Bashmanova E. L., Trofimenko T. V. SUBJECTIVITY MANIFESTATION OF ADOLESCENTS IN THE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT OF BLENDED LEARNING. LIFELONG EDUCATION: The 21st Century.
2021. № 4 (36). DOI: 10.15393/j5.art.2021.7166


Issue 4 (36)

Innovative approaches to lifelong learning
pdf-version

SUBJECTIVITY MANIFESTATION OF ADOLESCENTS IN THE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT OF BLENDED LEARNING

Bashmanova Elena L.
Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Pedagogy and Vocational Education
Kursk State University
(Kursk, Russian Federation)
bashmanovaelena@yandex.ru
Trofimenko Tatiana V.
a postgraduate student
Kursk State University
tatiana.v.trofimenko@yandex.ru
Keywords:
subjectivity
blended learning
connectivism
adolescents		 Abstract: due to the changes in the organization of educational process that have been caused by COVID-19 pandemics the circumstances for students’ subjectivity demonstration have become significantly more complicated. If before the students used to work mostly in two modes, in classroom-based (in the classroom) and out of class (at home) ones, today two more modes have appeared: synchronous and asynchronous modes of learning in a digital educational environment. The teacher designs the educational process blending the above mentioned modes in different ways, that is why it is important for him / her to understand what is happening with self-organization and self-esteem, the ability to communicate and reflect, the responsibility and trust of students in the constantly changing conditions. It was suggested that the presence of the systematic learning experience in the digital educational environment stimulates the demonstration of students' subjectivity associated with self-awareness (due to the personalization of learning in the digital environment), communication and perception (due to the compensatory increase in their importance in the absence of direct interaction), and, conversely, weakly affects the demonstration of students' subjectivity associated with interaction (due to its absence in distance learning) and the social and moral qualities of the individual (due to the long-term nature of their formation and stability). As a methodological basis for the study, the model of the development of the demonstration of students' subjectivity with 4 levels were identified: 1) social and individual (indicators: the ability to self-organization, self-knowledge, self-realization, self-determination); 2) socio-communicative (indicators: the ability to understand the behavior of other people, solving communicative situations, differentiating information, adequately assessing one's own emotional state and the state of communication partners, etc.); 3) socially interactive (indicators: sociability, the ability to organize subject-subject interactions, analyze of the experience of interaction in real groups and social networks, to leadership); 4) social and moral (indicators: the ability to social responsibility, to show trust, honesty and openness, readiness to bear obligations).The hypothesis of the pilot stage was generally confirmed, students with blended learning experience surpassed their less experienced peers in terms of the students' subjectivity indicators related to self-awareness and communication. The results obtained raise the question of creating pedagogical conditions for the demonstration of students' subjectivity in a digital educational environment, stimulating their independence, helping them in communication and organizing joint activities.
Paper submitted on: 10/13/2021; Accepted on: 11/25/2021; Published online on: 12/26/2021.

References

  1. Avramenko A. P., Kataia E. D. Development of an elective course «US Country Studies» based on the «inverted class» methodology in high school. In: Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriia «Pedagogika». 2018. № 3. P. 91–98. (In Russ.)
  2. Andreeva N. V. Practice of blended learning: the history of one experiment. In: Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie. 2018. Vol. 23. № 3. P. 20–28. (In Russ.)
  3. Andreeva N. V. et al. Step schools in blended learning. Moskow, 2016. 280 p. (In Russ.)
  4. Antopol'skaya T. A., SilakovA. S. The value components of the subjectivity of a teenager included in the system of additional education. In: Dopolnitel'noe obrazovanie – ehffektivnaya sistema razvitiya sposobnostei detei i vospitaniya sotsial'nootvetstvennoi lichnosti. Kursk, 2020. P. 189–193. (In Russ.)
  5. Antyukhova E. A., Kasatkin P. I. Digital vector of global educational policy. In: Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. 2020. № 13 (5). P. 331–351. (In Russ.)
  6. Bugaichuk K. L. Massive open distance courses: history, typology, prospects. In: Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii. 2013. № 3. P. 148-155. (In Russ.)
  7. Voronina M. V. «Inverted classroom» an innovative learning model. In: Otkrytoe obrazovanie. 2018. Vol. 22. № 5. P. 40–51. (In Russ.)
  8. Ermolaeva M. V., Lubovskii D. V. Modern development of the concept of the internal position of the individual in the context of the subjective approach. In: Aktual'nye problemy psikhologicheskogo znaniya. 2013. № 2 (27). P. 7–16. (In Russ.)
  9. Kukharenko V. N. Innovations in e-Learning: a massive open distance course. In: Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii. 2011. № 10. P. 93–99. (In Russ.)
  10. Litvinova N. M., Sazhneva T. V., Bayan E. M. Blended learning of chemistry at school: from theory to practice. In: Obrazovatel'ny etekhnologii i obshchestvo. 2016. Vol. 19. № 1. P. 377–388. (In Russ.)
  11. Lyubomirskaya N. V., Rudik E. L., Khochenkova T. E. Blended learning as a mechanism for the formation of skills in design and research activities of students. In: Issledovatel'. 2019. № 3. P. 165–180. (In Russ.)
  12. Nechitailova E. V. Blended learning as the basis for the formation of a unified educational environment. In: Khimiya v shkole. 2014. № 9. P. 22–28. (In Russ.)
  13. Shishkova N. A. Blended learning in the profile course of computer science. In: Informatika v shkole. 2017. № 3. P. 17–23. (In Russ.)
  14. Cooner T. S. Creating opportunities for students in large cohorts to reflect in and on practice: Lessons learnt from a formative evaluation of students' experiences of a technology-enhanced blended learning design. In: British Journal of Educational Technology. 2010. Vol. 41 (2). P. 271–286.
  15. Geçer A. et al. A blended learning experience. In: Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice. 2012. Vol. 12 (1). P. 438–442.
  16. Lotrecchiano G. R. et al. Blended learning: Strengths, challenges, and lessons learned in an interprofessional training program. In: Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2013. Vol. 17 (9). P. 1725–1734.
  17. Siemens G. Connectivism: Learning Theory for the Digital Age. In: Interaktivnoe obrazovanie. 2008. № 6. P. 50–55. (In Russ.)
  18. Manifesto on the digital educational environment [Electronic resource]. Edutainme. Electron dan. URL: http://edutainme.ru/ (date of acсess: 25.09.2021). (In Russ.)
  19. Soldatova G. U., Teslavskaya (Ol'kina) O. I. Friendship in the real and virtual world: the view of Russian schoolchildren [Electronic resource]. In: ACADEMIA. Pedagogicheskii zhurnal Podmoskov'ya. 2016. № 3(9). P. 39–47. Electron dan. URL: https://cyberpsy.ru/articles/friendship_online_offline/ (date of acсess: 27.09.2021). (In Russ.)
  20. Baran E. et al. Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers [Electronic resource]. In: Distance Education. 2011. Vol. 32(3). P. 421–439. Electron dan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2011.610293 (date of acсess: 07.09.2021).
  21. Macgilchrist F. Cruel optimism in edtech: when the digital data practices of educational technology providers inadvertently hinder educational equity [Electronic resource]. In: Learning, Media and Technology. 2019. Vol. 44 (1). P. 77–86. Electron dan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1556217 (date of acсess: 09.04.2021).
  22. McDonald P. L. et al. Learning Partnership: Students and Faculty Learning Together to Facilitate Reflection and Higher Order Thinking in a Blended Course [Electronic resource]. In: Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network. 2014. Vol. 18 (4). P. 73–93. Electron dan. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i4.516 (date of acсess: 09.10.2021).
  23. Ramirez M. S. Challenges and perspectives for the open education movement in the distance education environment: a diagnostic study in a SINED project [Electronic resource]. In: International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2013. Vol. 10. P. 414–430. Electron dan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v10i2.1719 (date of acсess: 29.04.2021).
  24. Williamson B. et al. Pandemic Politics, Pedagogies and Practices: Digital Technologies and Distance Education during the Coronavirus Emergency [Electronic resource]. In: Learning, Media and Technology. 2020. Vol. 45 (2). Р. 107–114. Electron dan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1761641 (date of acсess: 18.09.2021).
  25. Wright N. Sell, Sell, Sell or Learn, Learn, Learn? The EdTech Market in New Zealand’s Education System – Privatisation by Stealth? [Electronic resource]. In: Open Review of Educational Research. 2017. Vol. 4 (1). Electron dan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2017.1365623 (date of acсess: 25.09.2021).

Displays: 879; Downloads: 169;

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15393/j5.art.2021.7166