University Professors and the Digitalization of Education: on the Threshold of Force Majeure Transition to Studying Remotely
https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2020.02.014
Abstract
In March 2020, Russian higher education was pretty fast to start working remotely due to the threat of the Covid-19 spread. At the same time, discussions around the development of online education inRussiahave been ongoing for several years. Based on the data from semi-structured interviews with teaching staff in leading Russian universities, the paper studies issues related to using digital technologies and professors’ attitude to educational process digitalization. University teachers are shown to consider students and public policy as key drivers of the educational process digitalization. At the same time, the alarmist view on the active spread of digital technologies is still widespread. Professors who participated in the study did not consider different types of remote and online teaching as an equal substitute for traditional offline formats and technologies. This leads to conservative forecasts regarding the future of online and remote teaching. The results seem mostly important, since they present the situation in Russian universities on the eve of the forced transition to remote teaching due to the spread of the Covid-19 virus. These results make it possible to predict the difficulties that universities may face during the transition to emergency remote teaching.
About the Authors
R. N. Abramov
National research university «Higher School of Economics»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Roman N. Abramov – Dr. hab. (Sociology), Professor, Department of Sociology
101000, Moscow, Myasnitskaya str., 11
I. A. Gruzdev
National research university «Higher School of Economics»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ivan A. Gruzdev – Master (Sociology), Analyst, Center for Sociology in Higher Education
101000, Moscow, Myasnitskaya str., 11
E. A. Terentev
National research university «Higher School of Economics»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgeniy A. Terentev – PhD (Sociology), Senior Researcher, Center for Sociology in Higher Education, Institute of Education
101000, Moscow, Myasnitskaya str., 11
U. S. Zakharova
National research university «Higher School of Economics»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ulyana S. Zakharova – PhD (Philology), Researcher, Center for Sociology in Higher Education, Institute of Education
101000, Moscow, Myasnitskaya str., 11
A. V. Grigoryeva
National research university «Higher School of Economics»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anna V. Grigoryeva – Research Analyst, Project Lab «University Development», Institute of Education
101000, Moscow, Myasnitskaya str., 11
References
1. Jensen T. Higher education in the digital era. The current state of transformation around the world. International Association of Universities, 2019, pp. 28–42, available at: https://www.iau-aiu.net/IMG/pdf/technology_report_2019.pdf (accessed 27.04.2020). (In Eng.).
2. Puentedura R. R. SAMR: A Contextualized Introduction. Lecture at Pine Cobble School, 2014, available at: http://hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/01/15/SAMRABriefContextualizedIntroduction.pdf (accessed 27.04.2020). (In Eng.).
3. Carrington A. Pedagogy Wheel, available at: https://designingoutcomes.com/assets/Padagogy_Wheel_Translations/Padagogy_Whl_V4_RUS_HD.pdf (accessed 27.04.2020). (In Eng.).
4. Spotts T. H., Bowman M. A. Increasing Faculty Use of Instructional Technology: Barriers and Incentives. Educational Media International, 1993, no. 30 (4), pp. 199– 204. DOI: 10.1080/0952398930300403. (In Eng.).
5. Beggs T. A. Influences and Barriers to the Adoption of Instructional Technology. 2000. Paper Presented in Proceedings of the Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference, Murfreesboro, TN, available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED446764.pdf (accessed 27.04.2020). (In Eng.).
6. Butler D. L., Sellbom M. Barriers to Adopting Technology for Teaching and Learning. Educause Quarterly, 2002, no. 25 (2), pp. 22–28, available at: https://er.educause.edu/-/media/files/article-downloads/eqm0223.pdf (accessed 27.04.2020). (In Eng.).
7. Gibson S. G., Harris M. L., Colaric S. M. Technology Acceptance in an Academic Context: Faculty Acceptance of Online Education. Journal of Education for Business, 2008, vol. 83, no., pp. 355–359. (In Eng.).
8. Ocak M. A. Why are Faculty Members not Teaching Blended Courses? Insights from Faculty Members. Computers
9. & Education, 2011, no. 56 (3), pp. 689–699. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.011. (In Eng.).
10. Mama M., Hennessy S. Developing a Typology of Teacher Beliefs and Practices Concerning Classroom Use of ICT. Computers & Education, 2013, no. 68, pp. 380–387. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.022. (In Eng.).
11. Wozney L., Venkatesh V., Abrami P. Implementing Computer Tech nologies: Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2006, no. 14 (1), pp. 173–207, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lori_Wozney/publication/255566914_Implementing_Computer_Technologies_Teachers’_Perceptions_and_Practices/links/572b586408aef7c7e2c6af9c/Implementing-ComputerTechnologies-Teachers-Perceptions-and-Practices.pdf (accessed 27.04.2020). (In Eng.).
12. Zakharova U. S., Tanasenko K. I. MOOK v vysshem obrazovanii: dostoinstva i nedostatki dlya prepodavatelei [MOOCs in Higher Education: Advantages and Pitfalls for Instructors]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2019, no. 3, pp. 176– 202. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2019-3-176-202.
13. Mulder A. The University as a Community in the Digital Age. Places of Engagement, Amsterdam University Press, 2018, 160 p. (In Eng.).
14. Allmer T. Academic Labour, Digital Media and Capitalism. Critical Sociology, 2019, no. 45 (4/5), pp. 599– 615. DOI: 10.1177/0896920517735669. (In Eng.).
15. Boyatzis R. E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1998, 116 p. (In Eng.).
16. Kvale S. Issledovatel’skoye interv’yu [Research Interview], Moscow, Smysl, 2003, 184 p. (In Russ.).
17. McMillan J. J., Cheney G. The Student as Consumer: The Implications and Limitations of a Metaphor. Communication Education, 1996, no. 45 (1), pp. 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/03634529609379028. (In Eng.).
18. Drahokoupil J., Fabo B. The Platform Economy and the Disruption of the Employment Relationship. ETUI Policy Brief. Brussels, 2016, available at: https://www.etui.org/Publications2/Policy-Briefs/European-EconomicEmployment-and-Social-Policy/The-platform-economy-andthe-disruption-of-the-employment-relationship (accessed 27.04.2020). (In Eng.).
19. Srnicek N. Kapitalizm platform [Capitalism of Platforms], Moscow, Higher School of Economics, 2018, 115 p. (In Russ.).
20. Hassan R. The worldly space: the digital university in network time. British Journal of Sociology of Education, no. 38 (1), pp. 72–82. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2016.1234364. (In Eng.).
21. Abramov R. N., Gruzdev I. A., Terentev E. A. Trevoga i entuziazm v diskursakh ob akademicheskom mire: mezhdunarodnyi i rossiiskii konteksty [Alarm and Enthusiasm in Discourses on the Academic World: International and Russian Contexts]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2016, no. 138 (2), pp. 16–32, available at: https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/novoe_literaturnoe_obozrenie/138_nlo_2_2016/article/11848/ (accessed 27.04.2020). (In Russ.).
22. Balatsky E. Istoshchenie akademicheskoi renty [The Depleting of Academic Rents]. Mir Rossii. Sotsiologiya. Etnologiya, 2014, no. 23 (3), pp. 150–174. (In Russ.).
23. Deem R. Globalisation, New Managerialism, Academic Capitalism and Entrepreneurialism in Universities: Is the Local Dimension Still Important? Comparative Education, 2001, no. 37 (1), pp. 7–20. DOI: 10.1080/03050060020020408. (In Eng.).
24.
Review
For citations:
Abramov R.N., Gruzdev I.A., Terentev E.A., Zakharova U.S., Grigoryeva A.V. University Professors and the Digitalization of Education: on the Threshold of Force Majeure Transition to Studying Remotely. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2020;24(2):59-74. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2020.02.014
Views:
2337
Email this article 