Резюме диссертации_Королева (англ) (1136644), страница 3
Текст из файла (страница 3)
As a result of this policy step, Russian schools and universities wereequipped with the essential computer infrastructure enabling access to basic ICT. Interms of the curriculum, a new course, “Computer Science,” was introduced insecondary schools, and some STEM teachers received special training in IT andcomputer operation to be able to give appropriate instruction in this new subject.Also, some training in computer basics was organized for teachers in other subjectareas as well as for school administrators.
At the same time, a number ofdisincentives and downside factors of various scale and socioeconomic naturedampened this reformative momentum. For one, there was a huge gap between urbanand rural schools in Russia; for another, educators themselves would often counterthe reform and the ICT transitioning processes it had prompted amidst then meagreawareness of the new role that ICT was soon to obtain as a major competitive driverin technology and human capital. The fall of the Soviet Union embroiled Russia into9a situation of persisting socioeconomic disarray where education-related objectiveslong remained outside the state executives’ top-priority agendas.
It was not until thelate 1990s that education informatization came back to broad public and governmentattention.According to innovation theory the first wave of informatization wasconsistent with the principle of top-down innovation: decision-making wascentralized at higher levels of the system, excluding lower-level in the changeplanning process; innovation implementation was a time-consuming and deliberateprocess.
Default of acceptance and lack of cooperation from the educators side wasthe main barrier for top down innovation implementation. Education system saw aperiod of reforms which gradually prepared schools for innovation.The second wave of education informatization, which spanned a period fromthe late 1990s and through 2010, was marked by a surge in the number of initiativesto facilitate ICT-supported learning at both federal and various regional levels. Thesewere complemented by a series of non-government endeavours run by internationalfoundations and other organizations, such as World Bank, Intel and Microsoft, amongothers.
For educators, training & development programs were deployed that sought toadvance ICT literacy within a broader multidisciplinary cohort of instructors, unlikein the first wave of informatization when only limited teacher corps received such ITfocused professional upskilling.
The above-mentioned measures to boost ICTintegration into the educational perimeter have yielded noticeable enhancements inthe overall ICT infrastructure. Thus, schools have been procured with morecomprehensive background hardware, including computers and related IT systems,laptops, e-boards and other multimedia, which has facilitated the creation of mobileclassrooms, hybrid libraries and media centers with access to various electroniclearning resources, etc. In higher education, a number of massive state-run programshave also been implemented to spur sector digitization and ICT-assisted networkingfor more effective administrative and academic operation. Taking stock of the saidperiod, as noted in the OECD’s “Measuring Innovation in Education” report, Russiahas achieved a major progress in transitioning to a digitally supported educationalmodel thanks to the improved availability of computer and internet infrastructureacross the country’s institutional landscapes (OECD, 2014).The second wave of Informatization, in comparison with the first wave, wasmore associated with new electronic technologies.
Technology drove the educationalprocess. The second wave of Informatization is also a top-down innovation example.Definition and characteristics of education informatization after 2010 iscomplicated by the lack of reliable data. Statistical research on ICT accessibility inRussian schools (Zair-Bek, 2016) suggests there was one computer available onaverage per seven students in 2014, almost a 10-fold improvement on what wasrecorded in 2001.
Similarly, according to this report, 95.8% of Russian schools hadstable internet connection in 2014, whereas the respective indicator was zero in 2001.In recent years, many schools have been carrying out local programs to expand andrenew their ICT infrastructure, which involve procuring modern desktop PCs, serverand network equipment, as well as portable and tablet devices that have receivedgrowing popularity among an ever-expanding population band in today’s settings of10ubiquitous mobile communication and networking. These modernization initiativesare typically financed on a multilateral basis, including schools’ own funds, parentaldonations and corporate sponsorship.
However, the quantitative metrics, for examplenumber of computers and Internet access speed, do not automatically insure positiveattitudes towards the teaching process. According to the IEA Second InformationTechnology in Education Study (SITES), the extent of ICT use depended not only onschool-level conditions, however, but also on national curriculum policies, asevidenced by large differences in the use of ICT among mathematics and scienceteachers within the same schools in some countries. (E.I.
Bulin-Sokolova, 2016).While computers purchased during the second wave of Informatization becomeobsolete, school environment is saturated with smartphones. The drivers for changesin teaching and learning in school education are students. The transition of everydaypractices related to the use of ICT into education processes leads to its thetransformation. This is a bottom-up innovation.Analysis of the research results, which is the subject of chapter I, showed thereplacement of the “ancient” computer into modern devices as tablets orsmartphones.
The grassroots innovation beetroots out the top of education system,indicate new emerging requirements that society will sooner or later present toeducation. Thus, the third wave of Informatization is brewing, which should bringinformation technologies and approaches used in education into line with the modernneeds of society.Chapter 2 “The Use of mobile and social network technologies in everydaylife of modern students“ presents data that explain the possibilities of using newtechnologies in the educational process.The survey included 16–18-year-old students of Moscow schools wasconducted in order to assess how the Russian schools use mobile technologies andsocial media in the learning process.
Stratified random sampling was chosen for thestudy, the sample covered 3,194 respondents with percentage 45.2% of males and54.8% females. The results showed that 97 % of urban teenagers have their ownmobile devices. Despite official school bans students use their cell phones or tabletswhile at school both for the entertainment (70%) and self- education purposes (70%).(Figure 2).While technologies such as BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) are notwelcomed by teachers, analysis of intensity and scope of unauthorized Internet usageduring the learning process among adolescent and their academic performance didnot give statistically significant correlations.Speaking about school computer equipment, more than half of respondents(56%) noted that access to school computers or other devices (laptop, tablet, etc.) islimited.
Students can visit computer class only in special hours and usually during the“Computer science” course.Despite the school network does not allow connection, among others, to socialmedia, they have become one of the novel channels for student-teacher connections.A third (33%) of respondents have noted that they are used to writing to theirteachers via social media, while 41% of them stated they can also communicate onmobile.11It was assumed that usage of modern technologies in schools and availabilityof personal devices for schoolchildren in Moscow and other big cities are ahead withrespect to small towns in the province.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
