University Instructors' Perceptions of Higher Education: Psychosemantic Approach

The digitalization processes in higher education are a stable global trend. Digital competencies are very relevant for specialists in all subject areas; this is a demand of the modern digital economy and labor market. The digitalization of education is a complex multidimensional process that is estimated differently by university instructors. The purpose of the empirical study: to reveal the peculiarities of the ideas about higher education of university instructors who do not use and do use e-learning courses in their professional activities. The research is a pilot study, the findings are preliminary and will be tested on larger samples. Group semantic spaces for both categories of respondents were constructed by the method of semantic differential using factor analysis. (1) In both categories, there is a factor that reflects the most attractive qualities of higher education, but the set of these qualities is different. Both categories of respondents are characterized by a factor reflecting the problems and shortcomings of higher education, but they put different meanings into it. (2) For instructors who do not use e-courses, most socially accessible and technically equipped approaches, such as distance learning, e-courses, massive open online courses, are subjectively unattractive. Blended learning is more in line with their ideas about quality of higher education, but the most subjectively attractive are the project method and traditional face-to-face learning. (3) Instructors using e-courses are characterized by the recognition of the problematic nature of distance learning, e-courses, massive open online courses, but at the same time of their social accessibility, combined with convenience for instructor and subjective attractiveness. Blended learning is less problematic, socially inaccessible, but subjectively also very attractive. The project method is a promising approach that has few drawbacks, but is also socially inaccessible and less convenient for the instructor. (4) For instructors who do not use e-courses, traditional face-to-face education is the least technically equipped, having problems and shortcomings, but subjectively very attractive. For instructors using e-courses, this approach, on the contrary, has few problems, is convenient for the instructors and is socially accessible, but subjectively it does not arouse interest and does not correspond to their ideas about the quality of higher education.

1. Anisova T.L., Smekhnova A.A. Razrabotka kursa «Integraly i differentsial'nye uravneniya» v tsifrovoi obrazovatel'noi srede NOMOTEX [Elektronnyi resurs] [Development of the course "Integrals and Differential Equations" in the digital educational environment NOMOTEX]. In Sorokova M.G.(eds.), Tsifrovaya gumanitaristica i tekhnologii v obrazovanii (DHTE 2020): sbornik materialov vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiyem [Digital Humanities and Technologies in Education (DHTE 2020): Collection of materials of the All-Russian scientific-practical conference with international participation]. Moscow: Publishing house of Moscow State Univ. of Psychol. and Educ., pp. 124–127. Available at: https://psyjournals.ru/dhte2020/issue/Anisova_Smekhnova.shtml (Accessed 14.01.2022). (In Russ.).
2. Bernikova O.A. Tsifrovaya transformatsiya obrazovatel'nykh programm na primere prepodavaniya arabskogo yazyka v vysshei shkole [Elektronnyi resurs] [Digital transformation of educational programs on the example of teaching Arabic in higher education]. In Sorokova M.G.(eds.), Tsifrovaya gumanitaristica i tekhnologii v obrazovanii (DHTE 2020): sbornik materialov vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiyem [Digital Humanities and Technologies in Education (DHTE 2020): Collection of materials of the All-Russian scientific-practical conference with international participation.]. Moscow: Publishing house of Moscow State Univ. of Psychol. and Educ., pp. 128–132. Available at: https://psyjournals.ru/dhte2020/issue/Bernikova.shtml (Accessed 14.01.2022). (In Russ.).
3. 3.         Gosudarstvennaya programma Rossiiskoi Federatsii «Razvitie obrazovaniya» [Elektronnyi resurs] [State program of the Russian Federation "Development of education"]. Bank of documents. Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation. Available at: https://docs.edu.gov.ru/document/3a928e13b4d292f8f71513a2c02086a3/ (Accessed: 14.01.2022).
4. Dmitrievskaya N.A., Goremykina G.I. Modelirovanie sistemy upravleniya po rezul'tatam deyatel'nosti smart-universiteta v usloviyakh tsifrovizatsii ekonomiki i obshchestva [Modeling a management system based on the results of a smart university in the context of digitalization of the economy and society]. Materialy mezhdunarodnoy konferencii "E-Learning Stakeholders and Researchers Summit" [Materials of the international conference "E-Learning Stakeholders and Researchers Summit"]. Moscow: Publishing house. House of the Higher School of Economics, pp. 39–46. (In Russ.).
5. Dyachkov V.P. Struktura postroeniya i osobennosti raboty s elektronnym obrazovatel'nym kompleksom po izucheniyu apparatnykh sredstv personal'nogo komp'yutera [Elektronnyi resurs] [The structure of the construction and features of working with an electronic educational complex for the study of personal computer hardware]. In Sorokova M.G. (eds.), Tsifrovaya gumanitaristica i tekhnologii v obrazovanii (DHTE 2020): sbornik materialov vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiyem [Digital Humanities and Technologies in Education (DHTE 2020): Collection of materials of the All-Russian scientific-practical conference with international participation.]. Moscow: Publishing house of Moscow State Univ. of Psychol. and Educ., pp. 103–111. Available at: https://psyjournals.ru/dhte2020/issue/Dyachkov.shtml (Accessed 14.01.2022). (In Russ.).
6. Zakharova U.S., Tanasenko K.I. MOOK v vysshem obrazovanii: dostoinstva i nedostatki dlya prepodavatelya [MOOCs in Higher Education: Advantages and Pitfalls for Instructors]. Voprosy Obrazovaniya [Educational Studies Moscow], 2019, no. 3, pp. 176–202. DOI:10.17323/1814-9545-2019-3-176-2 (In Russ.).
7. Klyagin A.V., Makar'eva A.Yu. Federal'nye institutsional'nye resheniya [Federal institutional solutions]. In A.A. Klyagin, E.S. Abalmasova, K.V. Garev i dr. Shtorm pervykh nedel': kak vysshee obrazovanie shagnulo v real'nost' pandemii [The storm of the first weeks: how higher education stepped into the reality of a pandemic]. Moscow: NRU HSE, 2020, pp. 29–46].
8. Lazareva N.A. Formirovanie novykh tipov professional'nykh kompetentsii v ramkakh natsional'noi strategii razvitiya Rossii v period stanovleniya tsifrovoi ekonomiki [Elektronnyi resurs] [Formation of new types of professional competencies in the framework of the national development strategy of Russia during the formation of the digital economy]. In Sorokova M.G. (eds.), Tsifrovaya gumanitaristica i tekhnologii v obrazovanii (DHTE 2020): sbornik materialov vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiyem [Digital Humanities and Technologies in Education (DHTE 2020): Collection of materials of the All-Russian scientific-practical conference with international participation]. Moscow: Publishing house of Moscow State Univ. of Psychol. and Educ., pp. 34–44. Available at: https://psyjournals.ru/dhte2020/issue/Lazareva.shtml (Accessed 14.01.2022). (In Russ.).
9. Petrenko V.F. Psikhosemantika soznaniya [Psychosemantics of consciousness]. Moscow: Publ. House of Moscow un-ta, 1988. 208 p. (In Russ.).
10. Petruneva R.M., Vasil'eva V.D., Petruneva Yu.V. Problemy didaktiki vysshei shkoly: nerazrezannye stranitsy [Problems of didactics of higher education: uncut pages]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2021. Vol. 30, no. 8-9, pp. 56–68. DOI:10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-8-9-56-68 (In Russ.).
11. Rogozin D.M. Predstavleniya prepodavatelei vuzov o budushchem distantsionnogo obrazovaniya [The Future of Distance Learning as Perceived by Faculty Members]. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Educational Studies Moscow], 2021, no. 1, pp. 31–51. DOI:10.17323/1814-9545-2021-1-31-5 (In Russ.).
12. Sorokova M.G. Tsifrovaya obrazovatel'naya sreda universiteta: komu bolee komfortno v nei uchit'sya? [Elektronnyi resurs] [Digital Educational Environment in University: Who is More Comfortable Studying in It?]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2020. Vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 44–58. DOI:10.17759/pse.2020250204 (In Russ.).
13. Toktarova V.I., Shpak A.E. Tsifrovaya pedagogika: interpretatsionnyi i soderzhatel'nyi analiz [Elektronnyi resurs] [Digital Pedagogy: Interpretive and Content Analysis]. In Sorokova M.G. (eds.), Tsifrovaya gumanitaristica i tekhnologii v obrazovanii (DHTE 2020): sbornik materialov vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiyem [Digital Humanities and Technologies in Education (DHTE 2020): Collection of materials of the All-Russian scientific-practical conference with international participation.. Moscow: Publishing house of Moscow State Univ. of Psychol. and Educ., pp. 28–33. Available at: https://psyjournals.ru/dhte2020/issue/Toktarova_Shpak.shtml (Accessed 14.01.2022). (In Russ.).
14. Brodovskaya E.V. et. al. Tsifrovaya sreda vedushchikh universitetov mira i RF: rezul'taty sravnitel'nogo analiza dannykh saitov [Digital Environment of Leading Universities of the World and the Russian Federation: Results of a Comparative Analysis of Site Data]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2019. Vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 9–22. DOI:10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-12-9-22 (In Russ.).
15. Chkhutiashvili L.V. Gosudarstvennaya politika v sfere onlain-obrazovaniya [State policy in the field of online education]. Materialy mezhdunarodnoy konferencii "E-Learning Stakeholders and Researchers Summit" [Materials of the international conference "E-Learning Stakeholders and Researchers Summit" (Moscow, Dec. 5–6 2018)]. Moscow: Publishing house. House of the Higher School of Economics, pp. 18–21. (In Russ.).
16. Engeness I. Developing teachers’ digital identity: towards the pedagogic design principles of digital environments to enhance students’ learning in the 21st century. European Journal of Teacher Education, 2021. Vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 96–114. DOI:10.1080/02619768.2020.1849129
17. George M. Effective Teaching and Examination Strategies for Undergraduate Learning during COVID‑19 School Restrictions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 2020. Vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1–26.
18. Kuhn S., Frankenhauser S., Tolks D. Digitale Lehr- und Lernangebote in der medizinischen Ausbildung. Bundesgesundheitsbl., 2018. Vol. 61, pp. 201–209. DOI:10.1007/s00103-017-2673-z
19. Prinsloo P. Big data in education. The digital future of learning, policy and practice. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 2020. Vol. 29, no. 1–2, pp. 183–186. DOI:10.1080/09620214.2019.1690546
20. Røe Y., Rowe M., Ødegaard N.B. et al. Learning with technology in physiotherapy education: design, implementation and evaluation of a flipped classroom teaching approach. BMC Med Educ, 2019. Vol. 19, 291. DOI:10.1186/s12909-019-1728-2
21. Sorokova M.G. Skepticism and learning difficulties in a digital environment at the Bachelor's and Master's levels: are preconceptions valid? Heliyon, 2020. Vol. 6. Issue 11. E05335. DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05335
22. Sorokova M., Odintsova M., Radchikova N. (2021): Digital Technologies in Higher Education: Development of Technology for Individualizing Education Using E-Courses. Research Project Data. Psychological Research Data & Tools Repository. Dataset. DOI:10.25449/ruspsydata.14783226.v2
23. Tesar M. Towards a Post-COVID‑19 ‘New Normality’? Physical and Social Distancing, the Move to Online and Higher Education. Policy Future in Education, 2020. Vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 556–559.
24. Williamson B. Making markets through digital platforms: Pearson, edu-business, and the (e)valuation of higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 2020. DOI:10.1080/17508487.2020.1737556