Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, No.6, pp.104-119
UDC: 
37.02+378+007

High technology and transformation of the education system: Constructive and destructive

Kamenev R. V. 1 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation), Krasheninnikov V. V. 1 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation), Farnicka M. 2 (Zielona Góra, Republic of Poland), Abramova M. A. 3 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation)
1 Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University
2 University of Zielona Góra
3 Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article focuses on the problem of integrating high technology into the education system. The aim of the research is to identify the constructive and destructive nature of using high technologies in the education system.
Materials and Methods. The study is based on institutional approach, which allows to consider the impact of high technologies on society as a certain institutional structure and socio-cultural approach, which allows to identify the interconnections between technologies, society and man. The following methods were used: retrospective analysis, statistical data analysis, analysis of scholarly literature (psychological, pedagogical, historical), generalization of research results.
Results. The review of the main approaches to the use of high technologies in the education system is presented. The author clarifies the constructive component of their integration into the educational process to improve its efficiency at all levels of the education system. The role of high technologies as a factor which determines the requirements for the quality of initial teacher training is highlighted. On the basis of comparison of University models 1.0 and 3.0 in different countries, the author reveals the destructive nature of using high technologies, manifested in reducing flexibility and social orientation within education systems, as well as replacing goals and objectives.
Conclusions. The impact of high technologies on the education system is determined by their active integration into the learning process itself, which is proved to be constructive. On the other hand, considering high technologies as a criterion for assessing the effectiveness of the education system is a destructive practice, since it leads to the substitution of quality for quantity, reducing flexibility and social orientation of training.

Keywords: 

High technology; Education; Constructiveness; Destructiveness; Transformation of universities; Human capital; Education process.

References: 
  1. Abramova M. A., Kamenev V. R. High technology innovative development of higher education. Philosophy of Education, 2017, no. 4, pp. 153–163. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.15372/PHE20170415  
  2. Abramova M. A., Kamenev R. V., Krasheninnikov V. V. High technologies: influence on social institutions and application in professional education: monograph. Novosibirsk, 2018, 222 p. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=35433096  
  3. Abramova M. M., Krasheninnikov V. V. High technologies: social and philosophical analysis of development, implementation and use in the education system: monograph. Novosibirsk, 2016, 100 p. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30786490
  4. Zhukova E. The Challenge of high technologies to the content of education. Higher Education in Russia, 2008, no. 9, pp. 94–98. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=11532117
  5. Karpov A. O. Reality and contradictions of knowledge society: Genesis.  Social Sciences and Contemporary World, 2016, no. 6, pp. 139–52. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27652540
  6. Krasheninnikov V. V., Mazov S. Y. the Concept of application of high technologies in the educational process. Philosophy of Education, 2007, no. 2, pp. 110–114. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=9560805
  7. Alfred M., Neyens D. M., Gramopadhye A. K. Comparing learning outcomes in physical and simulated learning environments. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2018, vol. 68, pp. 110–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.07.002
  8. Antonelli C. The new economics of the university: a knowledge governance approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2008, vol. 33, issue 1, pp. 1–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9064-9  
  9. Bradley R. V., Sankar C. S., Clayton H. R., Mbarika V. W., Raju P. K. A study on the impact of GPA on perceived improvement of higher-order cognitive skills. Decision Sciences: Journal of Innovative Education, 2007, vol. 5 (1), pp. 151–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00131.x
  10. Daniela L., Visvizi A., Gutiérrez-Braojos C., Lytras M. D. Sustainable higher education and Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL). Sustainability, 2018, vol. 10 (11), pp. 3883. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113883
  11. Dare E. A., Ellis J. A., Roehrig G. H. Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 2018, vol. 5, pp. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0101-z
  12. Eastman M. G., Christman J., Zion G. H., Yerrick R. To educate engineers or to engineer educators?: Exploring access to engineering careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2017, vol. 54 (7), pp. 884–913. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21389
  13. El Gibari S., Gómez T., Ruiz F. Evaluating university performance using reference point based composite indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 2018, vol. 12 (4), pp. 1235–1250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.003
  14. Florida R. The economic geography of talent. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2002, vol. 92, issue 4, pp. 743–755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.00314
  15. Naylor T. D. Review. Canadian Public Policy / Analyse De Politiques, 2003, vol. 29, no. 3, pp.  378–379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3552294  
  16. Ferreira N. M. F., Freitas E. D. C. Computer applications for education on industrial robotic systems. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2018, vol. 26 (5), pp. 1186–1194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21982
  17. Gattie D. K., Kellam N. N., Schramski J. R., Walther J. Engineering education as a complex system. European Journal of Engineering Education, 2011, vol. 36 (6), pp. 521–535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.622038
  18. Gregory M. S.-J., Lodge J. M. Academic workload: The silent barrier to the implementation of technology-enhanced learning strategies in higher education. Distance Education, 2015, vol. 36 (2), pp. 210–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1055056
  19. Gibson C., Klocker N. Academic publishing as ‘creative’ industry, and recent discourses of ‘creative economies’: Some critical reflections. Area, 2004, vol. 36, issue 4, pp. 423–434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00242.x
  20. Hewitt-Dundas N. Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Research Policy, 2012, vol. 41, issue 2, pp. 262–275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.010
  21. Jarzabkowski P., Sillince J. A. A., Shaw D. Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human Relations, 2010, vol. 63 (2), pp. 219–248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709337040  
  22. Laurillard D., Kennedy E., Charlton P., Wild J., Dimakopoulos D. Using technology to develop teachers as designers of TEL: Evaluating the learning designer. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2018, vol. 49 (6), pp. 1044–1058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12697
  23. Law N., Niederhauser D. S., Christensen R., Shear L. Multilevel system of quality technology-enhanced learning and teaching indicators. Educational Technology and Society, 2016, vol. 19 (3), pp. 72–83. URL: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc984069/m2/1/high_res_d/ document.pdf
  24. Lee J., Choi H. What affects learner's higher-order thinking in technology-enhanced learning environments? The effects of learner factors. Computers and Education, 2017, vol. 115, pp. 143–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.015
  25. Leonard J., Mitchell M., Barnes-Johnson J., Unertl A., Outka-Hill J., Robinson R., Hester-Croff C. Preparing teachers to engage rural students in computational thinking through robotics, game design, and culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 2018, vol. 69 (4), pp.  386–407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117732317
  26. Pineda P., Celis J. Towards the entrepreneurial University? Market-based reforms and institutional isomorphism in Colombia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 2017, vol. 25, no. 71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2837
  27. Siegel D. S., Waldman D., Link A. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 2003, vol. 32 (1), pp. 27–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2  
  28. Sorlin S. Funding diversity: performance-based funding regimes as drivers of differentiation in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy, 2007, vol. 20, issue 4, pp. 413–440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300165
  29. Zagami J., Bocconi S., Starkey L., Wilson J. D., Gibson D., Downie J., Malyn-Smith J., Elliott S. Creating future ready information technology policy for national education systems. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 2018, vol. 23 (3), pp. 495–506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9387-
Date of the publication 31.12.2018