Digitalization of Education as a Trigger for Changes in Educational Relations

The topic of the presented study is relevant due to a new trend in the development of the education system – digitalization of education, which changes the paradigm of educational relations. Digitalization of the economy in general and education in particular declared in federal strategic documents over the last two decades and until 2024 has been unexpectedly boosted by the quarantine measures taken in spring 2020 and the mass transition of the participants of educational relations into the online format. This topic requires special consideration due to its uniqueness in the context of transforming relations in any field of human activity, especially in the context of human relations transitioning from the analog offline world to the online domain.

Aim. The study aims to present theories explaining the changes in educational relations in digital reality and to empirically assess the level of preparedness/unpreparedness of the subjects of educational relations for actual changes in their roles required for constructive digital interaction.

Tasks. The authors select theoretical grounds for explaining changes in the educational relations between subjects in the context of digitalization; determine the ideas of participants about the phenomenon of “digitalization of education”; analyze the results of surveys in the logic of expectations of respondents with different characteristics from digitalization of education; compare the results of surveys addressing the problem of digitalization of education before and after the mass transition of school education into online mode.

Methods. This study includes a theoretical and an empirical part. The search for an explanatory theory of changes in educational relations focuses on the theoretical substantiation of the phenomenon of changes on the one hand, and on empirical substantiation of the existing problem of a blurry vision of school stakeholders about the phenomenon of digitalization of education on the other hand. The empirical part includes a fragment of a three-stage sociological survey aimed at the preliminary identification of ideas about the phenomenon of digitalization among people of different ages and professional status before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results. A “portfolio” of theories that are relevant to the topic of the study and explain the essence of changes in educational relations in the context of digitalization is developed. Definitions of “digitalization of education” and “transformation of educational relations” are provided. The theoretical block, based on the concept of an interdisciplinary approach, is supplemented by empirical data obtained from surveys of more than 1,700 respondents from different regions, different professional status, and different ages, the results of which are used to verify (or refute) the hypothesis about the relevance of changes in educational relations in digital education.

Conclusions. The results of empirical research and contextual goals presented in the study do not give grounds for asserting that digitalization of education becomes a trigger for changes in educational relations. This conclusion does not contradict the basic explanatory theory – the theory of liminality. The transition of relations from the usual state to a new one takes time, since it involves the loss of previous statuses (roles) in educational relations, where the understanding of the hierarchy in the structure of these relations is invalidated.

1. Taleb N.N. Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York: Random House; 2012. 544 p. (Russ. ed.: Taleb N.N. Antikhrupkost’. Kak izvlech’ vygodu iz khaosa. Moscow: KoLibri, AzbukaAttikus; 2015. 762 p.).

2. Radaev V. Millennials. How Russian society is changing. Moscow: HSE Publ.; 2019. 224 p. (In Russ.).

3. Abramova M.A., Farnika M. Digitalization of education in the context of the digital inequality. Professional’noe obrazovanie v sovremennom mire = Professional Education in the Modern World. 2019;9(4):3167-3175. DOI: 10.15372/PEMW20190403

4. Dvoretskaya I.V., ed. Problems and prospects of digital transformation of education in Russia and China. 2nd Russian-Chinese conference of educational researchers “Digital transformation of education and artificial intelligence”. Transl. from Chinese. Moscow: HSE Publ.; 2019. 155 p. (In Russ.).

5. Digital skills teaching: Global challenges and best practices. Analytical report of “Sberbank Corporate University”. Kompetentsii. 2018. URL: http://obzory.hr-media.ru/cifrovye_navyki_sotrudnika (accessed on 01.04.2020). (In Russ.).

6. Digital production: Methods, ecosystems, technologies. Working report of the Department of Corporate Education of the Moscow School of Management “Skolkovo”. Moscow School of Management “Skolkovo”. Nov., 2017. URL: http://tpp74.ru/storage/tsifrovoe_proizvodstvo_112017.pdf (accessed on 01.04.2020). (In Russ.).

7. Van Gennep A. The rites of passage. Transl. from French. London, New York: Routledge; 1960. 198 p.

8. Prigogine I. The philosophy of instability. Futures. 1989;21(4):396-400. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-3287(89)80009-6

9. Parsons T. The structure of social action: A study in social theory with special reference to a group of recent European writers. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press Publ.; 1949. 817 p. (Russ. ed.: Parsons T. O strukture sotsial’nogo deistviya. Moscow: Academic Project; 2000. 880 p.).

10. Parsons T. The structure of social action. New York, London: McGraw-Hill Book Co.; 1937. 435 p.

11. Prigogine I., Stengers I. Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam New Age Books; 1984. 349 p. (Russ. ed.: Prigogine I., Stengers I. Poryadok iz khaosa. Novyi dialog cheloveka s prirodoi. Moscow: Progress; 1986. 432 p.).

12. Bogdanov A.A. Tectology. General organizational science. Moscow: Ekonomika; 1989. 650 p. (In Russ.).

13. Bogdanov A. Essays on general organizational science. With the appendix of the author’s theses and the article by Yu. Milonov “On the way to a working encyclopedia”. Samara: Gosizdat; 1921. 332 p. (In Russ.).

14. Sztompka P. The sociology of social change. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 1993. 368 p. (Russ. ed.: Sztompka P. Sotsiologiya sotsial’nykh izmenenii. Moscow: Aspekt Press; 1996. 416 p.).

15. Sztompka P. The sociology of social change. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell; 1993. 368 p.

16. Vygotskii L.S. The problem of learning and mental development at school age. In: Vygotskii L.S. Selected psychological research: Thinking and speaking. Problems of the psychological development of the child. Moscow: Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR; 1956. P. 438-452. (In Russ.).

17. Vygotskii L.S. Human developmental psychology. Moscow: Smysl, Eksmo; 2005. 1136 p. (In Russ.).

18. Leont’ev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Moscow: Politizdat; 1977. 304 p. (In Russ.).

19. From an unpublished manuscript by S.L. Rubinstein “Man and the world”. Transcript, preparation for printing and publication by K.A. Slavskaya. Voprosy filosofii. 1966;(7):161-170. (In Russ.).

20. Tul’chinskii G.L., Epstein M.N., eds. Projective philosophical dictionary. New terms and concepts. St. Petersburg: Aletheia; 2003. 512 p. (In Russ.).

21. Turner V. Liminal to liminoid, in play, flow, and ritual: An essay in comparative symbology. Rice University Studies. 1974;60(3):53-92.

22. Illich I. Deschooling society. London: Penguin Books; 1973. 128 p. (Russ. ed.: Illich I. Osvobozhdenie ot shkol. Proportsional’nost’ i sovremennyi mir. Moscow: Prosveshchenie; 2006. 160 p.).

23. Kervin L. Powerful and playful literacy learning with digital technologies. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. 2016;39(1):64-73.

24. Neumann M.M. Using tablets and apps to enhance emergent literacy skills in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2018;42(239-246. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.006

25. Illich I. Deschooling society. London: Penguin Books; 1973. 128 p.