Modern digital educational tools and digital competence: analysis of cases and trends

The introduction of digital tools takes place in all spheres of life, including the education. The author of this paper attempted to structure and characterize the existing digital educational tools in terms of functions and capabilities for users, characteristics of user interactions in tools. In the literary review in first part of this work, the current state of digitalization of various spheres of life was investigated, and the relation of society to perspective universal automation and digitalization of all on the basis of the published scientific works were studied. The paper highlights three types of digital environments: modular digital educational environments, LMS and LCMS, as well as remote online education, presented on the platforms MOOC. The analysis of interaction of teachers and pupils within the specified digital environments was carried out, opportunities of each environment were defined, and shortcomings of each of them were performed in this study. In conclusion, the article formulates the forecast of the possibilities of further research in the direction of this article. In addition, the paper contains the conclusion about the necessity for the transfer of digital technologies in the educational process and the important role of the teacher in the process of obtaining knowledge by students even in case of using digital automated environments. The purpose of the study was to structure and consolidate the data about the available digital learning tools and digital educational environments, to perform the role of the teacher in the use of each tool, and to highlight the ability of students and teachers in the framework of specific tools.

Recourses and methods. In this paper, we conducted a review and analysis of existing publications, open data and information about the used and available digital educational tools. Information about each of the educational environments and platforms was structured and presented in the form of tables, as well as reflected through the scheme of interaction of the teacher with the student in the digital environment. The results of the conducted research show that despite the existence of a large number of digital resources, programs and opportunities for partial automation of the educational process we need the teacher for the effective completion of the learning process. In the case of open online courses, the absence of a mentor, tutor or some person acting as a teacher affects the number of successfully completing online courses. Furthermore, the introduction of digital tools is often hampered by teachers’ lack of skills to make full use of the tools in a particular digital environment. In conclusion, the article suggests the need for a closer transfer of knowledge and technology in the educational process, with the parallel formation of the concept of “digital competence” and the identification of the criterion of its evaluation in future and practicing teachers.

1. Virgillito M. E. Rise of the robots: technology and the threat of a jobless future. Labor History. 2017. Vol. 58. No. 2. P. 240-242. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2016.1242716

2. Smater M., Zieliński J. New Approach to Automation and Robotics Vocational Education in Support of Europe Reindustrialization. Progress in Automation, Robotics and Measuring Techniques. Springer, Cham, 2015. P. 255-264. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15796-2_26

3. Kaivo-oja J., Roth P. The Technological Future of Work and Robotics. 2015. URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/118693

4. Tsirel P. V. The economy of the nearest future. Terra economicus. 2017. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 44–67.

5. Lukina N.P., Slobodskaia A.V., Zilberman N.N. Social dimentions of labour robotization in postindustrial society: issues and solutions. Man In India. 2017. Vol. 96(7). C. 2367-2380.

6. Upadhyay V. Can Capitalism Survive High Degree of Automation? A Comparison with Thomas Piketty’s Argument. 2015. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2558989

7. Noble D. F. Digital diploma mills, part 1: The automation of higher education. October. 1998. Vol. 86. P. 107-117.

8. Ladyzhets N. S., Neborskiy E. V. Universitetskiy barometr: mirovye tendentsii razvitiya universitetov i obrazovatel’noy sredy. Internet-zhurnal Naukovedenie. 2015. Vol. 7. No. 2 (27). (In Russ.)

9. Dicheva D. Dichev C., Agre G., Angelova G. Gamification in education: a systematic mapping study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2015. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 75. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3134302.3134305

10. Viberg O., Grönlund Å. Understanding students’ learning practices: challenges for design and integration of mobile technology into distance education. Learning, Media and Technology. 2017. Vol. 42. No. 3. P. 357–377. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1088869

11. Aleksandrovna M.O., Iurievna E.M., Olegovna E. P. Digital transformation as the factor of the generation dynamics in the information society. QUID: Investigación, Ciencia y Tecnología. 2017. No. 1. P. 1624–1629.

12. Lai K. W., Hong K. P. Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist? British Journal of Educational Technology. 2015. Vol. 46. No. 4. P. 725–738. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12161

13. Sultanov K.V., Voskresenskiy A.А. Osobennosti i problemy pokoleniya Y v obrazovatel’nom prostranstve sovremennoy Rossii. Obshchestvo. Sreda. Razvitie (Terra Humana). 2015. No. 3 (36). (In Russ.)

14. Borges N. J., Manuel R. S., Elam C. L., Jones B.J. Differences in motives between Millennial and Generation X medical students. Medical education. 2010. Vol. 44. No. 6. P. 570–576. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03633.x

15. BATES A. W. Vol. Teaching in a digital age. Glokalde. 2015. Vol. 1. No. 3.

16. Namiot D.E., Kupriyanovskiy V.P., Samorodov A.V., Karasev O.I., Zamolodchikov D.G., Fedorova N. O. Umnye goroda i obrazovanie v tsifrovoy ekonomike. International Journal of Open Information Technologies. 2017. Vol. 5. No. 3. (In Russ.)

17. Kupriyanovskiy V.P., Sinyagov P.A., Namiot D.E., Dobrynin A.P., CHernykh K.YU. Informatsionnye tekhnologii v sisteme universitetov, nauki i innovatsii v tsifrovoy ekonomike na primere Velikobritanii. International Journal of Open Information Technologies. 2016. Vol. 4. No. 4. (In Russ.)

18. Fenwick T., Edwards R. Exploring the impact of digital technologies on professional responsibilities and education. European Educational Research Journal. 2016. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 117–131. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474904115608387

19. Instefjord E. Appropriation of digital competence in teacher education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. 2015. Vol. 10. No. Jubileumsnummer. P. 155–171.

20. Tømte C., Enochsson A.B., Buskqvist U., Kårstein A. Educating online student teachers to master professional digital competence: The TPACK-framework goes online. Computers & Education. 2015. Vol. 84. P. 26–35. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.005

21. Bruce D. L., Chiu M. M. Composing with new technology: Teacher reflections on learning digital video. Journal of Teacher Education. 2015. Vol. 66. No. 3. P. 272–287. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022487115574291

22. Nielsen W., Miller K. A., Hoban G. Science teachers’ response to the digital education revolution. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2015. Vol. 24. No. 4. P. 417–431. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9527-3

23. Golitsyna I. N. Tekhnologiya Obrazovanie 3.0 v sovremennom uchebnom protsesse. Obrazovatel’nye tekhnologii i obshchestvo. 2014. Vol. 17. No. 3. (In Russ.)

24. Watson W. R., Watson P. L., Reigeluth C. M. Education 3.0: Breaking the mold with technology. Interactive Learning Environments. 2015. Vol. 23. No. 3. P. 332–343. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820. 2013. 764322

25. Wilcox C. The role of automation in undergraduate computer science education. Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 2015. P. 90– 95. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677226

26. Brown M., Dehoney J., Millichap N. The next generation digital learning environment. A Report on Research. ELI Paper. Louisville, CO: Educause April. 2015.

27. Lebedeva M. B. Massovye otkrytye onlaynkursy kak tendentsiya razvitiya obrazovaniya. CHelovek i obrazovanie. 2015. No. 1 (42). (In Russ.)

28. Makoveychuk K.A. Perspektivy ispol’zovaniya kursov v formate MOOK v vysshem obrazovanii v Rossii. Mezhdunarodnyy nauchno-issledovatel’skiy zhurnal. 2015. No. 63. P. 66. (In Russ.)

29. Ng’ambi D., Bozalek V. Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Disrupting teaching and learning practices in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2015. Vol. 46. No. 3.P. 451– 454. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12281

30. Freitas P. I., Morgan J., Gibson D. Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2015. Vol. 46. No. 3. P. 455-471. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.1268

31. Kaplan A. M., Haenlein M. Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons. 2016. Vol. 59. No. 4. P. 441–450. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008

32. Valeeva N. G., Rudneva M. A. Massovye otkrytye onlayn-kursy v obuchenii studentov ekologicheskogo fakul’teta angliyskomu yazyku dlya professional’noy kommunikatsii. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Ekologiya i bezopasnost’zhiznedeyatel’nosti. 2016. No. 3. (In Russ.)

33. Uribe P. N., Vaughan M. Facilitating student learning in distance education: a case study on the development and implementation of a multifaceted feedback system. Distance Education. 2017. Vol. 38. No. 3. P. 288–301. URL: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2

34. Klassov A. B., Klassova O. V. Ispol’zovanie sistemy distantsionnogo obucheniya v uchebnom protsesse. Nauchnyy al’manakh. 2016. No. 3–2. P. 165–169. (In Russ.)

35. Poulova P., Simonova I., Manenova M. Which one, or another? Comparative analysis of selected LMS. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015. Vol. 186. P. 1302-1308. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.052

36. Akhmetshin E.M. Kontrol’ v sisteme upravleniya personalom v sovremennykh usloviyakh. Kazanskiy ekonomicheskiy vestnik. 2017. No. 1 (27). P. 110–114. (In Russ.)

37. Akhmetshin E.M. Kontrol’ kak faktor obespecheniya effektivnosti menedzhmenta. Ekonomika i menedzhment sistem upravleniya. 2017. Vol. 24. No. 2.1. P. 104–110. (In Russ.)

38. Akhmetshin E.M. Primenenie sovremennykh standartov, protsedur, informatsionnykh tekhnologiy dlya povysheniya effektivnosti sistem vnutrennego kontrolya promyshlennykh predpriyatiy. Ekonomika i menedzhment sistem upravleniya. 2017. Vol. 26. No. 4. P. 4–10. (In Russ.)

39. Akhmetshin E.M., Garifullin A.A., Fattakhova A.R. Razrabotka programm povysheniya kvalifikatsii upravlencheskogo sostava. Ekonomika i predprinimatel’stvo. 2015. No. 4–1 (57–1). P. 533–535. (In Russ.)