В статье исследуется готовность аспирантов к смешанному обучению и ее влияние на результаты их научной деятельности. В рамках исследования были проанализированы результаты опросов восьми групп аспирантов второго курса Санкт-Петербургского политехнического университета Петра Великого. Онлайн-опрос был проведен среди аспирантов в конце осеннего семестра 2021 г. Шкала измерения готовности включает пять показателей, которые измерялись по 25 пунктам – самостоятельное обучение, самоэффективность онлайн-коммуникаций, технологическая готовность, контроль обучающегося и мотивация. Для измерения результатов научной деятельности (РНД) авторы провели опрос достижений студентов за 2021 г. (публикации статей, участие в конференциях и заявки на гранты). Для анализа авторы использовали IBM SPSS Statistics, ANOVA, корреляционный и регрессионный анализы. Полученные результаты выявили достоверную взаимосвязь между степенью готовности к смешанному обучению, в частности факторами самоэффективности самостоятельного обучения и онлайн-коммуникации, и результатами исследовательской деятельности аспирантов. Результаты, полученные с помощью метода линейного регрессионного анализа, показали, что самонаправленное обучение, самоэффективность онлайн-коммуникации и мотивация к обучению предопределяют результаты исследовательской деятельности. Таким образом, можно сделать вывод, что влияние факторов готовности на исследовательские результаты студентов особенно заметно в смешанной образовательной среде.
This paper investigates the postgraduate students’ readiness for blended learning and its influence on their research activity outcomes. As part of the study, the results of surveys of 8 groups of 2nd year postgraduate students of Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University were analyzed. An online survey was conducted among postgraduate students at the end of fall semester in 2021. The readiness measurement scale includes five dimensions, that were measured by 25 items – self-directed learning, online communication self-efficacy, technology readiness, learner control and motivation. To measure the research activity outcomes (RAO) we conducted a survey on students’ achievements during 2021 (article published, participation in conferences and grants’ applications). For the analysis we used IBM SPSS Statistics, version 21 for ANOVA, correlation, and regression analyses. The results obtained determined a significant relationship between the degree of blended learning readiness, particularly self-directed learning and online communication self-efficacy factors and postgraduate students’ research activity outcomes. The findings obtained by using the linear regression analysis technique indicated that self-directed learning, online communication self-efficacy, and motivation for learning predict the research activity outcomes. Thus, it was possible to conclude that the influence of readiness factors on students’ research results is particularly visible in the blended educational environment.
1. Baranova T., Kobicheva A., Tokareva E. The Impact of an Online Intercultural Project on Students’ Cultural Intelligence Development // Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 2021. Vol 184. P. 219–229. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-65857-1_19.
2. Kobicheva A. Comparative Study on Students’ Engagement and Academic Outcomes in Live Online Learning at University // Education Sciences. 2022. Vol. 12, Is. 371. P. 116–124. DOI: 10.3390/educsci12060371.
3. Aucejo E.M., French J., Ugalde Araya M.P., Zafar B. The impact of COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey // Journal of Public Economics. 2020. Vol. 191. 104271. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104271.
4. Baranova T., Kobicheva A., Tokareva E. Web-based Environment in the Integrated Learning Model for CLIL-Learners: Examination of Students’ and Teacher’s Satisfaction // Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. 2020. Vol. 1114. P. 263–274.
5. Hong C., Hwang M., Liu H., Chen. Using a “prediction-observation explanation” inquiry model to enhance student interest and intention to continue science learning predicted by their internet cognitive failure // Computers & Education. 2014. Vol. 2. P. 110–120.
6. Stockwell B.R., Stockwell M.S., Cennamo M., Jiang E. Blended learning improves science education // Cell. 2015. Vol. 162 (5). P. 933–936.
7. Shouping H., Kuh G.D. Computing Experience and Good Practices in Undergraduate Education: Does the Degree of Campus” Wiredness” Matter? // Education Policy Analysis Archives. 2001. Vol. 9 (49). P. 1–20.
8. Simonson M., Schlosser L.A. Distance education 3rd edition: Definition and glossary of terms // IAP. 2009. P. 249.
9. Lane A.M., Whyte G.P. From education to application: Sport and exercise sciences courses in the preparation of applied sport scientists // Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education. 2006. Vol. 5, Is. 2. P. 89–93.
10. Mishra L., Gupta T., Shree A. Online teaching-learning in higher education during lockdown period of COVID-19 pandemic // International Journal of Educational Research Open. 2020. Vol. 1. P. 100012.
11. Shim T.E., Lee S.Y. College students’ experience of emergency remote teaching due to COVID-19 // Children and youth services review. 2020. Vol. 119. P. 105578.
12. Bhattacherjee A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model // MIS quarterly. 2001. P. 351–370.
13. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes // Journal of applied social psychology. 1991. Vol. 50 (2). P. 179–211.
14. Butz N.T., Stupnisky R.H., Peterson E.S., Majerus M.M. Motivation in synchronous hybrid graduate business programs: A self-determination approach to contrasting online and on-campus students // Journal of Online Learning & Teaching. 2014. Vol. 10, Is. 2. P. 211–227.
15. Li X., Yang Y., Chu S.K.W., Zainuddin Z., Zhang Y. Applying blended synchronous teaching and learning for flexible learning in higher education: an action research study at a university in Hong Kong // Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2020. P. 1–17.
16. Schunk D.H., Zimmerman B.J. Self-regulation and learning // Handbook of psychology. 2013. Vol. 7. P. 169–177. DOI: 10.1002/9781118133880.hop207003.
17. Bower M., Dalgarno B., Kennedy G.E., Lee M.J., Kenney J. Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: outcomes from a cross-case analysis // Computers & Education. 2015. Vol. 86. P. 1–17.
18. Castro R. Blended learning in higher education: trends and capabilities // Educ Inf Technol. 2019. Vol. 24. P. 2523–2546. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3.
19. Hastie M., Hung I.C., Chen N.S., Kinshuk. A blended synchronous learning model for educational international collaboration // Innovations in Education and teaching International. 2010. Vol. 47, Is. 1. P. 9–24.
20. Demirer V., Sahin I. Effect of blended learning environment on transfer of learning: An experimental study // Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2013. Vol. 29 (6). P. 518–529.
21. Hrastinski S. What do we mean by blended learning? // TechTrends. 2019. Vol. 63, Is. 5. P. 564–569.
22. Graham C.R. Blended learning systems // The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. 2006. Vol. 1. P. 3–21.
23. Yu T. Examining Construct Validity of the Student Online Learning Readiness (SOLR) Instrument Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis // Online Learning. 2018. Vol. 22, Is. 4. P. 277–288.
24. Yilmaz R. Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classroom // Computers in Human Behavior. 2017. Vol. 70. P. 251–260.
25. Кисель О.В., Гасаненко Е.А., Дубских А.И., Бутова А.В. Готовность студентов технических специальностей к смешанному обучению иностранному языку // АНИ: педагогика и психология. 2021. № 1 (34). DOI: 10.26140/anip-2021-1001-0038.
26. Лобанова А.В., Хаперская А.Ю. Реализация моделей мотивации в условиях смешанного обучения: обзор зарубежных исследований // Современная зарубежная психология. 2022. Т. 11, № 3. С. 71–83. DOI: 10.17759/jmfp.2022110307.
27. Карманова Е.В. Особенности реализации смешанного обучения с использованием среды Moodle // Информатика и образование. 2018. № 8. С. 43–50. DOI: 10.32517/0234-0453-2018-33-8-43-50.
28. Егорова Е.В. Особенности мотивации студентов поколения Z при смешанном обучении // Международный журнал экспериментального образования. 2022. № 6. С. 20–25.