Interaction of university students with educational content in the conditions of information educational environment

Introduction. Modern society is developing dynamically and its information resources are constantly replenished. Today, the role of students as subjects of professional development, who productively interact with educational content and the role of their teachers as intermediaries and “navigators” in this interaction, is significantly increasing. In this connection, there is the problem of students’ readiness to form the content of their education through the selection and use of resources of the information educational environment (IEE). The urgency of the problem is enhanced in the context of the integration of formal and non-formal education, its personalisation in an open information environment and the individualisation of education through the practice of individual educational trajectories.

The aim of the present research was to identify the current state of interaction of university students with educational content.

Methodology and research methods. The questionnaire method was the basic tool of the empirical research. The authors’ questionnaire was used to identify the nature of students’ preferences in choosing and using educational content and to correlate the findings with the opinion of teachers. The K-means method was employed to analyse data, systematise it and cluster the respondents.

Results and scientific novelty. The most and least actively used by students types of educational content are identified. The relevance of each type of various educational content is rated; its forms of students’ work are established. The choice of content for students is determined by their training profile (humanities and nonhumanities). In addition, on the basis of a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative data analysis, the typological heterogeneity of students in the information educational environment is proved. Data clustering, based on the established indicators of involvement level of educational resources by respondents, allowed the authors to identify typological groups among students (“passive”, “active”, “advanced”, “professionally-oriented” and “humanities”), differing in ways and, apparently, in the selection goals of educational content. The representation of these typological groups at different stages of university education (bachelor or master degree programmes in IT and pedagogical specialties) is observed. Productive and adaptive motivation of students for the use of educational content has been identified. It is noted that students evaluate their activity in interaction with educational content and the productivity of motivation is much higher than their teachers estimate. The obtained results allow the authors to say that the personalisation of the information educational environment should be built in order to the requests of student groups with different interests and motivation for using educational content. To collect necessary information on the peculiarities of activity of future specialists under the personification of access to content and communication in the information educational environment, it is necessary to use modern Big Data tools and search for additional methodological resources when organising vocational education.

Practical significance. The research materials and results can become the basis for the development of recommendations on support and development of activity of students’ interaction with educational content. Moreover, the materials of research can contribute to change the meaning of this interaction, which has to consist in understanding by students of own education as individual vocational self-development.

1. Shafranov-Kutsev G. F. Vocational education in conditions of information explosion. Vestnik Tyumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Sotsialno-ekonomicheskie i pravovye issledovaniya = Bulletin of the Tyumen State University. Socio-Economic and Legal Research. 2011; 9: 6-13. (In Russ.)

2. Kondratenko A. B., Kondratenko B. A. Rationale for the personalization of students' education in the information society. Vestnik Baltiyskogo federalnogo universiteta im. I. Kanta. Seriya: Filologiya, pedagogika, psikhologiya = Bulletin of the Baltic Federal University. I. Kant. Series: Philology, Pedagogy, Psychology [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Oct 14]; 3: 83-89. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27506038 (In Russ.)

3. Starodubtsev V. A., Solovev M. A. Informal support for higher education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Oct 14]; 3: 10-19. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19094000 (In Russ.)

4. Jenkins G. From formal to non-formal education, learning and knowled¬ge. Book Review. Australian Journal of Adult Learning [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Oct 14]; 57 (2): 302-305. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/openview/bcc8315aa44c8bd7a44bdaef18625ef5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=25751

5. Farrow R., de los Arcos B., Pitt R. et al. Who are the open learners? A Comparative study profiling non-formal users of open educational resources. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning. 2016; 18 (2): 49-73. DOI:10.1515/eurodl-2015-0013

6. Terrazas-Marin R. A. Developing non-formal education competences as a complement of formal education for STEM lecturers. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2018; 44 (1): 1-6. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2018.1422613

7. Norqvist L., Leffler E. Learning in non-formal education: Is it “youthful” for youth in action? International Review of Education. 2017; 63 (2): 235-256. DOI: 10.1007/s11159-017-9631-8

8. Tang S. Y. F., Wong A. K. Y., Li D. D. Y., Cheng M. M. H. The contribution of non-formal learning in higher education to student teachers’ professional competence. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2017; 43 (5): 550-565. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2017.1342052

9. Ksenofontova A. N., Ledeneva A. V. The concept of designing a personal educational environment. Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Orenburg State University [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Oct 14]; 8 (196): 27-32. Available from: http://vestnik.osu.ru/2016_8/5.pdf (In Russ.)

10. Dabbagh N., Kitsantas A. Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education. 2012; 15 (1): 3-8. DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002

11. Valitova Ye. Yu., Starodubtsev V. A. Professional self-determination of university students in the context of individualisation and personification of education. Sibirskiy pedagogicheskiy zhurnal = Siberian Pedagogical Journal [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Oct 14]; 6: 68-73. Available from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/professionalnoe-samoopredelenie-studentov-vuza-v-kontekste-individualizatsii-i-personifikatsii-obrazovaniya (In Russ.)

12. Zeer E. F., Zhurlova E. Y. Navigation aids as tools to support the development of competences in the conditions of realization of individual educational trajectory. Obrazovaniye i nauka =The Education and Science Journal [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Oct 14]; (3): 77-93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2017-3-77-93 (In Russ.)

13. Zhdanov E. R., Barinova N. A., Magsumov I. R., Yafizova R. A. Creation of individual educational trajectories of students' training on the basis of SMART-technologies in the conditions of modernization of education. Kazanskiy pedagogicheskiy zhurnal = Kazan Pedagogical Journal [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 Oct 14]; 3: 34-39. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23762482 (In Russ.)

14. Vaynshteyn Yu. V., Yesin R. V. Personalisation of the educational process in the electronic environment. Elektronnoe obuchenie v nepreryvnom obrazovanii = E-Learning in Continuous Education [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Oct 14]; 1: 54-59. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29120644 (In Russ.)

15. Vasetskaya N. O., Glukhov V. V. Smart training in the system of professional development. Nauchno-tekhnicheskie vedomosti Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta. Ekonomicheskie nauki = St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics. 2017; 10 (5): 92-103. DOI:10.18721/JE.10508 (In Russ.)

16. Littlejohn A., Hood N., Milligan P. Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education 2016; 29: 40-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003

17. Vakhidova L. V., Gabitova E. M., Mustaev A. F. Personalized information and educational environment in the formation of professional self-efficacy of a specialist. Pedagogicheskiy zhurnal Bashkortostana = Pedagogical Journal of Bashkortostan. 2017; 2: 20-26. DOI: 10.21510/1817-3292-2017-2-20-26 (In Russ.)

18. Semenova I. N. Use of the information educational environment for the preparation of students for professional pedagogical activity. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriya: Pedagogika = Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University. Series: Pedagogy. 2016; 1: 135-146. DOI: 10.18384/2310-7219-2016-1-135-146 (In Russ.)

19. Starodubtsev V. A., Isaeva Ye. V. Advanced training in SPP: personalisation of vocational education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Oct 14]; 208 (1): 93-98. Available from: http://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/928/849 (In Russ.)

20. Chaves-Barboza E., Trujillo-Torres J. M., Lopez-Nunez J. A., Sola-Martmez T. Actions and achievements of self-regulated learning in personal environments. Research on students participating in the Graduate Program in Preschool Education at the University of Granada. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research. 2017; 6 (2): 135-143. DOI: 10.7821/naer.2017.7.236

21. Noskova T. N., Pavlova T. B., Yakovleva O. V. ICT-tools for the professional work of the teacher: a comparative analysis of the Russian and European experience. Integratsiya obrazovaniya = Integration of Education. 2018; 22 (1): 25-45. DOI: 10.15507/1991-9468.090.022.201801.025-045 (In Russ.)

22. Dabbagh N., Fake H. College students’ perceptions of Personal Learning Environments through the lens of digital tools, processes and spaces. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research. 2017; 6 (1): 28-36. DOI:10.7821/naer.2017.1.215

23. Valtonen T., Hacklin S., Dillon P., Vesisenaho M., Kukkonen J., Hietanen A. Perspectives on personal learning environments held by vocational students. Computers & Education 2012; 58 (2): 732-739. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.025

24. Wu J. Y. The indirect relationship of media multitasking self-efficacy on learning performance within the personal learning environment: Implications from the mechanism of perceived attention problems and self-regulation strategies. Computers & Education.. 2017; 106: 56-72. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.010

25. Zakharova I. G. Information-educational environment and psychological-pedagogical research. In: Informatizatsiya obrazovaniya: teoriya i praktika. Sbornik materialov mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii = Education Informatisation Theory and Practice. Collection of Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference [Internet]; 2017 Nov 17-18; Omsk. Omsk; 2017 [cited 2018 October 14]. p. 35-39. Available from: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30758443 (In Russ.)

26. Prendes P., Castaneda L, Gutierrez I, Mar Sanchez M. Personal Learning Environments in future professionals: Nor natives or residents, just survivors. International Journal of Information and Education Technology. 2017; 7 (3): 172-178. DOI: 10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.3.861

27. Kuhn C. Are students ready to (re)-Design their Personal Learning Environment? The case of the e-Dynamic. Space. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research.. 2017; 6 (1): 11-19. DOI: 10.7821/naer.2017.1.185

28. Yucel U. A., Usluel Y. K. Knowledge building and the quantity, content and quality of the interaction and participation of students in an online collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education 2016; 97: 31-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.015

29. Bartolome A., Cebrian-de-la-Serna M. Personal Learning Environments: A study among Higher Education students’ designs. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology [Internet]. [cited 2018 October 14]. 2017; 13 (2): 21-41. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/openview/cab4f957da317021ffd5ec66df7b8fff/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=28521

30. Tsang H. W. C., Tsui E. Conceptual design and empirical study of a personal learning environment and network (PLE&N) to support peer-based social and lifelong learning. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 2017; 47 (2): 228-249. DOI: 10.1108/VJIKMS-03-2017-0010

31. Huda M., Maseleno A., Atmotiyoso P., Siregar M., Ahmad R., Jasmi K., & Muhamad N. Big Data Emerging Technology: Insights into Innovative Environment for Online Learning Resources. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET). 2018; 13 (01): 23-36. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i01.6990

32. O’Callaghan F. V., Neumann D. L., Jones L., Jones L., Creed P. A. The use of lecture recordings in higher education: A review of institutional, student, and lecturer issues. Education and Information Technologies. 2017; 22 (1): 399¬415. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-015-9451-z

33. Dona K. L., Gregory J., Pechenkina E. Lecture-recording technology in higher education: Exploring lecturer and student views across the disciplines. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 October 14]; 33 (4): 1-12. Available from: https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/3068/1422