CC BY
11PERCEPTION OF REMOTE TRAINING BY STUDENTS AND TEACHERS OF THE UNIVERSITY:
FOR AND AGAINST
Yakovets K., Yakovets R., Chornenka Zh.
Bukovinian State Medical University, Ukraine
Abstract
The current state of such a learning format as distance learning impresses with the pace of its development. If 10 years ago the "distance" was associated mainly with distance or additional education, now almost any higher education program contains certain elements of e-courses, which are mastered in a remote format. Behind this is a whole set of socio-cultural reasons related to the technicalization of society, the desire to reduce the cost of organizing the educational process, increasing the mobility of people in general. Nevertheless, in the pedagogical community this process is perceived ambiguously. Along with supporters, there are opponents who believe that such non-traditional forms of education not only destroy the established in decades of domestic higher education, but also worsen the quality of education.
Keywords: distance learning, perception, educational process, teacher-student.
Today, distance learning does not surprise anyone, most of the educational institutions of various levels in Russia and abroad to some extent use distance learning technologies in the pedagogical process. Many students today consider this form of education as an alternative to the usual not only in obtaining a second education, advanced training, but also choose this method for obtaining a first higher education. Even 10 years ago, the number of students in the world receiving education in distance technology exceeded the number of full-time students. There is no way out of modern trends, and many universities understand this and try to develop in this direction. By the way, it is correct to say "distance learning", not "distance education", because this is just another way of forming the knowledge and skills of the student, and the content of education remains unchanged.
For a month of quarantine in the news and social networks have already managed to discuss all the details and nuances of distance learning at school: from analyzing the quality of TV lessons by the President's Office to advice from psychologists on how to organize education and children's lives indoors. But much less was said about distance education in universities. Immediately after the announcement of the quarantine, the Ministry of Education announced that it trusted universities to organize distance learning, then announced the time frame for the VNO and the introductory campaign, and thus completed its mission.
Of course, this makes sense. After all, the level of autonomy of universities is significantly higher than that of schools, so the solvency should be incomparably greater. In addition, universities work with an older audience that has (or should have) self-organization skills and the ability to learn independently. And this is undoubtedly easier than teaching young children, especially elementary school students, who find it harder to focus on the topic while sitting at home in front of a computer or tablet.
On the one hand, there are institutions (mostly with an extensive network of branches), where the system of distance education is not the first year. For example, BSMU has its own platform for distance learning, where online meetings of departments are held, and the administration monitors and coordinates the work of departments. But there is another approach: some
universities have simply removed the distance learning orders and sent teachers and students free-swimming without asking for details. Is this enough to make the distance education system work?
For this purpose, a questionnaire survey of students and teachers was conducted on the basis of Bu-kovina State University. The study involved 150 people. Including 105 students of 1-6 courses and 45 teachers (of which 21 are candidates of sciences and 2 doctors of sciences). The age of the subjects varied from 17 to 62 years (mean age was 28.5 ± 9.6 years). In total, 99 people had distance learning experience (63 students and 36 teachers), 51 had no such experience (42 students and 9 teachers).
Respondents were offered a questionnaire consisting of 16 closed questions, two questions with a rating scale and one open question. A special block of questions is divided into several semantic parts. The first part included questions about respondents' preferences in choosing ways to obtain information. Respondents were offered currently popular sources of information from which one or more answer options could be chosen. A separate block presented questions about the reasons for accessing the Internet in everyday life. The next block included questions about the experience and motives for distance learning. Subjects were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of distance learning in general, as well as separately on such indicators as the importance of practical skills and theoretical knowledge in life and professional activities. Next, respondents were asked to rate on a five-point scale the importance of such characteristics of distance learning as the ability to plan time independently, the ability to learn without leaving home or office, individual pace of learning, a large selection of courses, the ability to gain unique knowledge, the ability to quickly acquire new knowledge with limited health, no need to communicate with other students. The next part of the questionnaire was presented with questions to identify the didactic features of distance learning. Participants had the opportunity to express their opinion on what form of control is most appropriate for this format of learning, whether the student needs a tutor, how important interactivity is in the presentation of the material. In the final block of the questionnaire there were open questions
about the advantages and limitations of distance learning, the prospects for the spread of these technologies in higher education.
It was logical to start the analysis of students 'and teachers' perceptions of such a technical form of learning as distance learning with an indicator of the amount of time spent on the Internet. We hypothesized that a stable "online presence" is a marker of loyalty to the distance learning format. As a result of the survey, it was found that teachers spend less time online than students, namely, on average about 5 hours a day, while students spend more than 7 hours. It seems quite natural that the younger part of our sample more often "goes online" for the purpose of education (84% vs. 37% of teachers), communication (84% vs. 54% of teachers) and entertainment (56% vs. 23% of teachers) . Teachers are more likely than students to access the Internet for information (94% vs. 51% of students) and for work (83% vs. 36% of students). It is noteworthy that the presented scatter did not affect the overall assessment of the effectiveness of distance learning, which was in the experience of respondents. Both teachers and students praised him, but not highly enough.
So, regardless of the experience of the respondents and the completion of their education, the "distance" did not receive very high marks. Let's try to understand - why?
When analyzing the answers to the open question about the shortcomings of distance learning among teachers and students, several groups of answers were identified: "low quality of taught material", "low quality of control of the acquired knowledge", "limitation in obtaining practical skills", "lack of ability to take into account learner"," dependence on technical means ".
Among the teachers, the group "rigidity of the taught material" was additionally distinguished, and among the students - "high distractibility, the problem of self-organization."
But the most worrying thing for most students and teachers was the "lack of communication." Directly related to this is the "need for a curator in the conditions of a distance course", which was noted by the majority of respondents (only 2 teachers and 2 students believe that a curator is not needed). Among students, 26.66% said that a curator is always needed, and 68.8% said that he is needed from time to time. Teachers had a constant need to have a curator during a distance learning course in 40% of cases, while 54.28% said that a curator was needed from time to time. These data reflect the understandable desire of both students and teachers to "live human communication" even in the context of robotic learning. And this is critical even for a technologically advanced student audience. In this regard, we can recall the classic definition of the learning process in educational psychology, as a "specially organized, controlled process of interaction between teachers and students." Probably, the absence of the usual schemes of pedagogical communication in the remote mode from the childhood is an obstacle for acceptance of such format by a part of respondents. It is this feature of "distance" learning that confuses most students and teachers alike.
Both students and teachers praised such characteristics as "the ability to plan time yourself" (3.98 points out of 5), "the ability to study without leaving home or office" (3.76 points out of 5), accessibility for people with disabilities" (4.04 points out of 5). This suggests
that the specifics of this modern format are perceived differently by different subjects of the educational process. However, they see different prospects for its development. This is evidenced by the following results of the questionnaire.
When analyzing the answer to the question "Can, in your opinion, distance learning completely replace full-time?" students showed a tendency to readiness to study remotely. Namely, of all the students surveyed, 26.66% answered "yes", while only 8.57% of the teachers answered positively. Thus, teachers are significantly less likely to allow the full replacement of fulltime education with distance learning. This skepticism of the "elders" is to a certain extent logical. Probably, it is associated with personal educational experience, a kind of habit to a particular training format in which a person has been for many years. Especially during the most sensitive periods for childhood and youth for the perception and assimilation of knowledge. For most of the adult citizens of our country, these were the conditions of a traditional, classroom, or lecture system. The novelty effect that e-learning carries in itself is alarming to people. And if you transfer these arguments from the macro-social level to the plane of the psychology of professional development, then perhaps the teachers' doubts about the prospects of "distance learning" are based on personal inability to work in this new format. The technology of production and conduct of the electronic course itself requires teachers to actualize different from the usual set of competencies. In this context, the assessment of various aspects of "distance learning" by students seems even more revealing, or at least free from the pressure of the professional community and personal fears of losing teaching due to the spread of distance learning.
So, the pros are:
1) the majority of researchers call the first "plus" of distance learning the opportunity for students to get an education on the job. This is, indeed, a very important argument in favor of choosing this form of education, especially for those who decide to get higher education already in adulthood;
2) there is no need to go to an educational institution, at least to do it often. This is especially true for students from the periphery: it leads to a reduction in financial costs, makes it possible to obtain a diploma from metropolitan or foreign universities;
3) those who are physically unable to be in the classroom due to disability also have the opportunity to get an education. Our university and the author personally have experience working remotely with such students;
4) in our society there have always been and are people who are able to "educate themselves", i.e. engaged in self-education, but for one reason or another not having an officially recognized result of such education - a diploma. Distance learning allows to some extent reduce the dependence of a person who wants and is able to acquire knowledge independently, from educational institutions and, on a par with others, have the opportunity to receive a diploma of higher education;
5) the opportunity for students to participate in the organization of their educational process: to choose the time and place for working with educational material,
to determine the speed of studying the material, corresponding to the peculiarities of their thinking;
6) students have a higher level of conscious attitude to study, they begin to feel responsibility for the result of their training, learn to rationally distribute time and effort;
7) for a university, distance learning allows you to reach a larger number of students, i.e. increase target audience.
Of course, distance learning has its own "minuses":
1) the student does not have the opportunity to consult a teacher personally;
2) there is no way to learn "live" to build relationships in the team (with teachers, classmates, the university administration), speak to an audience;
3) not every profession can be mastered remotely (doctor, veterinarian);
4) not every student knows how to maintain motivation for independent work. In addition, the lack of such an effective motivator of educational activity as constant monitoring by the teacher affects it. Those teachers who work with the 1st year in universities know how important it is for first-year students, especially at first, to check their homework and regularly organize verification and verification work. A very low percentage of students who do not need such control, they already realize that independent work on the subject is necessary;
5) the student does not have the opportunity to compare the intermediate results of his studies with other students, and compare "live": when working at the blackboard, speaking at conferences, etc.
6) the absence of a person nearby who delivers material with an emotional coloring, which affects the degree of his understanding (recall the fragment of the movie "Big Change" in which Nestor Petrovich gives a lecture on Emperor Nero, who ordered to set fire to Rome, which would inspire him to write poems about fire - none of the listeners was indifferent).
7) for the teacher in the classroom, it is important to feel how students understand the material (according to their views, on asked questions, answers to their questions) and to promptly adjust the learning process: repeat difficult moments again, give additional clarifications on some issues, change pace of presentation. With distance learning, such a connection is lost;
8) the student is tempted and has enough opportunities for "non-independent" training, and the teacher does not have the opportunity for quality control of such costs of distance technologies;
9) for the university, the introduction of distance learning is associated with high material costs: technical equipment, software and hardware, training of special personnel, etc.
But at the same time, it should be noted moments that to some extent compensate for some of the shortcomings listed above: it is impossible to get face-to-face consultation - you can consult using messages or Skype; there is no "living" relationship - but for some students this provides a more comfortable psychological environment for learning, etc. In addition, no one has canceled the traditional form of training, students always have the choice: regular full-time, distance learning or distance learning.
The main factor that confuses the respondents in connection with the prospect of spreading the distance learning format is the lack of communication with teachers and members of the student group, in other words, the general de-individualization of the process. They are also worried about the rigidity of the material presented in electronic form, and these concerns are understandable, because any information, even educational, now tends to quickly become obsolete. In addition, the need for high self-organization seems to be a difficulty, which against the background of the generally recognized problem of low motivation to learn from children and youth can also become an obstacle to learning remotely.
Conclusion. There is no vivid confrontation between the younger and technologically advanced part of the sample - students, and the more conservative -teachers. On average, respondents are loyal to distance learning, however, assess the effectiveness of such training not too high, giving the "palm" full-time. And this is a natural result for a new pedagogical technology that appeared on the educational market a little more than 10 years ago. At the same time, at the level of the trend, it can be noted that, recognizing all the didactic and organizational flaws of the new training format, students are more optimistic than teachers, looking at its prospects. So, 27% of them admit the possibility of a full replacement of full-time on a remote, but among teachers - this is only 9%. These results are largely due to the fact that for students, distance learning is an opportunity to facilitate the development of the curriculum, and for teachers is a convenient option for additional education. We omit here the influence of the factor of social desirability on the objectivity of the responses of teachers whose professional stability and material well-being may change due to the distribution of an alternative teaching format used by most teachers, but we emphasize that even this part of the sample notes a number of its undoubted advantages. Among them -temporary and territorial freedom of students, as well as accessibility for people with disabilities.
References
1. Polat, E.S. Theory and practice of distance learning: textbook. manual for higher students. textbook institutions / E.S. Polat, M. Yu. Bukharkin, M.V. Moiseeva; ed. E.S. Polat. - M.: №gax Center "Academy", 2004. - 416 p.
2. Robert, I.V. Development of didactics in terms of informatization of education / I.W. Robert // Pedagogy. - 2012. - № 9. - P. 25-36.
3. Distance learning (experience of pedagogical experiment implementation in Poltava University of Economics and Trade) [Electronic resource]. - View access mode.: http://el.puet.edu.ua/sites/de-fault/files/book_el.pdf
4. Kiyan, I.V. Evaluation of the quality of pedagogical technologies in the system of distance learning / I.V. Kiyan // Successes of modern science. - 2012. -№ 2. - P. 76-84.
5. Romanenkova, D.F. Pedagogical support of distance learning / D. F. Romanenkova // Innovative information technologies: materials of the international. scientific-practical conf. / Ed. S.U. Uvaisov. - M.: MIEM, 2012. - P. 142-144.
