Наши журналы
Опубликовать статью Вход и регистрация
Расширенный поиск
Разделы статьи

ТРАНСФОРМАЦИЯ «ЦИФРОВОГО» ДИАЛОГА КУЛЬТУР В ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ

Научная статья
Орехова Е.Я.
Данилова И.С.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2022.118.4.049
Выпуск: № 4 (118), 2022
Опубликована:
2022/04/18
PDF

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2022.118.4.049

ТРАНСФОРМАЦИЯ «ЦИФРОВОГО» ДИАЛОГА КУЛЬТУР В ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ

Научная статья

Орехова Е.Я.1, Данилова И.С.2, *

1 Московский городской педагогический университет, Москва, Россия;

2 Тульский государственный педагогический университет им. Л.Н. Толстого, Тула, Россия

* Корреспондирующий автор (danilovais[at]yandex.ru)

Аннотация

В работе представлены основные маркеры актуальных изменений коммуникативного взаимодействия участников различных сообществ (научных, профессиональных, родительских, молодежных). Особые трансформационные тенденции отмечены в пространстве образования, которые обусловлены новыми феноменами цифрового мира. Цель данного исследования – разнонаправленная конкретизация трансформирующихся аспектов коммуникации в контексте «цифрового» диалога ее участников, актуализация цифрового инструментария, обеспечивающего взаимодействие субъектов, уточнение ценностно-значимой сущности коммуникативной интеракции преподавательского сообщества, учащихся и родителей в условиях цифрового образовательного пространства. Достижение цели осуществлено через характеристику с позиций дихотомии «риск-благо» пространственного, нормативного, позиционно-ролевого, поведенческого, технологического аспектов коммуникации субъектов образования – школы и семьи в диалоге, получившего в исследовании номинацию «цифрового». Смена акцентов в коммуникативном взаимодействии субъектов образования обоснована усилением позиции качества нового диалога, это качество обеспечивает ответственную и компетентностную вовлеченность в межкультурную офлайн и онлайн коммуникацию традиционных субъектов образования – учителей, учащихся, родителей. Качество межкультурности коммуникативного пространства рассмотрено с позиций ценностно-значимых поколенных смыслов, преподавательского, родительского, семейного сообществ, сообществ учащихся. Цифровые инструменты, обозначенные в работе, представлены в фокусе позитивного и проблематичного их влияния на коммуникативное взаимодействие участников «цифрового» диалога культур в пространстве образования. Социально-образовательная картина реальности образовательного пространства в условиях вынужденного закрытия учреждений образования в период пандемии, воссозданная авторами в характеристике коммуникативного взаимодействия участников, демонстрирует особенности взаимных действий субъектов, которые способствовали налаживанию и осуществлению «цифрового» диалога участников в интересах обучения, воспитания и благополучия детей. В статье делается вывод о том, что трансформации в коммуникативном взаимодействии участников актуализируют необходимость сохранения и поддержки его ценностной сущности в лучших гуманистических традициях, которая в «цифровом» диалоге культур в пространстве образования стимулирует к ответственной и компетентностной вовлеченности во благо подрастающего поколения.

Ключевые слова: коммуникативное взаимодействие, цифровой диалог, профессиональная (педагогическая) культура, семейная культура, ценности образования.

TOWARDS DIGITAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN CULTURES IN EDUCATION

Research article

Orekhova E.Ya.1, Danilova I.S.2, *

1 Moscow City University, Moscow, Russia;

2Tula State Pedagogical University named after L. N. Tolstoy, Tula, Russia

* Corresponding author (danilovais[at]yandex.ru)

Abstract

The paper reports on substantial changes in interactions between various educational agents and cultures (academics, educators, parents and students), as remarkable communication trends have been emerging in the sphere of education following the arrival and rapid spread of new digital phenomena. The authors pursue several goals: to outline major aspects that reshape communication into the “digital dialogue” format, to elaborate on relevant digital tools that ensure active interaction between educational agents as well as to underline the overall value and significance of communicative interactions between teachers, students and parents in the learning environment that becomes increasingly digitalized. The authors use the “risk-benefit” dichotomy to describe spatial, normative, social, behavioral and technological characteristics of interactions between various agents of education, focusing primarily on two-way contacts between schools and families defined as “digital dialogue”. The observed changes in communicative interactions between participants in the educational process appear to be justified by the superior quality of digital dialogue that promises more responsible and competent involvement from all parties in both off-line and on-line communication. The quality of communication between different groups and cultures is considered in relation to different generational values held by teachers, students and their families. The article assesses a number of digital technologies in terms of their positive and negative influence on all sides involved in the digital dialogue. The authors describe the reality of providing educational services during the COVID-19 pandemic – with educational institutions closed indefinitely, the participants in the educational process naturally and mutually contributed to establishing and maintaining communication in the digital format that was seen as most beneficial to children’s development and well-being. The authors conclude that current changes in communication styles of educational agents stress the importance of preserving and supporting the humanistic value of education while the digital dialogue between groups and cultures of the educational sphere should become more ethical and proficient for the benefit of the younger generation.

Keywords: communicative interaction; digital dialogue; educational cultures; professional culture; family culture; educational values.

Introduction

Large-scale and focal technological innovations are ever more associated with the world of education. Digital technology is rapidly reshaping educational paradigms and defining new trends in global educational policy [16], [18], [26].

New digital phenomena – digital communication tools – demonstrated their versatility, effectiveness and importance for ensuring interaction between participants in the educational process as soon as they emerged on the educational landscape. As systems of education all over the world are affected by technological advances, the main priority of pedagogical theory and practice is to preserve most meaningful communication experiences gained by all parties. Another priority is to reconsider those valuable traditions and collaboratively re-introduce them into the new communication format of “digital dialogue”. This issue is of high relevance for present-day educators as the future of education is being built right now by different generations engaged in dialogue with one another.

To foster productive dialogue, it is necessary to assess a diversity of tools and resources available in the educational environment as it becomes increasingly digitalized. Like in our previous research [25] we use dichotomous reasoning to analyse new digital educational phenomena as an effective means of formal and informal learning and personal development accessible to teachers, students and parents; yet we also study the risks of hasty digitalization of education and how it affects the quality of interactions between all parties. Pedagogical papers have recently reported on various changes in value and essence of communication in the educational sphere as it redesigns itself into the digital dialogue format [11], [38]. We believe that this question calls for further academic and professional reflection and debate, which supports the relevance of our research. The present study focuses on metamorphoses of communicative interactions between the participants in the digital dialogue – groups and cultures existing within the educational space – related to wide accessibility and growing demand for electronic devices.

Methods

The research strategy is determined by phenomenological and axiological approaches. The authors draw from domestic and foreign practical experience of facilitating digital dialogue between “educational cultures” – namely, the professional culture of teachers and the “family culture” as a combination of traditions, beliefs and attitudes held by parents – to specify value, essence and quality of communicative interactions in the educational sphere influenced by the widespread use of digital tools.

Data collection methods typical for pedagogical research include reviewing academic literature and Internet sources that provide information on Russian and foreign practices of engaging families and educators in digital forms of interaction; pedagogical observations and conversations; the authors’ reflections on their own pedagogical experience.

The analytical method serves to identify and systematize basic concepts of the study, make generalizations about and interpret problems and prospects of interaction between individuals and cultures participating in the digital dialogue.

We also used comparative analysis to contrast and describe popular electronic tools in terms of their positive and negative impact on communication between various educational cultures functioning as agents in the digital dialogue.

Results

  1. Transformation of the spatial aspect of the digital dialogue between participants in the educational process. The Internet has long become an indispensable part of our life, with the number of Internet users increasing exponentially worldwide. The Digital 2021 global report says that “The number of internet users in the Russian Federation increased by 6.0 million (+5.1%) between 2020 and 2021” [15]. Digital technology provides a variety of practical digital solutions that keep penetrating educational institutions as well as homes, leaving no opportunity for either schools or families to halt their arrival. Digitalization is determining new global trends in education and has already challenged the monopoly of school as the only legitimate provider of education and a means of passing down cultural heritage. A remarkable variety of state-of-the-art digital tools, which are now largely available to all participants in the educational process, have expanded opportunities for communication in the digital dialogue format that would effectively involve all educational cultures – pedagogical (school) culture and family culture – as well as drastically transform communication styles of teachers, students and parents [20], [29], [34].

Agents of modern-day education exist within the Internet-dependent reality where one can get instant access to any information, with no guidance from the teacher who was previously seen as a credible expert and the carrier of knowledge. There is no need to store information in human memory, as it is always available online through a mobile device [18], [23]. The global network encourages everyone – students, teachers and parents alike – to consume online content and services as well as create their own digital products. The boundaries between offline and online learning environments are becoming increasingly blurred.

Global expansion of digital learning is a prerequisite for discussion on how schools and families can employ digital communication tools to establish and maintain respectful and meaningful contacts between all cultures participating in the digital dialogue, which would be beneficial for children who see electronic devices as a part of their natural environment. Schools and households as social institutions bear mutual responsibility for the well-being of younger generations, and it is of crucial importance to understand what effect digital forms of communication might have on the three sides – more cooperation between them or further alienation.

  1. Transformation of the normative aspect of the digital dialogue between participants in the educational process. This topic is extensively discussed in pedagogical literature [10], [17]. The availability of mobile services, SMS communication, videoconferencing and social media are transforming traditional communication patterns observed in education, especially since the arrival of chat-bots, live streaming and platforms for instant and unlimited exchange of data and digital content. These technological advances are extremely valuable and undoubtedly produce a positive effect on a child’s social development. However, they also entail certain risks, including slower interaction dynamics.

The most popular digital tools in the arsenal of schools and families are mobile telecommunication and chat messengers. Their exceptional functionality allows for instant remote communication, which is exactly what all parties require – students, parents and teachers can immediately and directly contact each other. Though these means of communication provide direct access to various information, they are also problematic. Digital communication technology tends to enslave its users as much as it liberates them. Communication apps are instrumental in terms of managing a large network of contacts, yet at the same time, they derive people of their right to privacy and promote disrespect towards such values as discipline, self-reflection, emotion control, self-regulation, etc.

Practice shows parents consider remote communication with an educational institution as their inalienable right and feel it is perfectly normal to call and message teachers at any time of the day, bring up irrelevant topics or choose conversational styles that violate norms of ethical behaviour recognized within the educational system. Overall negativity affects the very essence and value of the teacher-parent dialogue. It is likely to create further alienation between all parties instead of boosting collaboration which is essential for students’ academic success and success in adult life. Educational institutions should not tolerate communication styles that are explicitly or implicitly neglectful and/or too loaded with emotion, as it will only result in isolation or mutual animosity between educational cultures.

  1. Transformation of the social aspect of the digital dialogue between participants in the educational process. Nowadays, when classroom and parent chat groups in messengers and social networks are a widespread phenomenon, it is obvious that their extensive functionality positively contributes to the dynamics of digital interactions between educational cultures. These digital tools allow all parties to promptly exchange and spread information, keep valuable posts easily accessible to members of a group, organize and conduct surveys, ask for a timely written response, publish announcements, results and photo- and video reports on children’s school life. All these options are very instrumental and of high importance for all participants in the educational process.

According to the Digital 2021 report, “the number of social media users in the Russian Federation was equivalent to 67.8% of the total population in January 2021” [15]. New generations of Russians are being born into the environment where the analogous world and the online reality of social media are almost inseparable from one another.

Different generations – teachers, students, parents and other family members – naturally diverge in their attitudes towards digital technology. Modern-day Russian schools are the meeting grounds for multiple generations born in different time periods – four demographic cohorts often referred to as Generation X, Millennials, Generation Z and Generation Alpha, each bringing in their idiosyncrasies, lifestyles, values and perspectives, outlooks of life. The uniting factor here is that all these generations now live in the digital age. The boundaries between the generations of “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” vanish over time, and “the digital wisdom” defined as a set of skills for critical analysis of online content takes the central stage [7].

Generation Alpha and Generation Z students share the values of the information society, a product of globalization and technological innovations. Their excessive Internet use is a key driver of their socialization, value acquisition and moral development. For the younger generation of students, as well as their parents and teachers, social networks serve as a new public space. To create a profile in social networks, users are only expected to type in some personal data (hobbies, preferences, life goals, place of origin, etc.) into a standardized form, and they are rewarded with free 24/7 access to a friendly space for meetings, discussion and content exchange. However, this process of creating self-identity required by social networks conditions people to objectify themselves and other users [19]. As the result, human relations and interactions become a commodity market. For instance, the word “friend” has developed a tacit connotation of “benefactor” and is re-defined as someone who is useful in terms of promotion, material profit or any other social benefit (networking, invitations, etc.). Unfortunately, different generations of social media users might be unaware of such changes taking place.

Modern education knows multiple positive examples of how a mutuality of values and goals have allowed teachers to use social networks as an effective vehicle for learning and development. Social media platforms can help overcome geographical, generational and cultural boundaries and engage millions of users in the digital dialogue happening both in formal and informal learning settings. Ultimately, they can help us make sure that communication between different educational groups and cultures is meaningful, ethical and competence-based.

  1. Transformation of the behavioural aspect in the digital dialogue of participants in the educational process. Digital communication tools serve as user-friendly spaces allowing individuals to enjoy personal freedom, become independent of social institutions and engage in unlimited self-expression, which sometimes result in a sense of entitlement. There are countless examples of colleagues, parents or students getting access to a teacher’s private profile on social networks, only to leave negative judgements and comments that inevitably provoke further misunderstanding and conflicts. In such cases, communication becomes non-constructive and often entails a clash of values and morals and interpersonal aggression. In such cases, a mutuality of the goal of raising and educating children and an appreciation of contrasting perspectives can become the foundation for healthy relationships between families and schools. It is a key responsibility for teachers, students and parents alike to contribute positively into the dialogue within the educational environment.

Too many teachers are well familiar with situations when other agents of education – parents or students – use social networks to satisfy their curiosity and inappropriate interest in their personal life. Violations of a teacher’s privacy in the real world and cases of cyberbullying are not necessarily a generational problem; most often, they are indicative of psychological issues, bad manners or lack of education in a particular person.

Cyberbullying on social networks is a destructive behaviour pattern that plagues interactions between all individuals and cultures involved in the educational process. This issue is extensively discussed by both practitioners and academics [1], [32]. However, the ongoing research and debate have not yet yielded a universal solution. Every case of online bullying is unique and requires a thoughtful and well-organized conversation between the opposing parties – a bullying parent / student and an affected teacher.

Statistics show that approximately 50% of children get their first gadget with Internet access at the age of nine, 70% – by the age of twelve [13], [27]. Recent studies on the phenomenon of social media platforms claim that hyper-involvement of increasingly younger children in online “friendships” and their desperate attempts to attract followers and score more affirmative “likes” are a tell-tale sign of social loneliness and coping behaviour. These trends should be a matter of concern – primarily for families, but also for schools – teachers, school psychologists and other team members [9], [14].

There is strong evidence to suggest that if adults ignore unhealthy tendencies displayed by a child to disappear into the digital world, it will inevitably affects the child’s lifestyle and family well-being, particularly in terms of parent-to-child communication and passing down family values. When it comes to online learning, children with Internet addiction are bound to have trouble interacting with both peers and teachers. At the same time, they are happy to participate in e-groups on social networking services. The child indulges in the illusion that an online community is a safe and private space where they are out of reach for parents and teachers. This conviction soon transfers into the real life where it affects the child’s behaviour and social relations with adults and peers [3], [9], [21]. In this sense, electronic devices expose the younger generation to the dangers of so-called “digital twilight” as they accelerate erasure of boundaries between offline and online worlds. However, schools cannot turn blind eye to children’s new educational needs, and the digital dialogue between different generations and cultures is a perfect motivation for school teams to come up with alternative online teaching and learning practices based on most productive communication styles embraced by the future generation.

  1. Transformation of the technological aspect in the digital dialogue of participants in the educational process. The global phenomenon of “digital citizenship” is gaining importance in the context of modern-day education. The term is used to describe values and life strategies of Internet users [4], [6], [7] influenced by rapid development of digital architecture and technology in every industrial sector. Russia sees digitalization as a key direction of its socioeconomic development [35]. To ensure effective pursuit of strategic goals and objectives of the country’s development, the government launched the national priority program “Education”, which encourages Russian schools and universities to embrace digital tools and forms of communication employed by educational institutions abroad. The priority program also aims to preserve existing culture-specific pedagogical traditions of communication between key stakeholders in education. The program includes such projects as “Modern School”, “Digital Educational Environment”, “Success of Every Child”, “Modern Parents”, “Teacher of the Future”, “Young Professionals”, “New Opportunities for Everyone”, “Social Activity”, “Social Mobility Elevators”, “Improving Competitiveness of Russian Universities”. In terms of the digital dialogue, the priority program stresses the importance of technological solutions that will facilitate communication at all levels of the national educational system.

However, expert estimate that “in Russia, digital proficiency is noticeably lower than in most European countries,” with digital skills being almost non-existent in people over 45 years of age [37]. This age cohort makes the majority of teachers in Russian educational institutions. Therefore, situations when an adult (a teacher or a parent) lacks essential digital skills are commonplace, which further complicates the digital dialogue between groups and cultures, hindering exchange of information, productive communication and collaboration in the educational sphere.

The issues of digital literacy, technological generation gap and digital inequality continue to be a major worry in Russia and globally [24], [30], [31]. The technological divide between generations is a valid excuse for parents who cannot or choose not to participate in digital communication with educational institutions. International studies are actively debating the topic of how much quantitative and qualitative assessments of parents’ knowledge of digital educational technologies can tell about the scope of digital illiteracy of the overall adult population [2], [22].

Since the first wave of COVID-19, the issue of digital inequality has manifested itself on the global scale, becoming a real obstacle to productive communication between educators and students. Nevertheless, thanks to the measures taken by the state to support educational institutions through the difficult period, as well as the joint effort of teachers, parents and community members, the digital dialogue between participants in co-teaching and co-development of children still happened, allowing different groups and cultures to interact competently and responsibly in the best interest of the younger generation. Unprecedented availability of digital media and broadband technologies empowered educational institutions to explore the online world for new opportunities and expand online learning practices. Various means of technological support that played a role in overcoming the COVID-19 crisis in education and valuable lessons learned by educators are discussed in a variety of scientific publications including [8], [12].

The recent crisis in education, biggest in its entire history as it “... affected almost 1.6 billion school-age children in more than 190 countries,” has been successfully overcome with the help of global institutions like UNICEF that launched a series of social media campaigns (such as #LearningAtHome, #LearningFromHome and #FunAtHome) [36]. They provided educational resources in a variety of languages to make sure children all over the world can get access to online education, as well as delivered home study kits, tablets and SIM cards with free access to educational platforms. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, key participants in the educational process were still able to communicate with one another; lockdowns and school closures did not hamper the dialogue between families and educational institutions. UNICEF produced a bulk of learning and teaching content (including info-graphics and videos) in big and small languages to support parents in different world regions. Experts in the field of family, childhood and education used social media platforms to consult parents in real time on a variety of medical, socio-psychological and pedagogical issues to help them stay positive during prolonged lockdowns.

The digital architecture created within the framework of the national priority project “Digital Educational Environment” [28] allowed the Russian government to promptly respond to the COVID-19 challenge and ensure that education is still available to all. Educational services were provided in digital format on online learning platforms, new platforms for digital learning and education management and monitoring were developed and launched, new information and educational resources were made available online, while social media and instant messaging apps were used by all parties to assist the dialogue between schools and families. These timely steps helped bring and unite teachers, students and parents online during the uncertain times of social isolation.

As of today, we can say that the pandemic has taught different generations how to co-exist in the digital world and engage in a healthy and positive dialogue with one another. This experience is especially valuable in terms of well-being of every child as well as evolution of public education and the society as a whole.

Discussion

Education in a developing society cannot remain static – the digital age has brought in different value systems and requirements. A variety of digital tools and technologies has been transforming communication patterns within the educational sphere, shifting the emphasis onto the quality of interactions between agents of education.

We focused on changes in the five aspects (spatial, normative, social, behavioral, technological) of communication happening in the digital dialogue format, commented on most promising digital communication tools in terms of implementation as well as the essence and value of communicative interactions between different cultures in the digital world. We believe that the modern-day generation of educators is able to come up with new solutions and strategies for the benefit of the younger generation, thereby producing a meaningful impact on education. We are positive that pedagogical science and practice become ever more significant as primary contributors to the future of education and sustainable development of the society in the era of blurred boundaries between online and offline words.

The main priority is to define new norms and rules of digital communication between schools and communities; professionals working with families and children should participate in solution-oriented discussions. Educational institutions as entities of education have their own professional ethics and organizational culture that might be obscure to representatives of the family culture. We hope that the number of parents involved in high quality digital communication with schools will increase exponentially. Parents hold different worldviews and belong to different generations, which means they vary in how they interact with children, other parents and teachers. They have rights and responsibilities; their key responsibility is to make decisions that benefit their children. Modern-day parents are expected to quickly adapt to changes in the society and provide younger generations with social experiences and moral guidance necessary for coping with the realities of the offline and online world.

Therefore, a new model of education requires a set of common goals and attitudes that will guide the digital dialogue between groups and cultures and attract parents who are still excluded from digital learning. Children’s upbringing and education are those common goals and the aspiration behind parents’ participation in the process of learning on an equal footing with teachers; they also determine the quality of relationships between families and schools. The value and benefits of communicative interactions in the form of class chatrooms and parent groups on social media platforms and forums should be carefully assessed and accepted, as they help create and maintain a group dynamics facilitating genuine digital dialogue between families and educators.

Conclusion

As we live in the world that is both analogous and virtual – “the liquid modernity” [5] characterized by heterogeneity, ambiguity, paradoxicality and uncertainty – new forms of digital communication enabled by a rich variety of digital tools expand our opportunities for the productive dialogue between key stakeholders in education: educators, families and the community alike. Today, every educational culture is writing their own rules of how to engage in this digital dialogue, which is still not always productive, in order to make it more professional and meaningful. We believe that the mutual desire of all parties to be heard and understood in the digital learning environment can become a solid foundation for meaningful and ethical interactions between the school culture and the family culture as long as they preserve humanistic nature of education and share responsibility for the well-being, upbringing and development of younger generations.

Конфликт интересов Не указан. Conflict of Interest None declared.

Список литературы / References

  1. Abaido G. M. Cyberbullying on social media platforms among university students in the United Arab Emirates / M. Abaido // International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. – 2020. – Vol. 25(1). – P. 407–420.
  2. Alban Conto C. COVID-19: Effects of school closures on foundational skills and promising practices for monitoring and mitigating learning loss / C. Alban Conto, S. Akseer, Th. Dreesen et al. // Innocenti Working Paper 2020-13, UNICEF Office of Research. – Florence: Innocenti, 2020. – 30 р.
  3. Alécian Р. Essai sur les origins des embarrasdevant les psychoses dans les champs social et educatif / Р. Alécian, -M. Royer // Revue de l’enfance et de l’adolescence. – 2016. – Vol. 92. – P. 11–32.
  4. Baubock R. Debating Transformations of National Citizenship / R. Baubock // Springer Open. IMISCOE Research Series. – 2018. – 342 р. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-92719-0.
  5. Бауман З. Текучая современность / З. Бауман. – М.: Питер, 2008. – 238 с.
  6. Бродовская, Е. В. Цифровые граждане, цифровое общество и цифровая гражданственность / Е. В. Бродовская // Власть. – 2019. – № 27(4). – С. 65-69. DOI: 10.31171/vlast.v27i4.6587.
  7. Бронников, И. А. Цифровое гражданство в Российской Федерации: политические риски и перспективы / И. А. Бронников, В. В. Карпова // Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 4. История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения / Научный журнал Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 4: История. Областные исследования. Международные отношения. – 2021. – Т. 26(23). - С. 123-133. DOI: 10.15688/ jvolsu4.202L3.11.
  8. Brook Ch. Action learning in the time of corona / Ch. Brook // Action Learning: Research and Practice. – 2020. – 17(2). – P. 167–168. DOI: 10.1080/14767333.2020.1761148.
  9. Carney J.V. Bullied to death: Perceptions of peer abuse and suicidal behavior during adolescence / J.V. Carney // School Psychology International. – 2000. – Vol. 21(2). – P. 213–223.
  10. Danilova I. Today’s education: the technology breakthrough and the preservation of traditions / I. Danilova, rekhova, E. Brazhnik // The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioral Sciences (EpSBS). – 2021. – Vol. 114. – P. 121–129. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2021.07.02.15.
  11. Danilova I. S. Parenting Support in the Information Age – the Message that Unites / I. S. Danilova, E. Ya. Orekhova, N. A. Shaidenko // The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioral Sciences (EpSBS). – 2019. – Vol. LXIX. – P. 267–276. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2019.09.02.32.
  12. Darling-Hammond L. Restarting and reinventing school: Learning in the time of COVID and beyond / L. Darling-Hammond, A. Schachner, A. K. Edgerton. – Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute, 2020. – 126 p.
  13. Детский Рунет 2019: отраслевой отчет [Электронный ресурс]. – 2020. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://internetinstitute.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ChildRunet-2019-26032020.pdf . (дата обращения: 12.03.2022)
  14. Devine P. Internet use and psychological well-being among 10-year-old and 11-year-old children / P. Devine, K. Lloyd // Child Care in Practice. – 2012. – Vol. 18(1). – P. 5–22.
  15. Digital 2021: The Russian Federation. – 2021. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-russian-federation. (accessed: 12.03.2022)
  16. Edmonstone J. Leadership Development, Wicked Problems and Action Learning: Provocations to a Debate / Edmonstone, A. Lawless, M. Pedler // Action Learning: Research and Practice. – 2019. – Vol. 16(1). – P. 37–51. DOI: 10.1080/14767333.2019.1568967.
  17. Gascon H. Développement d'uneplateforme Internet pour faciliterl'intervention précoce auprès des familles / H. Gascon, I. Beaudoin, D. Voyer // La revue internationale de l’éducationfamiliale. – 2014. – Vol. 35. – P. 19–35. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rief.035.0019.
  18. Gruzina Yu. M. Present-Day Challenges to an Education System / Yu. M. Gruzina, M. A. Ponomareva, I. A. Firsova, et al. // European Journal of Contemporary Education. – 2020. – Vol. 9(4). – P. 773–785. DOI: 10.13187/ejced.2020.4.773
  19. Honneth A. La réification. Petit traité de théorie critique / A. Honneth. – Paris, Gallimard, 2006. – 141 p. [in French]
  20. Inoue-Smith Yu. Designing and Implementing Mixed-Mode (Blended) Learning for College Students: A Case Study / Yu. Inoue-Smith // The European Proceedings of Social &Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS). – 2019. – Vol. LVI. – P. 711–719. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.02.31
  21. Livingstone S. How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: the role of income, education and parental style / S. Livingstone, G. Mascheroni, M. Dreier et al. – London: EU Kids Online, LSE, 2015. – 25 p.
  22. Memon A. S. COVID-19: How prepared are global education systems for future crises? / S. Memon, A. Rigole, T. V. Nakashian et al.// Innocenti Research Briefs 2020-21, UNICEF Office of Research. – Florence: Innocenti, 2020. – 7 p. [in French]
  23. Pestereva N. The Formation of the Eurasian Research-and-Education Ecosystem and the Internationalization of Educational Platforms: the Case of Russia and China / Pestereva, S. Yuhua, M. Belyakova, F. Jgin // European Journal of Contemporary Education. – 2019. – Vol. 8(4). – P. 841–854. DOI: 10.13187/ejced.2019.4.84.
  24. Education 2030: The Future of Education and Skills // OECD. – 2018. [Electronic resource]. URL:https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf. (accessed: 12.03.2022)
  25. Орехова, Е. Я. Семья, родительство и школа Европы в современном социокультурном контексте / Е. Я. Орехова, И. С. Данилова, Н. А. Шайденко // Отечественная и зарубежная педагогика. – 2018. – Т. 4(52). – С. 103-114.
  26. Orgad L. The Future of Citizenship: Global and Digital – A Rejoinder / L. Orgad // Debating Transformations of National Citizenship. – Cham.: Springer International Publishing, 2018. – P. 353–358. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-92719-0_61.
  27. Parents’ rising concern over children online // Ofcom. – 04 February 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2020/rising-concern-over-children-online. (accessed: 12.03.2022)
  28. Паспорт приоритетного проекта “Современная цифровая образовательная среда в Российской Федерации”– 2016. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://static.government.ru/media/files/8SiLmMBgjAN89vZbUUtmuF5lZYfTvOAG.pdf . (дата обращения: 12.03.2022)
  29. Pluzhnikova N. N. Intelligence and technology: the problem of interaction / N. N. Pluzhnikova, E. V. Korableva, N. Bokova // ESPACIOS. – 2018. – Vol. 39(38). [Electronic resource]. URL:https://www.revistaespacios.com/a18v39n38/a18v39n38p20.pdf. (accessed: 12.03.2022)
  30. Prensky M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Part 1 / M. Prensky // On the Horizon. – 2001. – Vol. 9(5). – P. 1–6. DOI: 10.1108/10748120110424816.
  31. Proctor H. Parents, schools and the twenty-first-century state: comparative perspectives / H. Proctor, A. Roch, Breidenstein et al. // Comparative Education. – 2020. – Vol. 56(3). – P. 317–330. DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2020.1781422.
  32. Raskauskas J. The process of coping with cyberbullying: A systematic review / J. Raskauskas, A. Huynh // Aggression and Violent Behavior. – 2015. Vol. 23. – P. 118–125.
  33. Schleicher A. World Class: How to Build a 21st-Century School System, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education / A. Schleicher. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2018. DOI: 10.1787/9789264300002-en.
  34. Suleimanova O. A. Towards synergetic combination of traditional and innovative digital teaching and research practices / O. A. Suleimanova // Training, language and culture. – 2020. – Vol. 4(4). – P. 39–50. DOI: 10.22363/2521-442X-2020-4-4.
  35. Указ Президента Российской Федерации “О национальных целях и стратегических задачах развития Российской Федерации на период до 2024 года” [Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 7 мая 2018 г. № 204 "О национальных целях и стратегических задачах Российской Федерации на период до 2024 года"]. – 2018. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://static.kremlin.ru/media/acts/files/0001201805070038.pdf . (дата обращения: 12.03.2022)
  36. Distance Learning Solutions. – 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/solutions. (accessed: 12.03.2022)
  37. Уровень владения цифровыми навыками в России и странах Евросоюза [Электронный ресурс]. – 2020. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://issek.hse.ru/news/377859466.html (дата обращения: 12.03.2022)
  38. Vlachopoulos D. COVID-19: Threat or opportunity for online education? / D. Vlachopoulos // Higher Learning Research Communications. – 2020. – Vol. 10(1). P. 2. DOI:10.18870/hlrc.v10i1.1179.

Список литературы на английском языке / References in English

  1. Abaido G. M. Cyberbullying on social media platforms among university students in the United Arab Emirates / M. Abaido // International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. – 2020. – Vol. 25(1). – P. 407–420.
  2. Alban Conto C. COVID-19: Effects of school closures on foundational skills and promising practices for monitoring and mitigating learning loss / C. Alban Conto, S. Akseer, Th. Dreesen et al. // Innocenti Working Paper 2020-13, UNICEF Office of Research. – Florence: Innocenti, 2020. – 30 р.
  3. Alécian Р. Essai sur les origins des embarrasdevant les psychoses dans les champs social et educatif [Essay on the origins of embarrassmentsbefore psychoses in the social and educational fields] / Р. Alécian, A.-M. Royer // Revue de l’enfance et de l’adolescence [Journal of Childhood and adolescence]. – 2016. – Vol. 92. – P. 11–32. [in French]
  4. Baubock R. Debating Transformations of National Citizenship / R. Baubock // Springer Open. IMISCOE Research Series. – 2018. – 342 р. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-92719-0.
  5. Bauman Z. Tekuchaya sovremennost’ [Fluid Modernity] / Z. Bauman. – Moscow: Piter, 2008. – 238 p. [in Russian]
  6. Brodovskaya E. V. Tsifrovyy egrazhdane, tsifrovoye obshchestvo i tsifrovay agrazhdanstvennost [Digital citizens, digital society and digital citizenship] / E. V. Brodovskaya // Vlast[Power]. – 2019. – № 27(4). – P. 65–69. DOI: 10.31171/vlast.v27i4.6587. [in Russian]
  7. Bronnikov I. A. Tsifrovoye grazhdanstvo v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: politicheskiye riski i perspektivy [Digital citizenship in the Russian Federation: political risks and prospects] / I. A. Bronnikov, V. V. Karpova // Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 4. Istoriya. Regionovedeniye. Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Series 4: History. Area Studies. International Relations]. – 2021. – Vol. 26(23). – 123–133. DOI: 10.15688/ jvolsu4.202L3.11. [in Russian]
  8. Brook Ch. Action learning in the time of corona / Ch. Brook // Action Learning: Research and Practice. – 2020. – 17(2). – P. 167–168. DOI: 10.1080/14767333.2020.1761148.
  9. Carney J.V. Bullied to death: Perceptions of peer abuse and suicidal behavior during adolescence / J.V. Carney // School Psychology International. – 2000. – Vol. 21(2). – P. 213–223.
  10. Danilova I. Today’s education: the technology breakthrough and the preservation of traditions / I. Danilova, rekhova, E. Brazhnik // The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioral Sciences (EpSBS). – 2021. – Vol. 114. – P. 121–129. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2021.07.02.15.
  11. Danilova I. S. Parenting Support in the Information Age – the Message that Unites / I. S. Danilova, E. Ya. Orekhova, N. A. Shaidenko // The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioral Sciences (EpSBS). – 2019. – Vol. LXIX. – P. 267–276. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2019.09.02.32.
  12. Darling-Hammond L. Restarting and reinventing school: Learning in the time of COVID and beyond / L. Darling-Hammond, A. Schachner, A. K. Edgerton. – Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute, 2020. – 126 p.
  13. Detskiy Runet 2019: otraslevoy doklad [Children’s Runet 2019: Industry Report]. – 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://internetinstitute.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ChildRunet-2019-26032020.pdf. (accessed: 12.03.2022)[in Russian]
  14. Devine P. Internet use and psychological well-being among 10-year-old and 11-year-old children / P. Devine, K. Lloyd // Child Care in Practice. – 2012. – Vol. 18(1). – P. 5–22.
  15. Digital 2021: The Russian Federation. – 2021. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-russian-federation. (accessed: 12.03.2022)
  16. Edmonstone J. Leadership Development, Wicked Problems and Action Learning: Provocations to a Debate / Edmonstone, A. Lawless, M. Pedler // Action Learning: Research and Practice. – 2019. – Vol. 16(1). – P. 37–51. DOI: 10.1080/14767333.2019.1568967.
  17. Gascon H. Développement d'uneplateforme Internet pour faciliterl'intervention précoce auprès des familles [Development of an Internet platform to facilitate early intervention with families] / H. Gascon, I. Beaudoin, D. Voyer // La revue internationale de l’éducationfamiliale [The international journal of family education]. – 2014. – Vol. 35. – P. 19–35. DOI: 10.3917/rief.035.0019. [in French]
  18. Gruzina Yu. M. Present-Day Challenges to an Education System / Yu. M. Gruzina, M. A. Ponomareva, I. A. Firsova, et al. // European Journal of Contemporary Education. – 2020. – Vol. 9(4). – P. 773–785. DOI: 10.13187/ejced.2020.4.773
  19. Honneth A. La réification. Petit traité de théorie critique [Reification. A short treatise on critical theory] / A. Honneth. – Paris, Gallimard, 2006. – 141 p. [in French]
  20. Inoue-Smith Yu. Designing and Implementing Mixed-Mode (Blended) Learning for College Students: A Case Study / Yu. Inoue-Smith // The European Proceedings of Social &Behavioural Sciences (EpSBS). – 2019. – Vol. LVI. – P. 711–719. DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.02.31
  21. Livingstone S. How parents of young children manage digital devices at home: the role of income, education and parental style / S. Livingstone, G. Mascheroni, M. Dreier et al. – London: EU Kids Online, LSE, 2015. – 25 p.
  22. Memon A. S. COVID-19: How prepared are global education systems for future crises? / S. Memon, A. Rigole, T. V. Nakashian et al. // Innocenti Research Briefs 2020-21, UNICEF Office of Research. – Florence: Innocenti, 2020. – 7 p.
  23. Pestereva N. The Formation of the Eurasian Research-and-Education Ecosystem and the Internationalization of Educational Platforms: the Case of Russia and China / Pestereva, S. Yuhua, M. Belyakova, F. Jgin // European Journal of Contemporary Education. – 2019. – Vol. 8(4). – P. 841–854. DOI: 10.13187/ejced.2019.4.84.
  24. Education 2030: The Future of Education and Skills // OECD. – 2018. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf. (accessed: 12.03.2022)
  25. Orekhova E. Ya. Semya, roditelstvo i shkola Yevropy v sovremennom sotsiokulturnom kontekste [Family, parenthood and school in Europe in the modern socio-cultural context] / E. Ya. Orekhova, I. S. Danilova, N. A. Shaydenko // Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya pedagogika [Domestic and foreign pedagogy]. – 2018. – Vol. 4(52). – P. 103–114. [in Russian]
  26. Orgad L. The Future of Citizenship: Global and Digital – A Rejoinder / L. Orgad // Debating Transformations of National Citizenship. – Cham.: Springer International Publishing, 2018. – P. 353–358. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-92719-0_61.
  27. Parents’ rising concern over children online // Ofcom. – 04 February 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2020/rising-concern-over-children-online. (accessed: 12.03.2022)
  28. Pasport prioritetnogo proyekta “Sovremennaya tsifrovaya obrazovatel'naya sreda v Rossiyskoy Federatsii” [Passport of priority project “Modern digital educational environment in the Russian Federation”]. – 2016. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://static.government.ru/media/files/8SiLmMBgjAN89vZbUUtmuF5lZYfTvOAG.pdf. (accessed: 12.03.2022) [in Russian]
  29. Pluzhnikova N. N. Intelligence and technology: the problem of interaction / N. N. Pluzhnikova, E. V. Korableva, N. Bokova // ESPACIOS. – 2018. – Vol. 39(38). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.revistaespacios.com/a18v39n38/a18v39n38p20.pdf. (accessed: 12.03.2022)
  30. Prensky M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: Part 1 / M. Prensky // On the Horizon. – 2001. – Vol. 9(5). – P. 1–6. DOI: 10.1108/10748120110424816.
  31. Proctor H. Parents, schools and the twenty-first-century state: comparative perspectives / H. Proctor, A. Roch, Breidenstein et al. // Comparative Education. – 2020. – Vol. 56(3). – P. 317–330. DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2020.1781422.
  32. Raskauskas J. The process of coping with cyberbullying: A systematic review / J. Raskauskas, A. Huynh // Aggression and Violent Behavior. – 2015. Vol. 23. – P. 118–125.
  33. Schleicher A. World Class: How to Build a 21st-Century School System, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education / A. Schleicher. – Paris: OECD Publishing, 2018. DOI: 10.1787/9789264300002-en.
  34. Suleimanova O. A. Towards synergetic combination of traditional and innovative digital teaching and research practices / O. A. Suleimanova // Training, language and culture. – 2020. – Vol. 4(4). – P. 39–50. DOI: 10.22363/2521-442X-2020-4-4.
  35. Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii “O natsional'nykh tselyakh i strategicheskikh zadachakh razvitiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii na period do 2024 goda” [Presidential Executive Order No. 204 dated May 7, 2018 On National Goals and Strategic Objectives of the Russian Federation through to 2024]. – 2018. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://static.kremlin.ru/media/acts/files/0001201805070038.pdf. (accessed: 12.03.2022)[in Russian]
  36. Distance Learning Solutions. – 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/solutions. (accessed: 12.03.2022)
  37. Uroven vladeniya tsifrovymi navykami v Rossii i stranakh Yevrosoyuza [Level of digital skills in Russia and EU countries]. – 2020. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://issek.hse.ru/news/377859466.html (accessed: 12.03.2022) [in Russian]
  38. Vlachopoulos D. COVID-19: Threat or opportunity for online education? / D. Vlachopoulos // Higher Learning Research Communications. – 2020. – Vol. 10(1). P. 2. DOI:10.18870/hlrc.v10i1.1179.