The Smart Education Paradigm: Expected Outcomes and Real-Life Student Experience

Introduction. The article examines the transition of higher education to the paradigm of smart education. The article presents the results of a sociological study, the purpose of which was to compare the real experience of online learning of students with the expected results from the implementation of the principles of the new digital educational paradigm.

Methodology and sources. The principles of the economics of higher education, the institutional tradition of the sociology of higher education, and the theory of social representations were used as a methodological framework for the study.

Results and discussion. The results of monitoring the satisfaction and self-assessment of the online learning experience of students of one of the leading technical universities in Russia are presented. The authors of the article revealed the interest and generally positive attitude of students, regardless of whether or not they have an appropriate educational experience in online learning. At the same time, the question remains whether at the present stage of digitalization of higher education its transition to the principles of the smart paradigm is being carried out.

Conclusion. First, there is still no sufficient data on a significant increase in the effectiveness of educational activities. It is possible to record only an increase in student satisfaction with their academic performance. Secondly, there is a problem of self-organization of the system. Finally, the degree of readiness of students who have completed online training for independent production of knowledge and solving non-standard problems is not clear. Rather, on the contrary, the more difficult the mastered professional discipline becomes, the more students need the help of a teacher.

1. Baumol, W.J. and Bowen, W.G. (1966), Performing Arts. The Economic Dilemma. A study of Problems common to Theater, Opera, Music and Dance, Twentieth Century Fund, N.Y., USA.

2. Bowen, W.G. (1968), The Economics of the Major Private Universities, McGraw-Hill, N.Y., USA.

3. Chingos, M., Mulhern, C., Griffiths, R. and Spies, R. (2014), Interactive Online Learning on Campus. Research report. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.22522.

4. Kolowich, S. (2012), “How «Open» Are MOOCs?”, Inside Higher Ed, November 8, available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/11/08/educause-discussion-about-oer (accessed 07.03.2021).

5. Bacow, L., Bowen, W., Guthrie, K., Lack, K. et al. Barriers of Adoption of Online Learning Systems in U.S. Higher Education, available at: https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/barriersto-adoption-of-online-learning-systems-in-u-s-higher-education/ (accessed 07.03.2021).

6. Dneprovskaya, N.V., Yankovskaya, E.A. and Shevtsova, I.V. (2015), “The conceptual Basis of the smart education”, Open Education, no. 6 (113), pp. 43–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21686/1818-4243-2015-6(113-43-51.

7. “Learning New Lessons” (2012), Economist, Deсember 22.

8. Moscovici, S. (2000), Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology, in Duveen, G. (ed.), Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.

9. Habermas, J. (1987), The Theory of Communicative Action, in McCarthy, T. (ed.), BeaconPress, Boston, USA.

10. Vindeker, O.S., Golendukhina, E.A., Klimenskikh, M.V., Korepina, N.A. and Sheka, A.S. (2017), “The Efficiency of Distance Learning: Research of Attitude to Distance Learning”, Pedagogicheskoe Obrazovaniye v Rossii [Pedagogical Education in Russia], no. 10, pp. 41–47.

11. Kuzminov, Ya.I. and Carnoy, M. (2015), “Online Learning: How It Affects the University Structureand Economics. Panel discussion”, Educational Studies, no. 3, pp. 8–43. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2015-3-8-43.

12. Zaborova, E.N., Glazkova, I.G. and Markova, T.L. (2017), “Distance learning: students’ perspective”, Sociological Studies, no. 2, pp. 131–139.