Digital Transformation of the Higher Education System: Directions and Risks

Purpose of research. The higher education system is undergoing changes under the influence of an increasing number of IT solutions used. Transformation changes take place at the organizational, technological, legal, and regulatory levels of management. Each of the directions affects the features of the functioning and development of the higher education system. In the 

process of their implementation, there are also deviations, risks that need to be, if not eliminated, then at least minimized. The article describes four main directions of development: technical, technological, instrumental, and educational. The types of risks associated with each of the described areas are also highlighted.

Materials and methods. A set of methods was used in the paper: bibliographic (selection of articles by keywords); bibliometric (quantitative characteristics by time parameters); content analysis (method of studying the content of articles); evaluation of keyword queries using Internet services.

Results. An analysis of queries by keywords showed that interest in the issues of digitalization and digital transformation of higher education arose later than in the system of general secondary education. There is a tendency to adapt successful models of digitalization of secondary education and business areas to the activities of the higher education system. Without considering the peculiarities of the functioning and development of the higher education system, we can get negative consequences expressed in different types of risks. The paper highlights financial, form-major, technological, operational, strategic, cognitive, and social risks.

Conclusion. One of the key problems highlighted in the process of analyzing developments in the field of digital transformation of the education system is the consideration of digitalization as means, and not as a catalyst for systemic changes in all areas of activity. Point solutions will not allow you to fully realize the potential of digital solutions. When considering the problems of digitalization and digital transformation, higher education systems are often guided by successful models in the field of secondary general education and / or business environment, which can contribute to the formation of negative consequences when adapting approaches without considering their own specifics.

1. Andreyev A.L. Technoscience. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki = Philosophy of science and technology. 2011; 1: 200–218. (In Russ.)

2. Gavrilina Ye.A. Engineer in the Modern World: Homo Faber Vs Homo Mechanicus. Vedomosti Prikladnoy Etiki = Bulletin of Applied Ethics. 2014; 44: 107–119. (In Russ.)

3. Panina G.V. Sociotechnical design in engineering education. Vedomosti prikladnoy etiki = Bulletin of Applied Ethics. 2015; 47: 139–151. (In Russ.)

4. Budenkova Ye.A. Online discussions: advantages and methodology. Obrazovatel’nyye tekhnologii = Educational technologies. 2012; 3: 113–127. (In Russ.)

5. Ventseva N.A. Discussion as a didactic category. Vestnik TGPI = Herald TSPI. 2007; 2: 132–136. (In Russ.)

6. Klarin M.V. Innovatsionnyye modeli obucheniya: Issledovaniye mirovogo opyta = Innovative learning models: A study of world experience. Moscow: Luch = Luch; 2018. 640 p. (In Russ.)

7. Murzenko L.V Educational discussion as a means of forming intercultural competence among students of language universities in the conditions of distance education. Izvestiya RGPU im. Pedagogicheskiye tekhnologii distantsionnogo obucheniya = Herald RGPU im. Pedagogical technologies of distance learning. 2010; 121: 197–201. (In Russ.)

8. Skibitskiy E.G., Kitova Ye.T. Formation of Debatable Competence of Undergraduates as a Tool for Finding the Optimal Solution of Problem Problems. Sibirskaya finansovaya shkola = Siberian Financial School. 2015; 3(110): 101–104. (In Russ.)

9. Skibitskiy E.G., Perfilova A.V. Formation of debating competence among students of a technical university. Sibirskiy pedagogicheskiy zhurnal = Siberian Pedagogical Journal. 2016; 3: 38–44. (In Russ.)

10. Perfilova A.V. Foreign experience in organizing educational online discussions at the university. Natsional’naya gvardiya na strazhe Nezavisimosti strany: teoriya i praktika sluzhebno-boyevoy deyatel’nosti (k 25-letiyu Nezavisimosti Respubliki Kazakhstan): Sbornik materialov mezhdunarodnoy nauchnoprakticheskoy konferentsii = The National Guard on Guard of the Independence of the Country: Theory and Practice of Service and Combat Activities (on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Independence of the Republic of Kazakhstan): Collection of materials of the international scientific and practical conference. Petropavlovsk: VI NG of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 2016. Part 2. 381 p. (In Russ.)

11. Gregory S. Discussion boards as collaborative learning tools. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education & Lifelong Learning. 2015; 25; 1: 63–76. DOI: 10.1504/ijceell.2015.066548.

12. Kim M.K., Ketenci T. Learner participation profiles in an asynchronous online collaboration context. The Internet and Higher Education. 2019; 41: 62–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.02.002.

13. Steen T.M. Facilitating online learning activities through the discussion board: A first year university students‘ perspective. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning. 2015; 25: 77–102. DOI: 10.1504/IJCEELL.2015.066549.

14. Ackerman D., Gross B. Synchronous online discussion board as a primary mode of delivering marketing education: responding to the covid-19 pandemic and beyond. Marketing Education Review. 2021; 1; 10: 284–293. DOI: 10.1080/10528008.2021.1893752.

15. Rinekso A., Bukhori M.A. Synchronous online discussion: Teaching English in higher education amidst the covid-19 pandemic. JEES. 2020; 5; 2: 155–162. DOI: 10.21070/jees.v5i2.646.

16. Salminen T., Marttunen M., Laurinen, L. Visualizing knowledge from chat debates in argument diagrams. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2010; 26; 5: 379-391.

17. Ergulec F. Design and facilitation strategies used in asynchronous online discussions. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology. 2019; 7; 2: 20–36. DOI: 10.17220/mojet.2019.02.002.

18. Olesova L., Slavin M., Lim J. Exploring the Effect of Scripted Roles on Cognitive Presence in Asynchronous Online Discussions. Online Learning. 2016; 20; 4: 34–53. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v20i4.1058.

19. Schindler L., Burkholder G. Instructional Design and Facilitation Approaches that Promote Critical Thinking in Asynchronous Online Discussions: A Review of the Literature. Higher Learning Research Communications. 2014; 4; 4: 11–29. DOI: 10.18870/hlrc.v4i4.222.

20. Delahunty J. Connecting to learn, learning to connect: Thinking together in asynchronous forum discussion. Linguistics & Education. 2018; 46: 12– 22. DOI: 10.1016/j.linged.2018.05.003.

21. Khlaif Z., Nadiruzzaman H., Kwon, K. Types of interaction in online discussion forums: A case study. Journal of Educational Issues. 2017; 3; 1: 155–169. DOI: 10.5296/jei.v3i1.10975.

22. Rustika Dewi G.P., Santosa M.H. Students’ perception on the facilitation strategies provided by teachers in asynchronous online discussion. LLT Journal. 2022; 25; 1: 160–170. DOI: 10.24071/llt. v25i1.3579.

23. Garrison D., Anderson T., Archer W. Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education. 2001; 15; 1: 7–23. DOI: 10.1080/08923640109527071.

24. Gunawardena C., Anderson T. Analysis of A Global Online Debate and The Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 1997; 17; 4: 397–431. DOI: 10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG.

25. Rodriguez M. Content Analysis as a Method to Assess Online Discussions for Learning. SAGE Open. 2014; 1: 13. DOI: 10.1177/2158244014559019.

26. Breivik J. Argumentative patterns in students’ online discussions in an introductory philosophy course. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy. 2020; 15; 1: 8–23. DOI: 10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2020-01-02.

27. Erduran S., Simon S., Osborne, J. TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education. 2004; 88; 6: 915-933. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20012.

28. Leitao S. The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development. 2000; 43; 6: 332–360. DOI: 10.1159/000022695.

29. Smirnov V.P. Diagnostika stepeni obuchennosti uchashchikhsya: Uchebnospravochnoye posobiye = Diagnosis of the degree of learning of students: Educational and reference manual. Moscow: MRA; 1999. 48 p. (In Russ.)

30. Toulmin S. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press; 2003. 247 p. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511840005.

31. Grzhibovskiy A.M., Ivanov S.V., Gorbatova M.A. Analysis of Nominal and Rank Variable Data Using Statistica and SPSS Software. Nauka i Zdravookhraneniye = Science and health. 2016; 6: 5–39. (In Russ.)

32. Wang Q., Woo H.L. Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational. 2007; 38; 2: 272–286. DOI: 10.1111/j.14678535.2006.00621.x.

33. Skibitskiy E.G., Skibitskaya I.YU. Nauchnyye kommunikatsii = Scientific communications. Novosibirsk: NGASU (Sibstrin); 2019. 170 p. (In Russ.)