Digital Learning Environment
the Problems of Interaction
Abstract
The article reveals the problems of interaction in the digital learning environment. Based on a survey of teachers, the most frequent problems of switching to remote work in connection with the pandemic were identified, the most difficult of which were the lack of skills and experience in working in a digital learning environment, an increase in labor costs for preparing for classes and checking students' work, the complexity of teaching practice-oriented subjects remotely, lack of the necessary equipment and sufficient Internet speed for students, the detrimental effect on the health of teachers and students of long-term work at the computer. Some of these problems are pedagogical and methodological, related to the organization of the pedagogical process in the digital learning environment.
Purpose of the research: to study the essence of the concept of "digital learning environment", using the deductive method from the general to the particular (individual) to analyze the generic relations between the concepts: environment, learning environment, digital learning environment. Analyze and compare different approaches to defining the concept of "digital learning environment", consider its components.
The research method was theoretical analysis and comparison of approaches to the definition of the concept of "digital learning environment". To solve the research problems, the author introduces his own definition of the concept of "digital learning environment" - a subsystem of the learning environment, a set of specially organized pedagogical conditions for teaching, social learning, and personal development, implemented based on digital technologies. The article also pays great attention to the technical and technological aspects of the digital learning environment. The author concludes about the need to minimize negative changes provoked by digitalization, about the relevance of studying the phenomenon of interaction between subjects of the pedagogical process in the digital learning environment.
References
2. Vladyko A., Rezer T. Digital Educational Environment: Are New Forms of Didactogeny Possible? EDULEARN20 Proceedings on 12th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies. IATED; 2020. p. 7217-7220. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2020.1853
3. Kuráková I., Vallušová A., Marasová J. Measuring the digital divide in the V4 countries using the digital divide index. Journal of Economics and Social Research. 2021; 22(1):77-93. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.24040/eas.2021.22.1.77-93
4. de Vasconcellos S.L., da Silva Freitas, J.C., Junges F.M. Digital Capabilities: Bridging the Gap Between Creativity and Performance. In: Ed. by S. H. Park, M. A. Gonzalez-Perez, D. E. Floriani. The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Sustainability in the Digital Era. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham; 2021. p. 411-427. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42412-1_21
5. Hartenstein R. The digital divide of computing. Proceedings of the 1st conference on Computing frontiers (CF '04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA; 2004. p. 357-362. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/977091.977144
6. Ilyashenko L., Markova S., Mironov A., Vaganova O., Smirnova Z. Educational environment as a development resource for the learning process. Amazonia Investiga. 2019; 8(18):303-312. Available at: https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/amazonia/article/view/312 (accessed 05.07.2021). (In Eng.)
7. Smirnova Z.V., Katkova O.V., Golubeva O.V., Romanovskaya E.V., Andryashina N.S. Innovative Technologies in the Training of University Specialists. In: Ed. by E. G. Popkova, B. S. Sergi. "Smart Technologies" for Society, State and Economy. ISC 2020. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 2021; 155:352-359. Springer, Cham. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59126-7_39
8. Gray J.A., DiLoreto M. The Effects of Student Engagement, Student Satisfaction, and Perceived Learning in Online Learning Environments. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation. 2016; 11(1). Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103654.pdf (accessed 05.07.2021). (In Eng.)
9. Hattie J. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2008. 392 p. (In Eng.)
10. Albers P., et al. Critical Spaces for Critical Times: Global Conversations in Literacy Research as an Open Professional Development and Practices Resource. Global Education Review. 2015; 2(3):46-67. Available at: https://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/article/view/126 (accessed 05.07.2021). (In Eng.)
11. Kop R., Fournier H. New dimensions to selfdirected learning in an open networked learning environment. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning. 2010; 7(2):1-20. Available at: https://6c02e432-3b93-4c90-8218-8b8267d6b37b.filesusr.com/ugd/dfdeaf_b1740fab6ad144a980da1703639aeeb4.pdf (accessed 05.07.2021). (In Eng.)
12. Eremenko Y., Zalata O. Psikhofiziologicheskie podkhody k proektirovaniyu obrazovatel'nogo kontenta v immersivnoy srede [Psyhophysiological Approaches to Instructional Design for Immersive Environments]. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. 2020; (4):207-231. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2020-4-207-231
13. Sufianov V.V. Educational midst as a condition of the development a system of relations "subject-midst". Rossijskij psihologicheskij zhurnal = Russian Psychological Journal. 2007; 4(1):52-54. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2007.1.10
14. Khan A.S., Al-Subeiy M., Ali S.I., Khawaja R. Shifting from classic learning environment to digital learning environment in Arab culture. Hamdan Medical Journal. 2016; 9(2):147-150. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.7707/hmj.453
15. Khapaeva S.S., Anisimova L.N. The experience of organizing blended learning at a university (using pedagogical disciplines as an example). 2019 17th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA). IEEE Press, Starý Smokovec, Slovakia; 2019. p. 366-371. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETA48886.2019.9040058
16. Gruzdeva M.L., Smirnova Z.V., Chaikina Z.V., Golubeva O.V., Cherney O.T. Using Internet Services in Teaching Methodology. In: Ed. by E. Popkova. The Future of the Global Financial System: Downfall or Harmony. ISC 2018. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 2019; 57:1193-1199. Springer, Cham. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00102-5_125
17. Yoo Y., Henfridsson O., Lyytinen K., Lyytinen K. The new organizing logic of digital innovatio an agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research. 2019; 21(4):724-735. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.ll00.0322
18. Vieyra G.Q., Muñoz González L.F. Platforms for Online Learning: A Product Specification. European Journal of Social Science Education and Research. 2020; 7(3):112-120. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.26417/711yni40w
19. Chansanam E., Tuamsuk E., Poonpon K., Ngootip T. Development of Online Learning Platform for Thai University Students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. 2021; 11(8):348-355. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.8.1534
20. Leasure D., Apple D., Beyerlein S., Ellis W., Utschig T. A system for learning by performance (LxP). International Journal of Process Education. 2020; 11(1):101-128. Available at: https://www.ijpe.online/2020/lxp.pdf (accessed 05.07.2021). (In Eng.)
21. Deng R.Q., Benckendorff P., Gannaway D. Progress and new directions for teaching and learning in MOOCs. Computers & Education. 2019; 129:48-60. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.019
22. Wu B. Influence of MOOC learners discussion forum social interactions on online reviews of MOOC. Education and Information Technologies. 2021; 26(3):3483-3496. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10412-z
23. Wischlitzki E., Amler N., Hiller J., Drexler H. Psychosocial Risk Management in the Teaching Profession: A Systematic Review. Safety and Health at Work. 2020; 11(4):385-396. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2020.09.007
24. Metzler Y.A., von Groeling-Müller G., Bellingrath S. Better safe than sorry: methods for risk assessment of psychosocial hazards. Safety Science. 2019; 114:122-139. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.01.003
25. Seomun G., Noh W. Differences in Student Brain Activation from Digital Learning Based on Risk of Digital Media Addiction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(21):11061. (In Eng.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111061
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Publication policy of the journal is based on traditional ethical principles of the Russian scientific periodicals and is built in terms of ethical norms of editors and publishers work stated in Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers, developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In the course of publishing editorial board of the journal is led by international rules for copyright protection, statutory regulations of the Russian Federation as well as international standards of publishing.
Authors publishing articles in this journal agree to the following: They retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication of the work, which is automatically licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY license). Users can use, reuse and build upon the material published in this journal provided that such uses are fully attributed.
