Personal educational environment in the problem field of the philosophy of education

Introduction. One of the main trends in the transformation of post-industrial education is the transfer of educational-activity to the internet. E-learning is available in its mobile version. This determines the development of the possibility of total continuous learning with the emphasis in this segment of intellectual learning. The latter is directly related to artificial intelligence, the selectivity of educational practices and the design of a personal educational environment (hereinafter – PIC). The actualization and design of the POS is the most difficult segment in the design of the electronic information and educational space (hereinafter – EEEP) of any educational institution. This manifested itself already at the stage of early e-learning, became apparent at the m-learning, (mobil learning) and is even more actualized at the stages of u-learning (ubiquitous learning) – тотального обучения and smart e-learning – интеллектуального обучения.

Purpose setting. The aim of this article is to analyze what has been achieved in understanding the PIC problamatics at the stage of e-learning in the scope of the EEEP of the university.

Methodology and methods of the study. The article is based on the methodogical principles of connectivism (W. G. Bowen, A. Marey, N. A. Kolesnikova, M. Horne, H. Steaker, A. Krol and other) as applied to the transformation of the modern pedagogical practices towards their individualization. The ideas of D. Buckley, actualized by the concepts of «personalization for the student» and «personalization of the student», by Mohammed Amin Chatti, whe substantiated the position of the PIC not only as a subjective set of tools for its creation, but also on the transfer of control over them to the continuously student, turned out to be important for the work. Sean Fitzgerald’s advice on the importance of the projective method for creating an individual educational space is also valuable. To date, there is no single definition and understanding of PIC, but as domestic teachers and philosophers of education (A. N. Ksenofontova, A. B. Ledeneva, A. B. Vasilchenko, A. V. Slepukhin, V. A. Starodubtsev, Yu. Duknich, I. Yu. Malkova, A. V. Feshchenko and other), and foreign (M. Martin, S. Wilson, A. Cann, S. Russel and others) agree that variability as the main property of EIOS (EEES, ICOS, ICOP) is the main determinant of design and creation PIC. The second «conciliatory» point is that PIC is an environment for the “new generation” of Zetas and Alphas, integrating artificial intelligence, needs, meanings, values and abilities of individuals of the “gigital economy” and “gigital education” in its development.

Results. By the current time, the most development approaches in the formation of PIC are personological (based on which the subjectivity of the student is realized through his personal, including educational experience) and activity (based on the principle of autodidacties). In our opinion, it has a greater epistemological potential. The author tried to demonstrate the rationale for this in the article.

Conclusions. Self-regulation, self-government, self-organization based on information and communication technologies are the main positional characteristics of PIC in the volume of an formation is carried out on the basis of the ICOS and informal learning, which integrates POCs of both learners and educatory. The subject in the case is a motivated student. Formal (mass) education presupposes the formation of another type of ICOP, more standardized for poorly motivated students. The professional educational space is the meaning of the type of ICOP.

1. Barsukova E. M., Belorutskaya A. K., Ivanova E. V., Levon T. N., Shmis T. G., Ustinova M. A., Lozovsky M. B. Forming the modern educational environment. Moscow, Russ. textbook, 2019, 44 p. (In Russ.).

2. Yasvin V. A. Educational environment: from modeling to design. 2nd ed. Moscow, Smysl, 2001, 365 p. (In Russ.).

3. Panov V. I. Psychodidactics of educational systems: theory and practice. Saint Petersburg, Piter, 2007, 352 p. (In Russ.).

4. Rubtsov V. V. Communication-oriented educational environments. Psychology of design. Moscow, Novosibirsk, Ven-Mer, 1996, 157 p. (In Russ.).

5. Slobodchikov V. I. Educational environment: realizing the education goals in the space of culture. New values of education: cultural models of schools. Moscow, 1997, iss. 7, pp. 177–184. (In Russ.).

6. Panov V. I. Ecological psychology. The experience of methodology design. Moscow, Nauka, 2004, 197 p. (In Russ.).

7. 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.

8. Gorbunova N. V. (ed.) Digitalization as a priority direction for the modernization of Russian education. Saratov, 2019, 152 p. pp. 44–66. (In Russ.).

9. Mironenko E. S. Digital educational environment: concepts and structure. Social space, 2019, no. 4, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.15838/sa.2019.4.4.21.6. (In Russ.).

10. Ksenofontova A. N., Ledeneva A. V. The concept of designing a personal educational environment. Bulletin of Orenburg State University, 2016, no. 8, pp. 27–32. (In Russ.).

11. Chatti M. A. Personalization in technology enhanced learning: a social software perspective: diss. theses. Ahena, Ahena Univ., 2010. 399 p.

12. Starodubtsev V. V. Creation of a personal educational environment for a university teacher: textbook. Tomsk: Tomsk Polytechn. Univ. Publ., 2012, 124 p. (In Russ.).

13. Slepukhin A. V. Using a personal educational environment in the process of individualization of students’ blended learning. Pedagogical education in Russia, 2014, no. 11, pp. 195–205. (In Russ.).

14. Vasilchenko S. Kh. Forming a personal educational environment based on information technologies for the implementation of individual learning trajectories: a case of corporate training: diss. theses. Moscow, 2012, 173 p. (In Russ.).

15. Digital footprints in education: online conf. Oct. 13 2021. URL: https://conf.landbook.com/cso2021 (accessed 08.11.2021).

16. Brodovskaya E. V., Dombrovskaya A. Yu., Petrova T. E., Pyrma R. V., Azarov A. A. Digital environment of the leading universities of the world and the Russian Federation: results of a comparative analysis of these sites. Higher education in Russia, 2019, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 9–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-12-9-22. (In Russ.).

17. Chernykh S. I. Educational space in terms of informatization of society. Novosibirsk, NSAU Publ., 2011, 254 p. (In Russ.).

18. Chernykh S. I., Allaham Y. S., Parshikov V. I. Education as a destructor of the social order. Science for Education Today, 2021, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 81–101. DOI: 10.15293/2658-6762.2102.04. (In Russ.).

19. Innovative educational project. URL: https://www.cbsu.ru/nauka-i-innovatsii/innovatsionnaya-deyatelnost/innovatsionny-obrazovatelnyy-proekt.php. (accessed: 08.11.2021).

20. Sarma A. “Seamless” model. Experts in Voronezh – on training and support of teachers. RIA Voronezh. URL: https://riavrn.ru/news/besshovnaya-model-eksperty-vvoronezhe--o-podgotovke-i-soprovozhdenii-pedagogov/ (accessed 08.11.2021).

21. Luksha P., Kubista D., Laszlo A., Popovich M., Ninenko I. Education for a complex society: rep. of Global Education Futures. Moscow, Russ. textbook, 2018, 123 p. (In Russ.).