Online learning: Attitudes of Russian students

Introduction. Active using of Internet technologies in the process of learning has become one of the most characteristic trends in the development of Russian education system over the past few years. The spread of this trend is facilitated by both the internal patterns of the development of Russian educational institutions and the need to transfer the learning process to a distance learning format, which arose under quarantine measures due to the Covid-19 pandemic. At the same time, it remains difficult to say, whether this process meets the real needs of students or not.

The aim of the article is to identify and describe the main sentiments that arise in the environment of Russian students in connection with the growing role of the Internet in the learning process.

Methodology and research methods. The present research is based on a complex methodology and uses both theoretical and empirical methods of analysis. The conceptual framework and the initial hypothesis of the research are determined on the basis of an analytical review of current papers in the area of psychology and sociology of education, which was implemented by using of common scientific methods: analysis, synthesis, comparison, and generalisation. The peculiarities of the actual attitudes of students to online learning were revealed using a mass survey of students in Ekaterinburg (N = 526) and an in-depth psychodiagnostic questionnaire conducted among students at the Ural State Pedagogical University (N = 120).

Results. In the course of the research, it was established that the increasing internetisation of the learning process does not correspond to the real needs and patterns of behaviour of the majority of students and is perceived by them rather negatively. It was possible to find out that Russian researchers are used to considering modern students as a special generation of people, who have grown up in the conditions of the widespread spread of Internet technologies, who are accustomed to using such technologies very actively and are in need of their application within the framework of the learning process. However, the analysis of real moods of the students demonstrated that such a view is only partly true. Although many of them are really accustomed to actively using the Internet in their daily lives, most of them do not express real demand for using of it into the learning process.

Scientific novelty. The authors substantiate skepticism about the intensive implementation of Internet technologies in the process of learning. The argument for the inconsistency of online learning with the real needs and patterns of behaviour of student representatives is presented. The need to carefully introduce Internet technologies into the learning process is recognised.

Practical significance. The research materials can be used for the optimisation of Internet technologies implementation in the learning process and for the clarification of optimal algorithms for using such technologies when working with students.

1. Kazakova E. I., Kondrakova I. E., Proect Yu. L. Transition to emergency distance learning in a pandemic in the prism of students experiencing the transformation of the educational environment of the university. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 23 (8): 111–146. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2021-8-111-146 (In Russ.)

2. Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. Part 1. On the Horizon. 2001; 9(5): 1–6. DOI: 10.1108/10748120110424816

3. Sánchez J., Salinas A., Contreras D., Meyer E. Does the new digital generation of learners exist? A qualitative study. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2010; 42 (4):543–556. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01069.x

4. Prensky M. Our brains extended. Technology-Rich Learning. 2013; 70 (6): 22–27.

5. Yegorov N. S. Internet and personality of digital natives: The problem of virtual boundaries. Nauchnyy rezul’tat. Sotsial’nyye i gumanitarnyye issledovaniya = Research Result. Social Studies and Humanities. 2020; 6 (1): 95–102. (In Russ.)

6. Sivrikova N. V, Kharlanova E. M. Behavior strategies of digital natives during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gertsenovskiye chteniya: psikhologicheskiye issledovaniya v obrazovanii = Herzen’s Readings: Psychological Research in Education. 2020; 3: 648–655. (In Russ.)

7. Šorgo A., Bartol T., Dolničar D., Podgornik B. B. Attributes of digital natives as predictors of information literacy in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2016; 48 (3): 749–767. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12451

8. Ozhiganova E. M. The theory of generations by N. Hove and W. Strauss. Possibilities of practical application. Biznes-obrazovanie v ekonomike znaniy = Business Education in the Knowledge Economy. 2015; 1: 94–97. (In Russ.)

9. Sorokoumova E. A., Zhurinskaya V. O. Psychological readiness for school of Generation Z children. Kollektsiya gumanitarnykh issledovaniy = Collection of Humanitarian Studies. 2017; 3 (6): 69–76. (In Russ.)

10. Rospigliosi P. A. The role of social media as a learning environment in the fully functioning university: Preparing for Generation Z. Interactive Learning Environments. 2019; 27 (4): 429–431. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1601849

11. Cretu I., Grigore M., Scripcariu I.-S. Get ready for gen Z, our next generation of medical students. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala. 2020; 69: 283–292. DOI: 10.33788/rcis.69.18

12. Nechaev N. N., Durneva E. E. Digital generation: psychological and pedagogical study of the problem. Pedagogika = Pedagogy. 2016; 1: 36–45. (In Russ.)

13. Kulakova A. B. Generation Z: Theoretical aspect. Voprosy territorial’nogo razvitiya = Issues of Territorial Development. 2018; 2 (42): 1–10. DOI: 10.15838/tdi.2018.2.42.6 (In Russ.)

14. Beregovskaya T. A., Grishaeva S. A. Generation Z: Consumer behavior in the digital environment. Vestnik universiteta = University Bulletin. 2020; 1: 92–99. DOI: 10.26425/1816- 4277-2020-1-92-99 (In Russ.)

15. Vikhrova O. Yu. Features of representatives of Generation Z in relation to the educational process. Vek informatsii = Age of Information. 2018; 1: 165–173. (In Russ.)

16. Glukhov A. P. Digital literacy of generation Z: Social network perspective. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Politologiya. Sotsiologiya = Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. Philosophy. Political Science. Sociology. 2019; 52: 126–137. DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/52/13 (In Russ.)

17. Perich Y., Leko Simich M., Pevnaya M. V., Sharma E. Generation Z and volunteering: The perspective of national culture. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 23 (1): 44–72. DOI: 10.17853 / 1994-5639-2021-1-44-72

18. Ohme J. When digital natives enter the electorate: Political social media use among first-time voters and its effects on campaign participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2019; 16 (2): 119–136. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2019.1613279

19. Moustafa L. H. Teaching the digital natives. Review of Middle East Studies. 2017; 51 (1): 45–49. DOI: 10.1017/rms.2017.52

20. Jabłońska M. R., Zajdel R. Time perspectives and online behavior of digital natives at the tertiary education level. Polish Sociological Review. 2019; 2 (206): 217–235. DOI: 10.26412/psr206.06

21. Huang Y., Wang L. Net generation, digital natives and learning commons. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. 2020; 1: 557–563. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-53980-1_82

22. Haddad N. A. The 21st century knowledge and learning heritage experiences and the “digital native” generation. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2016; 1 (12): 705–713.

23. Sugadev T., Santhosh P. Making teaching compatible with the digital natives: A survey. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering. 2018; 7 (6): 1415–1418.

24. Scolari C. Beyond the myth of the “digital native”. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. 2019; 14 (03–04): 164–174. DOI: 10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2019-03-04-06

25. Støle H. Why digital natives need books: The myth of the digital native. First Monday. 2018; 3 (10): 1–5. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v23i10.9422

26. Narkhov D. Yu., Narkhova E. N., Shkurin D. V. Dynamics of students’ educational activity under the influence of digitalization. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 23 (8): 47–188. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2021-8-147-188 (In Russ.)

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

28. Nikulova G. A., Bobrova L. N. Students moved to the Internet: presence, preferences, influence. Obrazovatel’nyye tekhnologii i obshchestvo = Educational Technologies and Society. 2016; 2: 645–661. (In Russ.)

29. Yudina E. N., Zakharova S. A. Communicative practices of student youth on the Internet. Kommunikologiya = Communicology. 2016; 1: 142–149. (In Russ.)

30. Ivanushkina N. V. Educational and cognitive activity of university students in the Internet environment. Vestnik Samarskogo universiteta. Istoriya, pedagogika, filologiya = Bulletin of the Samara University. History, Pedagogy, Philology. 2018; 1: 75–80. DOI: 10.18287/2542-0445-2018-24-1-75-80 (In Russ.)

31. Maksimenko N. V. Internet technologies as a means of organizing students’ independent work. Obrazovanie. Kar’yera. Obshchestvo = Education. Career. Society. 2017; 3 (54): 58–60. (In Russ.)

32. Charbonneau-Gowdy P. Moving outside the box: Researching e-learning in disruptive times. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 2017; 15 (1): 59–69

33. Podik I. The implementation of Google services for teaching Generation Z students. Information Technologies and Learning Tools. 2017; 60 (4): 264–274.

34. Murzina I. Ya. 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