COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AGILE FRAMEWORKS IN THE TRAINING OF FUTURE IT SPECIALISTS

Abstract

The article provides an overview and comparative analysis of Agile frameworks and related approaches applicable to training future IT specialists, aiming to substantiate their didactic potential for course design. The study’s relevance is driven by increasing demand for graduates who can operate under requirement uncertainty, short delivery cycles, and team collaboration, which highlights the need for effective models of project-based learning. The theoretical and methodological basis includes analysis and synthesis of scholarly sources, comparative analysis, and systematization, enabling the identification of criteria for comparing frameworks in an educational context and outlining their didactic profiles. A criteria-based comparison framework is proposed, covering: the logic of organizing learning activities (iterative, flow-based, scaled), the degree of role and interaction formalization, planning and progressvisualization tools, feedback and reflection mechanisms, alignment with assessment (product/process/ individual contribution), and typical conditions of applicability (learning format, module duration, project complexity, and student autonomy). The study shows that Scrum, eduScrum, Kanban, and Scrumban are most frequently described in educational practice as core organizational frameworks for team-based project learning; XP and Lean are more appropriately treated as reinforcing engineering or process practices, while scaling frameworks (LeSS, Nexus, SAFe) are considered a resource for multi-team learning projects and for modeling dependency coordination. The uneven educational representation of certain frameworks (Crystal, FDD, DSDM, AUP, DAD) is noted, and their use is justified mainly as sources of individual practices or as process-organization guidelines, as well as indicators of gaps in contemporary empirical research. It is concluded that the optimal strategy for IT education is not the literal reproduction of frameworks, but a methodologically aligned configuration of Agile practices according to course goals, the learning format, and expected outcomes, supported by transparent assessment, regular reflection, and robust feedback mechanisms.