Opportunities and Risks of Students’ Information-Educational Online Activity

Purpose of the study. In modern dynamic conditions, education should be directed to the future, have openness and redundancy in relation to the assigned pedagogical tasks, the existing educational students’ needs, the current state of society, economy, and labor market. Ensuring such a quality of education is impossible without Internet resources and information technology, without the organization of students’ online activity. The purpose of this article is to consider the variety of opportunities for students’ educational activities in the Internet, to present a typology of the risks of such activities, to suggest ways to overcome risks and ensure its effectiveness and safety.
Materials and methods. The opportunities and risks of informationeducational activity are summarized based on the analysis of scientific papers and the results of an empirical study. In the process of study, we used methods of theoretical analysis and systematization, empirical survey and methods of descriptive mathematical statistics. Empirical study conducted on a sample of the first-year IT-students (N = 174) using the questionnaire method.
Results. The variety of types of information-educational activities (educational-cognitive, search-cognitive, communicative-cognitive, informational-creative, entertaining-cognitive) and the advantages of online learning compared to classroom learning are presented. A typology of information-educational activity risks based on two grounds is given. According to object, the risks to student health, development and emotional well-being and the risks of loss of performance are identified. According to localization, external risks associated with the organization of the Internet and online educational activity (congestion of the information space, manipulative technologies in the supply of information, content risks, communication risks, cyber risks, inaccurate Internet content, poorquality educational and methodological support of the educational process, lack of feedback, technical and methodological support), and internal risks associated with the psychological and pedagogical students’ characteristics (instability of the worldview, internal prerequisites for exposure to content and communication risks, internal prerequisites for Internet addiction, aimless and unskillful activity in the Internet space, ineffective cognitive styles and critical thinking, lack of desire for self-development, the prevalence of external educational motives, difficulties of self-regulation, lack of volitional qualities, narrow interests, digital incompetence) are highlighted.
Conclusion. Ways of overcoming risks and ensuring the effectiveness and safety of information-educational activity are proposed: 1) promotion lifelong education as a way of existence, development as a value, education as a significant capital; 2) creating excess information-educational environments and educational Internet resources (in relation to the pedagogical tasks and the modern students’ learning needs); 3) development of psychological stability, digital and educational students’ competence; 4) pedagogical management of students’ activities in the Internet (organization, support, control). The possibility of using technological solutions for students’ information-educational activities management is pointed out. At the same time, the important role of lecturers in this process is emphasized.

1. Development of education and socialization in the Russian Federation in the medium term. Expert group report. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Education Issues. 2012; 1: 6–58. (In Russ.)

2. Raitskaya L.K. Optimization of educational and cognitive activities of students in the Internet environment. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta = Bulletin of MGIMO University. 2013; 1 (28): 18– 21. (In Russ.)

3. Song D., Bonk C.J. Motivational factors in self-directed informal learning from online learning resources. Cogent Education. 2016; 3:1. DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1205838.

4. Berulava G.A., Berulava M.N. Russian system of higher education and a new theoretical platform for personality development. Pedagogika = Pedagogy. 2019; 7: 5–15. (In Russ.)

5. Kolesnikova I.A. Post-pedagogical syndrome of the digital modernism era. Vyssheye obrazovaniye v Rossii = Higher education in Russia. 2019; 28; 8-9: 67–82. DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-8-9-67-82. (In Russ.)

6. Chvanova M.S., Khramova M.V., Sletkov I.A., Kiseleva I.A., Molchanov A.A., Kotova N.A. Research of the Internet influence on social needs of users. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnyye nauki = Bulletin of the Tambov University. Series: Humanities. 2016; 21; 12 (164): 7–25. DOI: 10.20310/1810-0201-2016-21-12(164)-7-25. (In Russ.)

7. Kim R., Olfman L., Ryan T., Eryilmaz E. Leveraging a personalized system to improve selfdirected learning in online educational environments. Computers & Education. 2014; 70: 150–160. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.006.

8. Ivanova A.D., Murugova O.V. Online education through the eyes of students and teachers (based on the 2019 pedagogical research). Otkrytoye obrazovaniye = Open Education. 2020; 24; 2: 4–16. DOI: 10.21686/1818-4243-2020-2-4-16. (In Russ.)

9. Yu T. Examining construct validity of the student online learning readiness (SOLR) instrument using confirmatory factor analysis. Online Learning Journal. 2018; 22; 4: 277-288. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v22i4.1297.

10. Parkesa M., Stein S., Readinga C. Student preparedness for university e-learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education. 2015; 25: 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.002.

11. Kuzmanović M., Andjelković L.J., Nikodijević A. Designing e-learning environment based on student preferences: conjoint analysis approach. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education. 2019; 7; 3: 37–47 DOI: 10.5937/IJCRSEE1903037K.

12. Lyz’ N.A., Istratova O.N. Information and educational activities in the Internet space: types, factors, risks. Pedagogika = Pedagogy. 2019; 4: 16– 26. (In Russ.)

13. Nasri N.M. Self-directed learning through the eyes of teacher educators. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences. 2017; 040; 1: 164–171. DOI: 10.1016/j.kjss.2017.08.006.

14. Soldatova G.U., Rasskazova Ye.I., Nestik T.A. Tsifrovoye pokoleniye Rossii: kompetentnost’ i bezopasnost’ = The digital generation of Russia: competence and safety. Moscow: Smysl = Smysl; 2017. 375 p. (In Russ.)

15. Istratova O.N., Lyz’ N.A. Conceptual model of information and educational activities of students in the Internet space. Azimut nauchnykh issledovaniy: pedagogika i psikhologiya = Azimuth of scientific research: pedagogy and psychology. 2019; 8; 2(27): 314–318. DOI: 10.26140/anip-2019-0802-0095. (In Russ.)

16. Vasil’yev V., Sukhorukova M. Information society and education. Vyssheye obrazovaniye v Rossii = Higher education in Russia. 2004; 7: 122– 129. (In Russ.)

17. Sumuer E. Factors related to college students’ self-directed learning with technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology = Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2018; 34; 4: 29–43. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.3142.

18. Vorob’yeva T.A. Factors of the effectiveness of e-learning. Sibirskiy pedagogicheskiy zhurnal = Siberian Pedagogical Journal. 2015; 5: 65–69. (In Russ.)

19. Yurdugül H., Demir Ö. An investigation of pre-service teachers’ readiness for e-learning at undergraduate level teacher training programs: the case of Hacettepe university. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (H. U. Journal of Education). 2017; 32(4): 896–915. DOI: 10.16986/HUJE.2016022763.

20. Obrazovaniye 20.35. Chelovek / ASI. Yekaterinburg: Izdatel’skiye resheniya = Education 20.35. Human / ASI. Ekaterinburg: Publishing solutions. 2017; 7: 152 p. (In Russ.)

21. Marchenko F.O. Informal online education and the Russian schoolchild. Obrazovatel’naya politika = Educational policy. 2014; 3 (65): 78-89. (In Russ.)