Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 200–219
© Krylova N. P., Tyulyu G. M., Levashov E. N., 2020
UDC: 
378.147

E-Learning Integration with traditional learning in a university environment: Academic and administrative factors and conditions

Krylova N. P. 1 (Cherepovets, Russian Federation), Tyulyu G. M. 1 (Cherepovets, Russian Federation), Levashov E. N. 1 (Cherepovets, Russian Federation)
1 Cherepovets State University
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 804
Abstract: 

Introduction. The paper addresses the problem of the optimal combination of traditional and distance (online) knowledge delivery systems in higher education. The purpose of this study is to identify and describe academic and administrative factors and conditions influencing the integration of traditional and distance learning in a university environment.
Materials and Methods. The article reviews and analyses a number of Russian and international studies into distance (online) and traditional learning within the framework of higher education. A survey was conducted at Cherepovets State University (the Russian Federation). Participants of the study were students (n=110) and academic staff (n=20). The observation method was used in order to identify the level of student satisfaction in traditional and distance (online) learning.
Results. The authors clarified modern interpretations of distance and traditional education and conducted a historical analysis of these concepts. The study revealed and described academic and administrative factors and conditions contributing to the effective integration of distance and traditional education. The results showed that most of the students and academic staff prefer a traditional education delivery system. In regards to tools and resources of distance (online) learning, most respondents are positive about using Microsoft Teams video conferencing software.
Conclusions. The authors identified and clarified the following academic and administrative factors and conditions for the integration of distance and traditional education delivery systems: careful selection of educational online platforms, active use of reflection, a variety of communication channels for feedback, emotional factors, regulations for distance learning, and distance mentoring.

Keywords: 

Distance education; Traditional education; Integration; Academic and administrative factors and conditions; Students; Academic staff; Educational online platform.

URL WoS/RSCI: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/rsci/full-record/RSCI:44478889

Prominence Percentile SciVal: 98.383 Community of Inquiry | Social Presence | Online Discussion

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85099460679&origin=...

E-Learning Integration with traditional learning in a university environment: Academic and administrative factors and conditions

For citation:
Krylova N. P., Tyulyu G. M., Levashov E. N. E-Learning Integration with traditional learning in a university environment: Academic and administrative factors and conditions. Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 200–219. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2006.11
References: 
  1. Andreev A. A. Formation and development of distant learning technologies in Russia. Higher Education in Russia, 2012, no. 10, pp. 106–111. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=18023895
  2. Akhmadieva L. R. Psychological and pedagogical difficulties on realizing innovative approaches in the system of higher education. Bulletin of Moscow State Linguistic University. Education and Pedagogical Sciences, 2018, no. 5, pp. 100–110. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=39287910
  3. Blagov E. Y., Leshcheva I. A., Scherban S. A. Ontological approach in the practice of the educational activity: Paths’ formation of individual professional development of students. Open Education, 2018, vol. 22 (5), pp. 26–39. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21686/1818-4243-2018-5-26-39 URL:  https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36400979
  4. Borisov I. V. Distance learning as educational practice in contemporary higher education institution. Bulletin of Adygea State University. Series 1: Regional Studies: Philosophy, History, Sociology, Jurisprudence, Political Science, Cultural Studies, 2017, no. 3, pp. 80–85. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=30677073
  5. Kiselev A. A. Distance learning of students: problems and prospects of its development after the coronavirus pandemic. Development of Education, 2020, no. 2, pp. 97–100. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31483/r-75354 URL:  https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42978528 
  6. Motryuk E. N. Remote education in the university. Information Technologies. Problems and Solutions, 2019, no. 3, pp. 5–10. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=39148912
  7. Khovanskaya T. V., Ilyasova A. Y., Sandirova M. N., Stetzenko N. V. The legal maintenance of process of the bachelors’ training in the field of 49.03.01 physical education using e-learning technologies. Current Problems of Science and Education, 2019, no. 1, pp. 75. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=37031935
  8. Shcherbakova M. V., Chaika E. Y. E-learning as a tool for development of training in higher educational institution. Bulletin of Voronezh State University. Series: Problems of Higher Education, 2016, no. 4, pp. 89–93. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=27467210
  9. Yashina L. I. Distance learning in university: contents and technologies. Bulletin of Surgut State Pedagogical University, 2019, no. 1, pp. 142–147. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26105/SSPU.2019.10.99.015 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=39211605
  10. Yashina L. I., Goreva O. M. Problems of implementation of remote university education. Bulletin of Surgut State Pedagogical University, 2019, no. 4, pp. 84–90. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26105/SSPU.2019.61.4.008 URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=41462656
  11. Akhmetova D., Vorontsova L., Morozova I. G. The experience of a distance learning organization in a private higher educational institution in the Republic of Tatarstan (Russia): From idea to realization. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2013, vol.  14  (3), pp. 508–518. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1428
  12. Anderson T., Dron J. Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 2011, vol. 12 (3), pp. 80–97. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
  13. Beketova E., Leontyeva I., Zubanova S., Gryaznukhin A., Movchun, V. Creating an optimal environment for distance learning in higher education: discovering leadership issues. Palgrave Communications, 2020, vol. 6 (1), pp. 66. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0456-x 
  14. Bertiz Y., Karoglu A. K. Distance education students’ cognitive flexibility levels and distance education motivations. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2020, vol.  6  (4), pp. 638–648. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i4.1022 
  15. Clegg S., Hudson A., Steel J. The emperor's new clothes: Globalization and e-learning in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2003, vol. 24 (1), pp. 39–53. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425690301914
  16. De Armas Rodriguez N., Barroso Osuna J. M. Interactivity in distance education: An instrument for diagnosis. Revista Fuentes, 2020, vol. 22 (2), pp. 190–201. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/revistafuentes.2020.v22.i2.06 
  17. Dennen V. P., Aubteen Darabi A., Smith L. J. Instructor–learner interaction in online courses: The relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance and satisfaction. Distance Education, 2007, vol. 28 (1), pp. 65–79. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01587910701305319
  18. Hamzaee R. G. A survey and a theoretical model of distance education programs. International Advances in Economic Research, 2005, vol. 11 (2), pp. 215–229. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11294-005-3017-6
  19. Harasim L. Shift happens: Online education as a new paradigm in learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 2000, vol. 3 (1–2), pp. 41–61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00032-4
  20. Hurlbut A. R. Online vs. traditional learning in teacher education: a comparison of student progress. American Journal of Distance Education, 2018, vol. 32 (4), pp. 248–266.  DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1509265  
  21. Jordan L., Spooner F., Anderson K., Dillon A. S. Creative, Yet Practical: 20 Years of Distance Education Teacher Preparation. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 2019, vol. 38 (4), pp. 188–200. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/8756870519878116 
  22. Kurok O., Lucenko G., Povstyn O., Lutsenko O. Features of distance education in Ukraine during the Covid-19 pandemic: Problems and prospects. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2020, vol. 8 (11), pp. 5498–5504. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081153
  23. Leontyeva I. A. Modern distance learning technologies in higher education: Introduction problems. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2018, vol. 14 (10), pp.  em1578. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/92284
  24. Marsap A., Narin M. The integration of distance learning via internet and face to face learning: Why face to face learning is required in distance learning via internet? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2009, vol. 1 (1), pp. 2871–2878. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.510
  25. Palvia S., Aeron P., Gupta P., Mahapatra D., Parida R., Rosner R., Sindhi S. Online Education: Worldwide Status, Challenges, Trends, and Implications.  Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 2018, vol. 21 (4), pp. 233–241. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262
  26. Picciano A. G. Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning Journal, 2017, vol. 21 (3), pp. 166–190. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225
  27. Santovena-Casal S., Fernandez-Perez M. D. Sustainable distance education: Comparison of digital pedagogical models. Sustainability (Switzerland), 2020, vol. 12 (21), pp. 9067. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12219067 
  28. Strauß S., Rummel N. Promoting interaction in online distance education: designing, implementing, and supporting collaborative learning. Information and Learning Sciences, 2020, vol. 121 (5/6), pp. 251–260. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0090 
  29. Vlachopoulos D., Makri A. Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education, 2019, vol. 65 (4), pp. 605–632. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09792-3
  30. Yavich R., Gerkerova A. Distance communication of the lecturer and students in the higher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 2019, vol. 8 (2), pp. 82–86. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n2p82
  31. Yilmaz R. Problems experienced in evaluating success and performance in distance education: A case study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 2017, vol. 18 (1), pp. 39–51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17718/tojde.285713
Date of the publication 31.12.2020