University language education: Lessons of forced transition to teaching online

Introduction. The unexpected transition to online teaching in spring 2020 resulted in educational institutions differently equipped in terms of technology, methodology and academic staff preparedness. Moreover, educational institutions faced with a totally new working environment. One may assume that during the pandemic, education systems of most countries crossed the Rubicon, and now there is no going back. What learning and teaching will be like in the future depends, to a large extent, on the lessons the teaching community will learn.

The aim of the research was to find out how successful the emergency transition to teaching foreign languages online was and to identify technological resources necessary to maintain the quality of foreign language teaching and learning in different educational formats.

Methodology and research methods. The research was carried out in line with the learner- centered activity approach and principles of distant teaching and learning; it also included analysis of online teaching practices across the world before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research data was collected via three surveys conducted (with Google forms) among foreign language teachers of MGIMO University (1329 questionnaires) in April, June and September, 2020; 15 heads of foreign language(s) departments (July 2020), and 201 MGIMO students (September 2020). The data was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics: correlation and cross tabulation analyses, linear regression analysis, and ANOVA.

Results. In the course of the research, the correlations between class activities, selfstudy assignments, forms of assessment, and students’ engagement in learning have been established; as well as the fact that individual approach in teaching has a positive effect on students’ activity, responsibility and academic independence. Furthermore, the problems in online teaching have been identified: classes were not communicative enough, nor teaching sufficiently individualised; besides, the quality of assessment declined with the transition to online learning format.

Scientific novelty. An attempt has been made to evaluate the experience of remote teaching foreign languages at university level after the emergency shift to online learning format, and to find out its potential for maintaining (and, in prospect, improving) the quality of language education.

Practical significance. Class activities, self-study assignments and forms of testing found the most effective in this research can be of use to foreign language teachers working online. The need to provide individual trajectories for students to develop communicative competence in a foreign language has been established, which is important for course, programme and teaching materials designers.

1. Polat E. S., Buharkina M. Y., Moiseeva M. V. Teoriya i praktika distancionnogo obucheniya = Theory and practice of distance learning. Moscow: Publishing House Akademiya; 2004. 416 p. (In Russ.)

2. Azimov E. G., Shchukin A. N. Novyj slovar’ metodicheskih terminov i ponyatij (teoriya i praktika obucheniya yazykam) = New Dictionary of Methodological Terms and Concepts (Theory and Practice of Language Teaching). Moscow: Publishing House IKAR; 2009. 448 p. (In Russ.)

3. Blinov V. I., Sergeev I. S., Esenina E. Y., et al. Pedagogicheskaya koncepciya cifrovogo professional’nogo obrazovaniya i obucheniya = The pedagogical concept of digital vocational education and training. Moscow: Publishing House “Delo” RANHiGS; 2020. 112 p. (In Russ.)

4. Hodges H., Moore St., Lockee B., Trust T., Bond A. The difference between remote learning and online learning matters. EDUCAUSE Review [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 26]. Available from: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

5. Ludwig S. C. Higher learning: Lessons from an online advocate. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies. 2018; 4: 167–187. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2018-4-167-187

6. Kalinina S. D. Massive open online courses (MOOC): A pedagogical resource or a marketing ploy? [Internet]. In: Sbornik dokladov i tezisov Foruma “Prepodavatel’ v srede e-learning”

7. = Materials of the Forum “Teacher in the e-learning environment” 2014 Jul 01; Moscow. Moscow: Moscow State University of Economics, Statistics and Informatics; 2014 [cited 2021 Feb 18]; p. 82–86. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23350940 (In Russ.)

8. Titova S. V. MOOCs in Russian education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2021 Feb 16]; 12: 145–151. Available from: http://www.vovr.ru/nom122015.html (In Russ.)

9. Dudeney G., Hockly N., Pegrum M. Digital literacies (research and resources in language teaching). UK: Routledge; 2020. 400 р. DOI: 10.4324/9781315832913

10. Hockly N., Clandfield L. Teaching online: Tools and techniques, options and opportunities. England: Delta Publishing; 2010. 112 p.

11. Kerres M. Mediendidaktik. Konzeption und Entwicklung mediengestützter Lernangebote: Monographie. 3rd edition. München: Olenbourg; 2012. 532 p. DOI: 10.1515/9783110456837 (In German)

12. Buchner J., Aretz D. Lernen mit immersiver Virtual Reality: Didaktisches Design und Lessons Learned. Zeitschrift Medienpädagogik 17 (Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik) [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Mar 03]: 195–216. Available from: https://www.medienpaed.com/article/view/794/875 DOI: 10.21240/mpaed/jb17/2020.05.01.X (In German)

13. Titova S. V. Tsifrovyye tekhnologii v yazykovom obuchenii: teoriya i praktika = Digital technologies in language teaching: Theory and practice [Internet]. Moscow: Publishing House Editus; 2017 [cited 2021 Feb 15]. 240 p. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29324944 (In Russ.)

14. Mel’chenkova N. V. The use of blended learning in a foreign language in a non-linguistic university to improve the efficiency of the educational process. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra RAN = Bulletin of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2021 Feb 18]; 17 (1–5): 1063–1066. Available from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ispolzovanie-smeshannogo-obucheniya-inostrannomu-yazyku-v-neyazykovom-vuze-dlya-povysheniya-effektivnosti-uchebnogo-protsessa (In Russ.)

15. Nazarenko A. L. Blended learning vs traditional learning: What works? (A case study research). Procedia − Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 200: 77–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.018

16. Nazarenko A. L. Metasubject competences and the “flipped class”: One of the options for solving the problems set by the Federal State Educational Standard? (Experience of using technology in the course “ICT in linguodidactics”). Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 19. Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya = Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 Mar 03]; 2:119–127. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=34901211 (In Russ.)

17. Wang P., Wu P., Wang J., Chi H.-L., Wang X. A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. International Journal Environmental Research and Public Health [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 Mar 30]; 15: 1204. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025066/ DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15061204

18. Fogolin A. Strukturdaten Distance Learning / Distance Education Potenziale der revidierten Fernunterrichtsstatistik für Hochschulen. Zeitschrift für Hochschule und Weiterbildung [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 Apr 22]; 1: 55–59. Available from: https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2019/17844/pdf/HuW_2018_1_Fogolin_Strukturdaten_Distance_Learning.pdf. DOI: 10.4119/UNIBI/ZHWB-131 (In German)

19. Roche J. Medienwissenschaft und Mediendidaktik. Tübingen: Narr France Attempo Verlag; 2019. 694 p. (In German)

20. Antonova N. L., Merenkov A. V. The model of “inverted learning” in the system of higher education: Problems and contradictions. Integratsiya obrazovaniya = Integration of Education. 2018; 2 (22): 237–247. DOI: 10.15507/1991-9468.091.022.201802.237-247 (In Russ.)

21. Rösler D. E-Learning Fremdsprachen – eine kritische Führung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag; 2004. 246 p. (In German)

22. Andreyev A. A. Didakticheskiye osnovy distantsionnogo obucheniya = Didactic basics of distance learning [Internet]. Moscow: Publishing House RAO; 1999 [cited 2021 Jan 22]. 120 p. Available from: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23793684 (In Russ.)

23. Murzina I. Y. Humanitarian resistance in the context of digitalization of education. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2020; 22 (10): 90–115. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2020-10-90-115 (In Russ.)

24. Chernyshov S. A. Mass transition of schools to distance learning in the assessments of the local pedagogical community. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 23 (3): 131–155. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2021-3-131-155 (In Russ.)

25. Donskikh O. A. New normalcy? Vyssheye obrazovaniye v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2020; 29 (10): 56–64. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-10-56-64 (In Russ.)

26. Mikhaylov O. V., Denisova Y. V. Distance learning at Russian universities: “One step forward, two steps back”? Vyssheye obrazovaniye v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2020; 29 (1): 65–76. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-10-65-76 (In Russ.)

27. Andryukhina L. M., Sadovnikova N. O., Utkina S. N., Mirzaakhmedov A. M. Digitalization of vocational education: Prospects and invisible barriers. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2020; 22 (2): 116–147. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2020-3-116-147 (In Russ.)

28. Mezentceva D. A., Dzhavlakh E. S., Eliseeva O. V., Bagautdinova A. Sh. On the question of pedagogical digital competence. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2020; 29 (11): 88–97. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-11-88-97

29. Zimnyaya I. A. Personality-activity approach in teaching Russian as a foreign language. Russkii yazyk za rubezhom = Russian Language Abroad. 1985, 5: 49–54. (In Russ.)