Transition to emergency distance learning amid COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of students’ subjective experience of the transformation of university learning environment

The aim of the current research was to identify the students’ subjective experience of the transforming learning environment according to the perceived opportunities provided by the digital learning environment of the university.

Methodology and research methods. The research methodological framework is based on leading theories related to the students’ behaviour in digital learning environments (DLE). The synthesis of the theories considered made it possible to propose a theoretical model of the students’ subjective experiences in relation to DLE of the university, which was operationalised by constructing a questionnaire that reveals the students’ perception of the main components of the DLE. The following methods were employed: a questionnaire on alienation from study, a method for the assessment of students’ subjective experiences, and the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS). Previous distance learning experience was identified by the use of self-rating scales. The survey results were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively using the Cronbach Alpha coefficient, the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, and the Pearson’s chi-squared test. The authors also used factorial ANOVA, correspondence analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. Statistical calculations were performed using Statistica ver. 7.0 (Statsoft). 4558 students from 30 Russian universities (located in 23 subjects of Russia) took part in the research.

Results. The present research demonstrated a change in the usual forms of learning activities carried out by students in the distance learning process. Distance learning is presented to students as a basis for meeting the need for subjectivity of their personality, the ability to initiate their own learning activities. Students feel that there are sufficient conditions and resources for mastering digital learning tools, and they easily adapt to the digital environment of their universities. However, in this process, the student acts as an atomised subject, weakly interacting with other people and not feeling a sense of interpersonal closeness and connectedness with others.

The research findings revealed that the perceived characteristics of the DLE of the university have a direct impact on the inner states of students in the learning process. The formation of a stable social environment within the framework of the DLE, which ensures harmonious interaction and communication between the subjects of the educational process, contributes to achieving an optimal balance of students’ subjective experiences, reduces the risk of negative inner states that lead to learning demotivation, the experience of alienation from study, the growing sense of meaninglessness and emptiness in the learning process.

Scientific novelty. The developed model of the influence of DLE on the subjective experiences of students in the emergence distance learning made it possible to identify significant DLE components, which determine the motivational and emotional states of students, and to establish student ratio to achieve the optimal balance of subjective experiences.

Practical significance. The empirically based findings presented in this study can be used to design the DLE of the university, to determine the directions of work on the formation of psychological readiness of students for distance learning.

1. Droit-Volet S., Gil S., Martinelli N., Andant N., Clinchamps M., Parreira L., et al. Time and Covid-19 stress in the lockdown situation: Time free, “Dying” of boredom and sadness. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15 (8): e0236465. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236465

2. Zair-Bek S. I., Mertsalova T. A., Anchikov K. M. Gotovnost’ rossijskih shkol i semej k obucheniju v uslovijah karantina: ocenka bazovyh pokazatelej = Readiness of Russian schools and families for teaching and learning under quarantine: Evaluation of basic indicators [Internet]. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 11]. 32 p. Available from: ioe.hse.ru/data/2020/04/17/1557061019/ФО%202(27)%20электронный.pdf (In Russ.)

3. Volchik V. V., Shiriaev I. M. Distant higher education under self-isolation and the problem of institutional traps. Aktual’nye problemy jekonomiki i prava = Actual Problems of Economics and Law. 2020; 14 (2): 235–248. DOI: 10.21202/1993047X.14.2020.2.235-248 (In Russ.)

4. Nazarov V. L., Zherdev D. V., Averbukh N. V. Shock digitalisation of education: The perception of participants of the educational process. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 23 (1): 156–201. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-20211-156-201 (In Russ.)

5. Saprykina D. I., Volokhovich A. A. Problemy perehoda na distancionnoe obuchenie v Rossijskoj Federacii glazami uchitelej = Problems of switching to distance education in the Russian Federation through the eyes of teachers [Internet]. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics; 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 11]. 32 p. Available from: ioe.hse.ru/data/2020/05/27/1550223489/FO_4(29)_jelektronnyj.pdf (In Russ.)

6. Donskikh O. A. The New Normal? Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2020; 29 (10): 56–64. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-10-56-64 (In Russ.)

7. Murphy M. P. A. COVID-19 and emergency eLearning: Consequences of the securitization of higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy. Contemporary Security Policy. 2020; 41 (3): 492–505. DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1761749

8. Chaka C. Higher education institutions and the use of online instruction and online tools and resources during the COVID-19 outbreak: An online review of selected US and SA universities. Research Square. Preprint. Posted 2020 Aug 21. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-61482/v1

9. Luyt I. Bridging spaces: Cross-cultural perspectives on promoting positive online learning experiences. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2013; 42: 3–20.

10. Kebritchi M., Lipschuetz A., Santiague L. Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2017; 46 (1): 4–29.

11. Collis B. Tele-learning in a digital world: The future of distance learning. London: International Thomson Computer Press; 1996. 648 p.

12. Cook J., Pachler N., Bachmair B. Ubiquitous mobility with mobile phones: A Cultural ecology for mobile learning. E-Learning and Digital Media. 2011; 8 (3): 181–195. DOI: 10.2304/elea.2011.8.3.181

13. Gros B. The design of smart educational environments. Smart Learning Environments. 2016; 3 (15): 2–11.

14. Aoki K. Generations of distance education: Technologies, pedagogies and organization. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 55 (5): 1183–1187. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.613

15. Moore J., Dickson-Deane C., Galyen K. E-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? Internet and Higher Education. 2011; 14: 129–135.

16. Hiltz S. R., Turoff M. Education goes digital: The evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM. 2005; 48 (10): 59–64.

17. Spector J. M., Merrill M. D., Merrienboer J. V., Driscoll M. P. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008. 928 p.

18. Decuypere M. Open Education platforms: Theoretical ideas, digital operations and the figure of the open learner. European Educational Research Journal. 2019; 18 (4): 439–460. DOI: 10.1177/1474904118814141

19. Hartong S. Between assessments, digital technologies and big data: The growing influence of “hidden” data mediators in education. European Educational Research Journal. 2016; 15 (5): 523–536.

20. de Souza e Silva A. From cyber to hybrid: Mobile technologies as interfaces of hybrid spaces. Space & Culture. 2006; 9 (3): 261–278.

21. Proekt Yu. L., Bogdanovskaya I. M., Koroleva N. N. Development of network technologies as a factor in transforming the human living environment. Universum: Vestnik Gercenovskogo universiteta = Universum: Herzen University Bulletin. 2014; 1: 89–96. (In Russ.)

22. Anderson T., Dron J. Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 2010; 12 (3): 80–97.

23. Miller M. D. Minds online: Teaching effectively with technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2014. 296 p.

24. Kop R., Hill A. Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? [Internet]. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2008 [cited 2020 Oct 11]; 9 (3). DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v9i3.523

25. Transue B. M. Connectivism and information literacy: Moving from learning theory to pedagogical practice. Public Services Quarterly. 2013; 9: 185–195.

26. Saadé R. G., He X., Kira D. Exploring dimensions to online learning. Computers in Human Behavior. 2007; 23 (4): 1721–1739.

27. Selwyn N., Hillman T., Eynon R., Ferreira G., Knox J., Macgilchrist F., Sancho-Gil J. M. What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology. 2020; 45 (1): 1–6.

28. Merton R. K. The matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science. 1968; 159 (3810): 56–63. DOI:10.1126/science.159.3810.56

29. Ryan R. M., Deci E. L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000; 55: 68–78.

30. Chen K. C., Jang S. J. Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior. 2010; 26: 741–752.

31. Hew K. F. Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2016; 47 (2): 320–341.

32. Skinner E., Furrer C., Marchand G., Kindermann T. Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100: 765–781.

33. Lee E., Pate J. A., Cozart D. Autonomy support for online students. TechTrends. 2015; 59 (4): 54–61. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-015-0871-9

34. Ryan R. M., La Guardia J. G., Solky-Butzel J., Chirkov V., Kim Y. M. On the interpersonal regulation of emotions: Emotional reliance across gender, relationships, and cultures. Personal Relationships. 2005; 12 (1): 145–163. DOI: 10.1111/j.13504126.2005.00106.x

35. Kim Y. H., Glassman M., Williams M. S. Connecting agents: Engagement and motivation in online collaboration. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015; 49: 333–342. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.015

36. Furrer C., Skinner E. Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003; 95 (1): 148. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148

37. Reeve J., Jang H. What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 98 (1): 209–218.

38. Lan M., Hew K. F. Examining learning engagement in MOOCs: A self-determination theoretical perspective using mixed method. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020; 17 (1): Art No. 7. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-020-0179-5

39. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology and Health. 2011; 26 (9): 1113–1127.

40. Hood N., Littlejohn A., Milligan C. Context counts: How learners’ contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Computers & Education. 2015; 91: 83–91.

41. Lung-Guang N. Decision-making determinants of learners participating in MOOCs: Merging the theory of planned behavior and self-regulated learning model. Computers & Education. 2019; 134: 50–62.

42. Alhamami M. Beliefs about and intention to learn a foreign language in faceto-face and online settings. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2018; 31 (1–2): 90– 113. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1387154

43. Davis F. D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance. MIS Quarterly. 1989; 13 (3): 319–339.

44. Turner M., Kitchenham B., Brereton P., Charters S., Budgen D. Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology. 2010; 52 (5): 463–479. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.005

45. Gerasimova V., Romanova U., Melamud M., Zhenova N., Sorokina M. Davis method to assess the attractiveness of implementing e-learning in the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics. Transportnoe delo Rossii = Transport Business in Russia. 2018; 4 (137): 102–105. (In Russ.)

46. Binyamin S. S., Rutter M. J., Smith S. The moderating effect of gender and age on the students’ acceptance of learning management systems in Saudi higher education. Knowledge Management & E-Learning. 2020; 12 (1): 30–62.

47. Lee Y. C. The role of perceived resources in online learning adoption. Computers & Education. 2008; 50 (4): 1423–1438. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.01.001

48. Smith J., Sivo S. A. Predicting continued use of online teacher professional development and the influence of social presence and sociability. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2012; 43 (6): 871–882. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01223.x

49. Sivo S. A., Ku C.-H., Acharya P. Understanding how university student perceptions of resources affect technology acceptance in online learning courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2018; 34 (4): 72–91. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.2806

50. Voytovich I.K. University E-learning environment model. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2016; 12: 82–87. (In Russ.)

51. Aleshkovskiy I. A., Gasparishvili A. T., Krukhmaleva O. V., Narbut N. P., Savina N. E. Russian university students about distance learning: Assessments and opportunities. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2020; 29 (10): 86–100. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-10-86-100 (In Russ.)

52. Osin E. N. Alienation from study as a predictor of burnout in university students: The role of the educational environment characteristics. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education. 2015; 20 (4): 57–74. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2015200406 (In Russ.)

53. Osin E. N. The concept of alienation in educational psychology: History and perspectives. Kul’turno-istoricheskaja psihologija = Cultural-Historical Psychology. 2015; 11 (4): 79–88. DOI: 10.17759/chp.2015110407 (In Russ.)

54. Leontiev D. A., Osin E. N., Dosumova S. S., Rzaeva F. R., Bobrov V. V. Study-related experiences and their association with psychological well-being. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education. 2018; 23 (6): 55–66. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2018230605 (In Russ.)

55. Gordeeva T. O., Sychev O. A., Osin E. N. “Academic Motivation Scales” Questionnaire. Psihologicheskij zhurnal = Psychological Journal. 2014; 35 (4): 96–107. (In Russ.)

56. Uroki stress-testa. Vuzy Rossii v uslovijah pandemii i posle nejo: Doklad predstavitelej rektorskogo soobshhestva na zasedanii Obshhestvennogo soveta pri Ministerstve nauki i vysshego obrazovanija RF = Lessons from the stress test. Russian unversities in and after the pandemic: Report of representatives of the rector’s community at a meeting of the Public Council under the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation [Internet]. 2020 July 3 [cited 2020 Oct 11]. 52 p. Available from: http://fgosvo.ru/uploadfiles/lesson_stress_test.pdf (In Russ.)

57. Frolova E. V., Rogach O. V., Ryabova T. M. Benefits and risks of switching to distance learning in a pandemic. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovania = Perspectives of Science and Education. 2020; 48 (6): 78–88. DOI: 10.32744/pse.2020.6.7 (In Russ.)

58. Gruzdev I. A., Kamaldinova L. R., Kalinin R. G. Rezul’taty oprosa studentov rossijskih vuzov, osushhestvljajushhih perehod na distancionnyj format obuchenija = Results of a survey of students of Russian universities making the transition to distance learning. In: Shtorm pervyh nedel’: kak vysshee obrazovanie shagnulo v real’nost’ pandemii = First weeks storm: How higher education entered into reality of pandemic. Sovremennaja analitika obrazovanija = Modern Analytics of Education. Vol. 6 (36). Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics; 2020. p. 62–67. (In Russ.)

59. Sherry L. Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications. 1995; 1 (4): 337–365.

60. De Armas R. N., Barroso Osuna J. M. Interactivity in distance education: An instrument for diagnosis. Revista Fuentes. 2020; 22 (2): 190–201. DOI: 10.12795/revistafuentes.2020.v22.i2.06