Distance learning: from catalepsy to metamorphosis

The topic to discuss at the article is formulated in brief as follows: how has the attitude towards distance learning changed (and has it changed) among the main subjects of educational interaction? There are two ways to get the answer to this question: analysis of what distance learning is, and what is its place in the modern education system (theoretical analysis). And the second way: statistics, which (at least partially) helps the authors to draw up an approximate reflection  on the status of distance learning of the 1st and 2nd year students  studying at the Siberian Federal University. The era of distance learning (DL) 1.0. is quickly replaced by 2.0 era. If for the first one the main methods were correspondent, case, watch, radio-and-TV, later network interactions, then for 2.0 one it becomes possible to have the effect of a virtual (including visualized holographically) presence of the teacher with the same effect as the educational interaction in the traditional classroom system. The theoretical reflection is expressed in the mutual and consistent removal of three concepts: from bihaviorism through constructivism to connectivism. At the same time, the meaning of educational interaction has under way shifted from organizational (and  often compulsory) learning through self-organization to learning, which meaning is not knowledge itself, but the ability to find the necessary  information and the ability to filter it. Based on these methodological theses, the authors made an attempt to highlight the main aspects of difficulties faced by university students as the main subjects of  educational practices in the transition to distance learning 2.0, and transforming it into an educational ecosystem. The hypothesis  formulated before the survey was that in the context of a pandemic caused totality and displacement, as well as the modernization of the  technical component of education, the determining condition was psychological preparedness for this transition. In fact, remote online training began in our country about ten years ago, and the sharpness of  the spurt in the direction of its development predetermined  psychological tension. The study results confirmed this hypothesis only  partially. The teacher community was less labile to transition compared to the student one. But at the same time, the statistics give a number of interesting nuances related to unequal opportunities for urban and rural entrants when enrolling in the State Federal University, the difference in the effectiveness of their interaction forms in the  "teacher-student" system and others. These nuances confirmed the thesis that psychological readiness for implementing, mastering and  developing online education in the 2.0 form requires primarily from the pedagogical community, and the difference in the level of responsibility  for the quality of educational practices (both provided and subjective) between teachers and students can be substantial.

education, distance learning, online education, subjects of educational practices, online education 2.0, educational interaction, quality of education, responsibility of educational subjects, psychological readiness,

1. Winchester I., Manery R. Conceptual analysis in the contemporary educational landscape. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 2019, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 113–116. DOI: https://org/10/7202/1071433ar.

2. Tersi L. On educational excellence. Philosophical inquiry in Education, 2020, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 92–105.

3. Bowen W. G. Higher education in the digital age. Moscow, Higher School of Economics Publ., 2018, 224 p. (In Russ.). DOI:10.17323/978-5-7598-1518-1.

4. Bray M., Adamson B., Mason M. (eds.) Research on comparative education: approaches and methods. 2nd ed. Moscow, Higher School of Economics Publ., 2019, 472 p. DOI: 10.17323/9785-5-7598-1790-1.

5. ICSIT-2020: 11th International Conference on Society and Information Technologies (Orlando, Florida, 10-13 Match 2020). URL: http://toc.proceedings.com/54136wbtoc.pdf (accessed 12.08.2020).

6. Noskova A. V., Goloukhova D. V., Proskurina A. S., Nguyen T. Kh. Digitalization of the educational environment: assessing risks of distance learning by Russian and Vietnamese students. Higher education in Russia, 2021, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 156–167. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2021-30-1-156-167.

7. Storozheva S. P., Strukova E. G., Shilin R. D. Communication practices of preserving the contingent of students in the system of distance education. Professional education in the modern world, 2020, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 4190-4201. (In Russ.). DOI://https://doi.org/10/20913/2618-7515-2020-4-03.

8. Kidley M., Ran G., Schibch F., Patel V. Poverty, depression, and anxiety. Cansal evidence and mechanisms. Science, 2020, vol. 370, no. 6522, art. 214, pp. 3–14. DOI: 10.116/science, aay0214.

9. Dunaevsky V. V., Kuznetsov A. V. Catatonia - the evolution of views and modern ideas (literature review). Review of psychiatry and medical psychology, 2019, no. 4-2, pp. 29-40. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31363/2313-7053-2019-4-2-29-40.

10. Blair E. Guide to psychiatry. Moscow: Independent psychiatr. assoc., 1993, 573 p. (In Russ.).

11. Ivanov M. A. Metamorphosis. New philosophical encyclopedia. URL: https://iphlib.ru/library/collection/newphilenc/document/HASH0124a44f27a14308d1c56924 (accessed 28.11.2020). (In Russ.).

12. Petukhova A. The science of distance learning. Commersant. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4574683 (accessed 28.11.2020). (In Russ.).

13. Kravchenko SA Digital risks, metamorphoses and centrifugal tendencies in the youth environment. Sociological research, 2019, no. 8, pp. 48–57. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/so13216250006186-7.

14. Marey A. Digitalization as a paradigm change. Boston Consalting Group. URL: https://www.bcg.com/ru-ru/about]dcg-review/digitalization (accessed 12.08.2020). (In Russ.).

15. Spitzer M. Anti-brain. Digital technologies and the brain. Мoscow, AST, 2013, 288 p. (In Russ.).

16. Chetverikova O. N. Transhumanism in Russian education. Our children are like a commodity. Moscow, Bk. world, 2020, 384 p. (In Russ.).

17. Kurpatov A. V. The Fourth World War. The future is near! Saint Petersburg, Capital, 2019, 400 p. (In Russ.).

18. Chernykh S. I. Digitalization of education as a disruptive innovation. Problems of higher education and modern trends in socio-humanitarian knowledge (VIII Arsentiev Readings): proc. of All-Russ. sci. conf. with intern. participation (Cheboksary, Dec. 17-18, 2019). Cheboksary, 2020, pp. 254–258. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31483/r-53748.

19. Uvarova A. Yu., Frumin N. D. (eds.) Difficulties and prospects of digital transformation of education. Moscow, Higher School of Economics Publ., 2019. 343 p. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/975-5-7598-1990-5.

20. Kolesnikova N. A. Post-pedagogical syndrome of the postmodern era. Higher education in Russia, 2019, vol. 28, no. 8/9, pp. 67–82. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-8-9-67-82.

21. Kvanina V. V. Civil law regulation of relations in the field of higher professional education. Moscow, Gotics, 2005, 367 p. (In Russ.).

22. Gershunsky B. S. Philosophy of education: textbook. Moscow, 1998, 427 p. (In Russ.).

23. Federal Law "On Education in the Russian Federation" on December 29, 2012 no. 273-FZ (as amended on 05.07.2013 with amendments came into force on May 19, 2013). ConsultantPlus. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_140147/ (accessed 28.11.2020).

24. Borisenko I. G., Chernykh S. I. Virtualization of the domestic educational space. Krasnoyarsk, Siber. Feder. Univ., 2016, 262 p. (In Russ.).

25. What is the difference between online and offline learning? Naukademi. URL: https://naukademy.ru/news/v-chem-raznisa-mezhdu-onlayn-i-oflayn-obucheniem/ (accessed 12.08.2020). (In Russ.).

26. Horn M., Staker H. Blended learning. Harnessing disruptive innovations to improve schooling. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2015, 343 p. (In Russ.).

27. Chernykh S. I., Borisenko I. G. Digital technologies in education and their impact on the change in human capital. Philosophy of education, 2020, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 5–20. (In Russ.).

28. Chernykh S. I., Borisenko I. G. The transformation of trust under conditions of instability of educational interactions. Advances in natural, human-made, and coupled human-natural systems research. Cham, 2021, vol. 1, pp. 697–706.

29. Chernykh S. I., Borisenko I. G. Changing the ecosystem of education in a turbulent society. Higher education in the modern world: history and prospects. Moscow, 2020, pp. 83–95. (In Russ.).

30. Krol A. Future education system 2.0. Interactive education, 2017, no.1, pp. 20–27. (In Russ.).

31. Dolinskaya V. V., Slesarev V. L. Practiceoriented education: problems and ways to solve them. Bulletin of O. E. Kutafin University, 2016, no. 10, pp. 6–17. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2016.26.10.006-017.

32. Olesova M. M. Application of practice-oriented teaching technologies in the university. Philological sciences. Questions of theory and practice, 2017, no. 7-2, pp. 201–204. (In Russ.).

33. Kazun A. P., Pastukhova L. S. Practices of using the project-based teaching method: the experience of different countries. Education and science, 2018, no. 2, pp. 32–59. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-2-32-59.

34. Khamidulin V. S. Modernization of the model of project-oriented education in the university. Higher education in Russia, 2020, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 135–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-1-135-149.

35. Education has never smelled so much of money: how 2020 changed the learning market. Forbes. URL: https://forbes.ru/karera-i-svoy-biznes/416709-nikogdaobrazovanie-tak-silno-ne-pahlo-dendami-kak-2020-godizmenil (accessed 28.11.2020).