Authors
- Fortunatov Artem А. Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor
Annotation
This article considers theoretical and practical approaches to the study of psychological and pedagogical features of teaching students with the use of hybrid audiences.
The purpose of the study is to clarify the main components of the psychological and pedagogical portrait of a student in the context of a hybrid audience. In order to achieve this goal, research tasks aimed at identifying and empirically substantiating the psychological and pedagogical characteristics of students studying in a hybrid audience were set. In order to identify the psychological and pedagogical features of students of the Institute of Digital Education of the Moscow City University, the following diagnostic methods were carried out in a hybrid format of training: multi-factor personal questionnaire «Big Five»; diagnostics of motives of educational activity of students; diagnostics of dominant perceptual modality, scales of progressive matrices by J. Raven. On the basis of the conducted studies, identified several groups of factors that give an idea of the psychological and pedagogical features of students, in the context of a hybrid audience: training course; motivation of students; openness to experience; mental features; personality.
How to link insert
Fortunatov, A. А. (2023). PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL CHARACTERISTIC OF A STUDENT IN HYBRID LEARNING Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 2023, №4 (66), 126. https://doi.org/10.25688/2072-9014.2023.66.4.10
References
1.
1. White Book / O. N. Alkanova [et al.]. M.; SPb.: Green Print, 2022. 120 p.
2.
2. Asarta C. The effects of online and blended experience on outcomes in a blended learning environment / C. Asarta, J. Schmidt // The Internet and Higher Education. 2020. № 44. P. 1–10.
3.
3. Understanding pandemic pedagogy: Differences between emergency remote, remote, and online teaching / M. K. Barbour [et al.] // Canadian eLearning Network. 2020.
4.
4. Birbal R. Student teachers’ attitudes towards blended learning / R. Birbal, M. Ramdass, C. Harripaul // Journal of Education and Human Development. 2018. № 7 (2). P. 9–26.
5.
5. Bond M. Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K-12: a systematic review / M. Bond // Computers & Education. 2020. № 151. P. 1–36.
6.
6. Gamage K. A. A. Online and hybrid teaching and learning: enhance effective student engagement and experience / K. A. A. Gamage, A. Gamage, S. C. P. Dehideniya // Education Sciences. 2022. № 12. P. 651.
7.
7. Karma I. G. M. Blended learning as an educational innovation and solution during the COVID-19 pandemic / I. G. M. Karma, I. K. Darma, I. M. A. Santiana // International Research Journal of Engineering, IT & Scientific Research. 2021. № 7 (1). P. 1–9.
8.
8. Kintu M. J. Blended learning effectiveness: the relationship between student characteristics, design features and outcomes / M. J. Kintu, C. Zhu, E. Kagambe // Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2017. Vol. 14, № 7.
9.
9. Maity S. Panoramic view of digital education in COVID-19: a new explored avenue / S. Maity, T. N. Sahu, N. Sen // Review of Education. 2020. № 9 (2). P. 405–423.
10.
10. Preparing teachers to teach in K-12 blended environments: A systematic mapping review of research trends, impact, and themes / C. R. Short [et al.] // TechTrends: for Leaders, Education & Training. 2021. № 65 (6). P. 993–1009.
11.
11. Effectiveness of online and blended learning from schools: A systematic review / K. J. Topping [et al.] // Review of Education. 2022. № 10. P. e3353.
12.
12. Features of teaching students using hybrid classrooms / R. T. Aimaletdinov [et al.] // MCU Journal of Informatics and Informatization of Education. 2022. № 3 (61). P. 58–73.
13.
13. Investigating students’ engagement in a hybrid learning environment / A. Eliveria [et al.] // IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering. 2019. № 482. P. 1–7.
14.
14. Sanpanich N. Investigating factors affecting students’ attitudes toward hybrid learning / N. Sanpanich // REFLections. 2021. Vol. 28, № 2. P. 208–227.
15.
15. Measurement invariance and sex and age differences of the Big Five Inventory-2: evidence from the Russian version / S. Shchebetenko [et al.] // Assessment. 2020. № 27. P. 472–486.
16.
16. Gordeeva T. O. Questionnaire “Scales of academic motivation” / T. O. Gordeeva, O. A. Sychev, E. N. Osin // Psychological journal. 2014. Vol. 35, № 4. P. 98–107.
17.
17. Diagnostics of the dominant perceptual modality. Socio-psychological diagnostics of the development of personality and small groups / S. Efremtseva [et al.]. M.: Enlightenment. 2002.
18.
18. Raven’s progressive matrices: methodological recommendations / comp. and the general edition of O. E. Mukhordova, T. V. Schreiber. Izhevsk: Udmurt University, 2011. 70 p.