this type of change should be handled with due precaution and the degree of preliminary support has to be increased.

Chart 5. Question 17, answers distribution.

The next question touched upon the change on a higher level. The allocation of the answers across the scale is represented in chart 6. The statement offered for assessment was: “I feel comfortable about the change in schedule”. Here is visible a slight shift towards a more positive attitude. The reason for it may be dictated by the two factors. Both of these interpretations are based on the participatory observation of being a student at HSE. The first of them is that in HSE's academic environment schedule changes every semester. Another reason could be the fact that not all the students have occupations other than the university, especially in their first and second years of study.



Chart 6. Question 18, answers distribution.

The following question measured respondents' attitudes towards transformation at an even higher level -- the change in the exam format. Surprisingly, 37% of the students express a neutral attitude towards the change of the exam format. A slightly less amount of people (30%) shows that they sense themselves uncomfortable with this type of change. Having an almost even spread of attitude across the chart (56% -- positive or neutral, 44% -- negative) it is quite difficult to come up with some particular insight concerning this level of change. Nevertheless, such a percentage of positive feedback may be considered a rather good outcome.

Question number 20 provides information regarding the change in the syllabus (new courses, grading system, etc.). As it is visible from the chart 8, only 32% of students react negatively to the change at this academic level. Therefore, probably, this vector of change communication does not need adjustments.



Chart 7. Question 19, answers distribution.

The next question regarded the transformation of the study format towards either online or offline. Thirty-nine people (37%) agree with the statement, thirteen people (12%) strongly agree with it, 17% of respondents have reported remaining at a neutral standpoint. The rest (33%) either disagrees or strongly disagrees with the statement. It is possible that these statistics were affected by the recent switch to online due to the outbreak of CoVid-19 since many educational institutions were affected and forced to introduce online education to their students. However, it seems, that more than half (66%) of the students have reacted either positive or neutral to this shift. Given the situation and the urgency of this shift, this number may be considered a good one.



Chart 8. Question 20, answers distribution.

In the last question of this section, students were asked to express their attitude towards the transformation of university ergonomics (classrooms, etc.). The overwhelming majority (73%) of the respondents say that they react to this type of change either absolutely positively or just positively. The source of such reaction is most probably the fact that such change is a long-term process. For that reason, students receive more information at the preliminary stages and during the process of transformation. Moreover, university ergonomics often has a tendency to change only for the best and never for the worse. These reasons explain the positivity of the response.

The last section of the poll was dedicated to the measurement of how students adapt to change and understanding how it is possible to help them throughout this process. The questions attributed to this section were 23-27, all of which were multiple choice based. Question 24 was excluded from the analysis since it did not provide concrete data. It was a subject to the regression analysis presented in section 3.4 of this paper.

In the first question of this section, students were asked about their preferences considering the channels of communication as the means for them to be notified about the change. As it is obviously seen from chart 9, the students of a contemporary university favor online channels of communication. In particular, a considerable amount of the respondents has pointed out that they prefer communication over e-mail (either corporate or group) or messengers, such as vk.com groups or telegram channels. A far less amount of people tends to value information transmitted through “in real life” meetings such as group meetups, seminars or course gatherings. Therefore, it would be the most efficient to communicate university transformation through all the featured channels. That would amplify the number of resources where people could receive important information and reduce the chance that people would miss it.

Chart 9. Featured communication channels.

Question 25 allowed students to evaluate at what stage of “grief circle” (Kьbler-Ross, 1969) they are at the moment. It is a particularly interesting one since it allows measuring the current model of change communication at the SoFL on a practical example. The questionnaire was completed approximately one month after the urgent introduction of the online learning format to the students. The research has shown that seventy-eight students out one hundred and five (74%) find themselves at the stage of acceptance, 9% at the stage of bargaining, while just two students out of ten (15%) have trouble accepting the current situation. This transition assuredly can be called a successful one, given the tight schedule. Again, there may be two likely reasons for this. First, the communication model used to introduce this change was successful. Second, the fact that HSE university has a profound basis for online learning could have also contributed to the quality of transition.

The last question but one in this section was aimed to find out students' horizons of planning. So, 26% of the respondents tend to make plans for the next day, 46% -- for the next week, and 28% -- for the next month. This data is significant because it allows to shape and adjust the current communication strategy. The primary use of this information is as a reference point for preliminary communication support. Since the furthest point of planning is one month, then it would be best to announce change a month in advance (except for urgent and unpredicted change).

In the last question of the poll which was open-typed students were asked to tell how often they would be comfortable to face change in terms of career perspective. The overwhelming majority of the students have answered that they are prepared to face change as often as necessary for the organization to prosper. However, there was a certain amount of the respondents who have noted that they would be comfortable to face change a few times a year and some people were unsure. This data seems to correlate with how adaptive students are. Overall, it may be noted that students are well-prepared to face change in the workplace.

The rest of the section is dedicated to the expert interview analysis and its interpretation and the overall interpretation of the qualitative part of the study.

The major goal of the expert interview was to gain insight into the structure of the change introduction process at the School of Foreign Languages and to see what is done there to help students' transition. The vast majority of the university management (deputy head of the department, head of the study office, and the academic supervisor) took part in the research. The answers to the questions presented in table 2 were generalized and analyzed. Basing on this analysis, the following observations have been made:

1. The academic environment of the HSE is quite flexible and always in motion. The department management is responsible for the change design. The study office communicates change and provides the necessary communication support to the students.

2. It was noted that schedule and teaching staff are the areas of the academic culture which tend to change most often.

3. Usually, the change introduced to students is either strategic or planned. The reason for this is the necessity to comply with the constant transformation of the university. However, due to the pandemic, an unpredictable change has to be dealt with.

4. All of the respondents have described the HSE environment as change oriented.

5. Considering the type of organization (Pielmus, 2016), all of the respondents have described the HSE environment as an enterprise (tight definition, tight control).

6. Change is mostly communicated via electronic channels, such as group, corporate, personal e-mails, and the program website.

7. Students are notified about change but not always in advance, especially when the scale of change is rather small.

8. Students do receive communication support through the study office.

Basing on the results of the poll and the expert interview, the following conclusions may be drawn about the HSE's student community's attitude towards institutional change.

First, the change introduction as a process here may be called successful overall. This may be said since the response to change which was measured by the questionnaire is quite positive. Moreover, the high concentration of the online resources used for both educational and communicational purposes has contributed to the greater flexibility of the university.

Second, university management obviously has an elaborate strategy for transformational support. It is reflected in the fact that university policies are documented and are fervently controlled.

Third, the students by the vast majority are easily adaptable to change. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of them believe that is will be beneficial for their future career.

Fourth, the channels of communication used by the management seem to be appropriate and even preferable by the students of the School. However, it turns out that students are much more comfortable discussing the change with their peers, rather than with the administration. That said, it is suggested that the quantity of the local leaders of change (the people who are assuredly well-aware about the upcoming change, e.g. group heads) is to be augmented.

Fifth, the study office may be considered an eligible and effective form of communicational support. Sixth, the way how change is introduced at the levels of the syllabus, exam format, ergonomics, and educational format need no adjustments. However, the degree of support of students who undergo emotion-driven change (for example due to the change of the professor) has to be increased.

Finally, students by a major account have a rather close horizon of planning (up to one month). Thus, it is preferable that the communication support of change would start one month before the actual introduction.

The aim of the qualitative part of this study was to analyze the data presented in the poll which depicts students' level of adaptivity to change, GPA (average mark), and the average attendance of classes. The numbers from the questionnaire were put to the test with the use of the multiple linear regression analysis in MS Excel.

The necessity of this approach was suggested by the preliminary hypothesis that the quality of change introduction affects the academic performance of the students. This hypothesis has derived from the assumption that the university plays a role in the development of undergraduates' ability to transition quickly. In its turn, this idea has developed from the qualitative part of this research. In particular, from the findings of questions 8-10 of the poll. Therefore, the design of this part was sequential-confirmatory. It allowed seeing if this hypothetical correlation does exist or it has no profound basis and, therefore should be declined.

The method for data collection was the same questionnaire that was used in the qualitative part of this study. To be precise, the variables were extracted from the questions 3,4, and 24 of the poll.

So, question 24 contained information about how the respondent perceives their level of adaptivity. The entry data was in the Likert scale (1-5) and therefore was encrypted. Thus, “1” was considered to be “minimum” or “zero pliability” and “5” was addressed as “maximum” or “high pliability”. The encrypted figures were typed into the table and analyzed as an independent variable (x1).

The other independent variable (x2) that was utilized to enhance the precision of the model was based on the data from question 3. Its record illustrates how respondents evaluate the frequency with which they tend to attend university in general. The call for the additional variable was prescribed by the fact that it may have a significant effect on both the level of awareness and the GPA of a student. Thus, if the significance of the control variance is high, the null hypothesis should be accepted as true. The null hypothesis of the regression analysis in the case of this study should be as follows: “there is is no statistically significant correlation between the awareness of the upcoming change and the GPA of the student, therefore, any difference should be due to sampling or experimental error”. The respondents have evaluated their overall attendance in the percentage of classes they usually attend. The variants they had to choose from were “0-25%”, “25-50”, “50-75%”, “75-100%”. Since, again, the software used for the analysis of the results can read only the rational values, the percentage had to be transformed as well. It was decided that the best way to do that is to mark attendance based on a 4-point scale, where “1” was “low attendance” and 4 was “high attendance”.

Question 4 of the questionnaire arrays information about the GPA of each of the respondents. These figures were analyzed as the dependent variables (y). It is crucial to denote that the grading system at HSE university is based on a 10-point scale, unlike the overwhelming majority of educational institutions in Russia, where grading is based on a 5-point scale. That allows a more precise analysis because of a more diverse variance of the answer. The average grade of the students who have participated in the research varies from 5.0 to 9.75.

Basing on the figures from these three questions, the data considering each of 105 participants of the survey was carefully retyped into the MS Excel table and the regression analysis with automatic formulas was carried out.

However, there are several probable limitations to the usability of the results of this analysis. First, the precision of the model could be affected slightly, since some of the respondents have typed in an approximate value of their GPA (e.g. 7-8, 8-9). For the sake of the analysis, the approximate values were brought to the average of the values suggested by the respondent, so the answer “7-9” was typed into the model as an “8” and “7-8” was considered as a “7.5”. The reason for this is that the program that was used for calculations is only able to analyze rational figures. The second restraint that should be taken into consideration is the difference in the grading system.

Particularly, if the same research was carried out in an environment that bases its assessment on a 5-point scale, it is quite probable that the results would be dramatically different. Next, there is a limitation that is created by the small scale of the research. It is quite probable, that the results would be different with a wider sample. Therefore, if this research is to be reproduced to test the hypothesis in a bigger scale, the cutoff point's value should be smaller.

First, it is vital to understand if the regression is reliable. This is expressed by the coefficient of significance (P-value). For the whole model, this value is represented by the “F significance”. This is a criterion that shows if it is necessary to accept the null hypothesis. The summary of the regression analysis may be viewed in table 3.



Table 3. Summary output.

Multiple R	0,247438
R square	0,0612255
F significance	0,0424681
Observations	105

Overall, there are two basic approaches to understanding the model's significance. Both of them are based on the notion of “cutoff” which basically allows us to compare the received P-value to the accepted meaning of cutoff. In contemporary research, it is quite common to accept the null hypothesis if the P-value is higher than 0,01.

However, due to the rather small sampling of this research, it would be optimal to stick to an older paradigm and to choose the cutoff point that equals 0,05 to interpret the output. The interpretation of the P-value that was used for this research is presented in table 4.

Table 4. The interpretation of the significance coefficient.

Value of the F significance.	Interpretation.
>0,05	Insignificant model
<0,05	Good significance

Even though the F significance of the model equals 0,0424681 (table 3), the overall model may be called successful. Therefore, there is no reason to accept the null hypothesis.

The next step is to find out what percentage of the entry data is explained by the hypothesis. This analysis is based on the value of the coefficient of determination (R square). This number may vary from 0 to 1 and therefore, is usually presented in percentage. For this regression, this number equals 0,0612255. That means that the differences in one variable can be explained by the differences in another variable by 6%. Thus, it is not a strong correlation, again, due to the small scale of the research and the overall significance of the model it is acceptable.

The final step of the general analysis is to determine how strong the linear relationship is. This codependence may be visible from the value of the correlation coefficient (Multiple R). As well as the coefficient of determination, multiple R value is also represented in percentage. As may be seen from table 5, for this regression, this number is roughly 23%. That means, that the hypothesis explains twenty-three percent of the sampling representation.

Next, it is necessary to determine the significance of each predictor separately. As may be seen from table 5, the P-value for awareness equals 0,0121693. That means, that there is no reason to accept the null hypothesis and the variable may be considered significant. At the same time, it is clearly visible that the P-value for “Attendance” antecedent equals 0,7115402. That means that for this variable the null hypothesis has to be accepted.

Table 5. The results of the regression analysis.

	Coefficients	P-value
Awareness (x1)	0,2759891	0,0121693
Attendance (x2)	-0,0514004	0,7115402
Intercept	7,448149	5,85E-23

Therefore, it is needless to say that attendance has no significant correlation with the GPA of the students. Yet, the awareness about the upcoming change indeed seems to have a significant effect on the academic performance of the undergraduates.

The intercept value illustrates the value of the average GPA of the student if their awareness level is 0. According to table 5, the sampling of the research has an average GPA=7,44 when having minimum awareness about the upcoming change. The Coefficient of the x1 shows how the average GPA rises with each growth of awareness by 1 point. Here this coefficient equals 0,2759891. That means that with the augmentation of students' awareness by 1 point, GPA increases by 0,28. The calculations of this for attendance is unnecessary since the model turned out to be insignificant.

The linear regression formula's calculation is also based on the coefficients presented in table 5. The overall formula has the form of:

“y=ax+b”, where a -- x1(awareness) coefficient, b -- intercept coefficient.

Therefore, in this case, the linear formula for this regression is described the following way:

y=0,2759x +7,488.

Summing up all the above, this model does not seem to explain a lot of entry information. However, the overall significance of the model and the specific significance of the correlation between the level of awareness and GPA seems promising. Thus, it may be said that the correlation is existent but probably not as clearly visible. The most probable reason for this is the inaccuracy of the model due to the small scale of the research which resulted in the small sample. Overall, the research has shown that the average GPA of the respondents seemed to augment by 0,28 as the degree of awareness has increased by one point.



3. Discussion

This study has shown the general patterns in the perception of the academic change from the point of view of both students, and administration. The combined information creates a concrete picture of the current practices of change communication on the example of HSE University and its success. All of the three research questions formulated for this research were answered.

As it is clearly visible from the outcomes of the qualitative part of the research, the process of transformation at the School of Foreign Languages is carried out effectively overall. This is evidenced by the results of the questionnaire sampling the undergraduate students of the department and the expert interview of the School management.

The model that is used to introduce change here varies for the different types of change. Still, some features may be denoted. At HSE change is a constant and circular process, as one transformation is carried out, another has begun. It is well-structured and consistent in terms of the resources. Each branch of management has a specific role in this process. Thus, the board is indebted to develop the vector of development, whereas the study offices communicate that vision onto the students and provide support in the process.

The reasons for the smooth transition of the students seems to be justified by the three primary factors. First, the academic environment seems to be in constant transformation. This helps to plan the change in advance which is very beneficial for the stage of communication support. Second, some facets of the educational process are handled with the use of online resources (e.g. LMS, ELK, etc.). The analysis of the survey depicts that students to quickly transition to the online format. Third, a fierce control of implementation and the existence of concrete regulation documents. It leaves no room for any flaws in transformation management.

The study has shown that the HSE university as a whole can be described as an enterprise organization (Pielmus, 2016). That means that the policy statements and their compliance are embedded in the corporate culture of the university. Presumably, such a practice adds to both the overall sustainability and flexibility of the organizational structure since there are clear codes of conduct that control every aspect of the university. These codes regulate the process of change introduction as well.

That's being said, some specific recommendations could be carried out to ameliorate the process even further. According to the questionnaire, students tend to react less positively to the change in particular aspects of the academic environment to which they feel emotionally bound. In particular, the change of the professor is the least positively accepted fragment in the survey. Contemporary students show a distinct fondness of discussing the change with their peers over doing so with the administration. Therefore, it would be preferable that the local leaders (group heads, etc.) are encouraged to pass on the information onto their co-students.

The outcomes of the regression analysis have confirmed that there is an existent correlation between the students' GPA and their awareness about the upcoming change. Specifically, with the increase of awareness by 1 point the GPA tends to elevate by 0,28 grade. Nevertheless, the presented model is not perfect and calls for further improvement and research. The rationale for this is the rather small sampling on which the analysis was based.

Therefore, the way how the institutional change is introduced has a direct effect on the degree of awareness among students and as a result, on the academic performance of the student. Although this particular study was aiming for the academic environment of the HSE University, its outcomes could be beneficial for any higher education institution.



Conclusion

The change, being a compound phenomenon includes a range of processes and is quite usually and easily confused with them. First of them is the notion of transition. It is deeply interconnected with the mental perception and psychological state of the people. Second is transformation. It is a complex operation that includes both the change and transition. Change itself is a process that affects things such as practices, structures, communication, and others.

The trends of the modern world create the necessity for change. This is true not only for businesses but for educational institutions as well. The first of these trends is obviously omnipresent globalization. As the greater interconnectedness and collaboration between the universities develops, the minimum bar of organizational structure that may be called efficient becomes higher. It creates both the incredible range of possibilities and the obvious obstacles as well. Firstly, the best practices exchange in the modern world is as widely represented as it ever was. Secondly, as the technologies progress, more and more online resources become introduced to make education productive. It leads to the greater poll of competences that a university can offer to its students. Lastly, the overall competition in a global market becomes fierce. Most probably, it is the outcome of the first two trends. Nevertheless, it is quite clear, that change is necessary and moreover, inevitable. As a result, those universities that have an elaborate strategy for development and use specific techniques to introduce change tend to be more successful.

However, the successful transformation is not easily accomplished. It turns out that there are various factors that affect its outcome including the particular type of educational institution and the sort of change. Moreover, this process could be easily failed by the lack of top management support, failure to gain user commitment, absence of the process for controlling the change, and failure to manage end-user expectations (Levasseur, 2010).

Such a feebleness creates a basis for a whole field of scientific study that concentrates on theorizing about the ways how transformation could be implemented and the creation of the specific models to do so.

Among that, it is crucial to understand the criteria to assess its success. The scholars of this topic denote that it has to be opinion-based. In terms of the education environment, the party that change is implemented onto is the student community. Thus, the attitude of the undergraduates towards change is a variable that reflects how efficient the transition is.

This paper reflects that the overall model of change introduction at the HSE University is quite successful. Yet, some aspects of it request improvement. That creates a basis for the recommendations that may be suggested for the educational institutions that are as well may be described as an enterprise (tight policy definition, tight control of implementation). It is required that the study of the student community is first conducted to measure the current attitude of the students towards change and it is monitored periodically.

This research appendixes the previous studies of the academic environment and the process of change communication in the educational setting. Earlier papers on this topic by their majority took particular interest in the descriptive systematization of various aspects of the academic culture and university structures. These features were not excluded from the scope of this research, thus, it aimed to study the contemporary student community. On the contrary, the previous systematization has formed the basis of this work creating a profound range of instruments and variables which were used to analyze and interpret the gathered data.

The research may be applied to improve the academic environment of the university and augment positive feedback to change across its students. As the analysis has shown, there is a direct and material correlation between a student's awareness of change and their GPA. Moreover, the results of the analysis reflect the most preferable channels of communication and communicational support from the perspective of the students. Moreover, it is crucial to try promoting horizontal communication of change between students. It could be done with the help of the local leaders (group heads, student councils, etc.).

However, this research has its obvious limitations, which proposes further research on its topic. The limitations are dictated by the small scale of the research. Because of that, the application of the research results is true for similar organizations. Besides, the outcomes of the research could be different, if the sample was broader. The replication of this research and its quantitative part, in particular, seems promising on a bigger scale, since it will help eliminate the obvious flows in the presented model. Overall, changing the scale of the research will presumably yield deeper insight into the research problematics and improve its precision. academic education learning

Hence, all the research questions proposed in the introduction have been answered, the aims and the objectives are achieved with the practical part of the research which included both the qualitative and quantitative approaches to the problem.

The change in the academic environment is a promising and up-and-coming field of study. It is severely shaped by global economic, political, and social tendencies. That pushes modern organizations to improve and, as a result, change. Thus, the tools for change introduction have to become exceedingly prioritized by the contemporary universities, because carefully matched apparatus allows avoiding the flows in managing students' transition. The relevance of the research in this field dictates that more research should be conducted to deepen the knowledge of that topic.



References

1. Academic. (n.d.). In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/academic.

2. Akinbode, A. I. & Al Shuhumi, S. R. A. (2018). Change Management Process and Leadership Styles. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 609-618.

3. Anyieni, G. A., Gidion, O. C., Mayianda, R., Damaris K. A. (2016). Organisational Change: A Critical Review of the Literature, International Journal of Professional Management, Volume 11, Issue 2.

4. Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J.-L., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the Future: Revisiting Kotter's 1996 Change Model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764-782.

5. Environment. (n.d.). In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/environment?q=Environment.

6. Berman, K. (2017). Methodologies and Methods of Change. In Finding Voice: A Visual Arts Approach to Engaging Social Change (pp. 9-20). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

7. Bridges, W. and Mitchell, S. (2000). Leading transition: a new model for change, Leader to Leader, 16(3), pp. 30-36.

8. Bullock, R J, & Batten, D, (1985) `It's Just a Phase We're Going Through: Review and Synthesis of OD Phase Analysis', Group and Organisation Studies, 10, December, pp. 383-412

9. Burnes, B. (1996). No Such Thing as... a "One Best Way" To Manage Organizational Change. Management Decision, 34.10, 11-18.

10. Change. (n.d.). In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/change.

11. Conrad, C. F. (1978). A Grounded Theory of Academic Change. Sociology of Education, 51, pp. 101-112.

12. Culture. (n.d.). In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/culture.

13. Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin's legacy for change management. human relations, Vol. 69(1) 33-60. SAGE Publications.

14. Daugrid, A., & Spencer, D. (1996). Physician reactions to the health care revolution: A grief model approach. Archives of family medicine, 9(5), pp. 497-500.

15. Donald G. Chandler and John W. Chandler's (2013) On Effective Leadership: Across Domains, Cultures, and Eras; New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

16. Dopson, S., & McNay, I. (1996). Organizational culture. In Warner, D., & Palfreyman, D. (Eds.), Higher Education Management. Bristol: SRHE and Open University Press.

17. Ermilova A.V., Mashtakova A.Y. (2016) Academic Culture of Russian University. Bulletin of VolSU. Series 9. Iss. 14.

18. Fig. 1. Dr. Kьbler-Ross's change curve. Retrieved from: https://www.cleverism.com/understanding-kubler-ross-change-curve/.

19. Fig. 2. Bill Quirke's escalator. Retrieved from: https://journals.rcni.com/nursing-management/communication-and-managerial-effectiveness-nm2003.02.9.9.30.c2143.

20. Freiling, J., & Fichtner, H. (2010). Organizational Culture as the Glue between People and Organization: A Competence-based View on Learning and Competence Building. Zeitschrift Fьr Personalforschung / German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 24(2), 152-172.

21. Gabele, E., Dunbar, R., & Bresser, R. (1981). The Management of Change. International Studies of Management & Organization, 11(1), 56-74.

22. Globalization. (n.d.). In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/globalization.

23. Gottlieb, R. (1981). The Contemporary Critical Theory of Jьrgen Habermas. Ethics, 91(2), 280-295.

24. Guzmбn, W. Z., M. I. Gely, K. Crespo, J. R. Matos, N. Sбnchez, and L. M. Guerrero. 2011. “Transformation of a Dental School's Clinical Assessment System Through Kotter's Eight-Step Change Process.” Journal of Dental Education 75 (4): 485-495.

25. Harigopal K. (2006). Management of Organizational Change: Leveraging Transformation. London; SAGE Publications.

26. Hartnett, R., & Centra, J. (1974). Faculty Views of the Academic Environment: Situational vs. Institutional Perspectives. Sociology of Education, 47(1), 159-169.

27. HSE Statement of Values. (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://www.hse.ru/en/info/statement/.

28. Kang, S.P., Chen, Y., Svihla, V.,Gallup, A., Ferris, K., Datye A.K. (2020). Guiding change in higher education: an emergent, iterative application of Kotter's change model, Studies in Higher Education.

29. Kearney, K. S., Hyle, A. E. (2003). The Grief Cycle and Educational Change: The Kubler-Ross Contribution. Planning and Changing, Vol. 34, no. 1&2, pp. 32-57.

30. Kotter, John P. (1996) Leading Change: An Action Plan from the World's Foremost Expert on Business Leadership // Harvard Business Press

31. Kuznetsova T. F. (2019). Digitalization and Digital Culture. Gorizonty gumanitarnogo znania. No 2. pp. 96-102. Retrieved from: http://journals.mosgu.ru/ggz/article/view/1007.

32. Kьbler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. New York: Harper & Row

33. Lashunda, M, (2010), Impact of Change Management Consideration in the Implementation of ERP System, UNDB.

34. Levasseur, R. (2010). People Skills: Ensuring Project Success--A Change Management Perspective. Interfaces, 40(2), 159-162.

35. Lewin, K, (1951), Force Field Analysis, in Francis, D, & Woodcock, M, (1982), "Fifty Activities for Self-Development", Aldershot: GOWER.

36. Markulik, S., Solc, M., Sutoova, A. (2014). Quality In Contemporary University Environment. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 143, 703 - 707. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

37. Meyer, M., Bushney, M., Ukpere W. I. (2011). The impact of globalisation on higher education: Achieving a balance between local and global needs and realities - African Journal of Business Management Vol. 5(15), pp. 6569-6578. Retrieved April 21, 2020, from https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJBM/article-abstract/E488B3E14863.

38. Mezentseva L. (2020) An experimental study demonstrates the effectiveness of online learning. Retrieved from: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-04/nruh-aes040720.php.

39. Moodie G. (2007). Changing higher education. Minerva, 45: 73-84.

40. Nick C. (2013). Braced for Turbulence: Understanding and Managing Resistance to Change in the Higher Education Sector, Management, 3(5), pp. 243-251.

41. North, D. (1993). What Do We Mean by Rationality? Public Choice, 77(1), 159-162.

42. Oganyan A.A., Khloptsov D.M. (2018). Transformaciya global'noj akademicheskoj sredy: mekhanizmy i social'no-ehkonomicheskie posledstviya [Transformation of the academic environment: global aspect]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomika - Tomsk State University Journal of Economics, no 42, рр. 22-40.

43. Opoku K. (2016) Internal Communication as a Management Tool. Successfully steering virtual teams through organizational change. In: Nowak R., Roither M. (eds) Interne Organisationskommunikation. Springer VS, Wiesbaden

44. Pielmus, K. (2016). An Overview of Academic Culture. A Study on Law Enforcement Education. Revista Academiei Forюelor Terestre Nr. 3 (83), Bucharest, Romania.

45. Quirke, Bill (2008): Making the Conections, in: Using Internal Communication to turn strategy into action, 2nd ed., Aldershot: Gower Publishing.

46. Riposo, J., Weichenberg, G., Duran, C., Fox, B., Shelton, W., & Thorsen, A. (2013). Organizational Change Management. In Improving Air Force Enterprise Resource Planning-Enabled Business Transformation (pp. 23-28). RAND Corporation.

47. Singh N. and Papa R. (2010). The Impact Of Globalization in Higher Education, Int. J. Educ. Leadersh. Prep., vol. 5, no. 2.

48. Taylor, S. P. (2018). Organisational Behaviour, Leadership and Change.International Journal of Housing and Human Settlement Planning, Vol. 4: Issue 1, pp. 1-16.

...