Reflective Hyperconnectivity of Social Networks Virtual Space as a Factor in the Design of Distant Learning Environment

In this article, topics related to the urgent transition to distance education (DE), through decisive measures taken to protect Russian university community against consequences of COVID-19 epidemic are covered. Based on semi-structured interviews with administrators, faculty, IT specialists and students, it is argued that in the force majeure circumstances the university offers for DE a standard model of one-size-fits-all curriculum though modified through information and communication technologies. The use of the Internet in a localized online space is limited to delivering courses without considering needs of individual learners, their autonomy, preferences and prior knowledge of the subject. The observation method was used by both participant and non-participant. An experiment on the teachers’ self-assessment proves that many still view the university as a source of offline information for students. The article purports to discuss ways to promote DE by the concepts of postindustrial educational space connectivism, hyperconnectivity of social networks, teachers’ reflective practice, digital nativity of teachers and students in mastering information and communication technologies. It is claimed that real transition of a Russian university to DE cannot be achieved without internet-provided increased transactional distance in the dialogue between the teacher and students mediated by technology and reflective approach.

1. Saba, F. (2012). A Systems Approach to the Future of Distance Education. Continuing higher education review. Vol. 76, pp. 30-37. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1000649.pdf

2. Atkins, S., Murphy, K. (1994). Reflection. Definition. Reflective Practice. Nursing Standard. TECFA, University of Geneva. Vol. 8(39), pp. 49-56. Available at: http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Reflection#Definition (date of access: 15.05.2020).

3. Wedemeyer, C. (1971). Independent Study. In: The encyclopedia of education. Vol. 4. New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 548–557.

4. Diehl, W.C., Wedemeyer, C.A. (2012). Handbook of Distance Education. Routledge, pp. 38-48. Available at: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203803738.ch3

5. Moore, M.G. (1983). The Individual Adult Learner. In: Tight, M. (Ed.). Adult Learning and Education. London: Croom Helm, pp. 153-168.

6. Fleming, S., Hiple, D. (2004). Distance Education to Distributed Learning: Multiple Formats and Technologies in Language Instruction. CALICO Journal. Vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 63-82.

7. Kajee, L., Balfour, R. (2011). Students’ Access to Digital Literacy at a South African University: Privilege and Marginalization. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies. Vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 187-196.

8. Barcelos, A.M.F., Kalaja, P. (2013). Beliefs in Second Language Acquisition: Teacher. In: The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 1-6.

9. Delgaty, L. (2018). Transactional Distance Theory: A Critical View of the Theoretical and Pedagogical Underpinnings of E-Learning in Interactive Multimedia. Multimedia Production and Digital Storytelling. pp. 21-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81357

10. Farrell, T.S.C. (2011). Exploring the Professional Role Identities of Experienced ESL Teachers through Reflective Practice. System. An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics. Vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 54-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.012

11. Negueruela-Azarola, E. (2011). Beliefs as Conceptualizing Activity: A Dialectical Approach for the Second Language Classroom. System. An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistic. Vol. 39, pp. 359-369.

12. Moore, M., Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 361 p.

13. Moore, M. (1997). Theory of Transactional Distance. In: Keegan, D. (Ed.) Theoretical Principles of Distance Education. Routledge, pp. 22-38.

14. Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M.A., Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and Synchronous Online Teaching: Perspectives of Сanadian High School Distance Education Teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 583-591. DOI: 10.1111/j.14678535.2010.01112.x

15. Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical Challenges for Distance Education in the 21st Century: A Shift from Structural to Transactional Issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Vol. 1(1), pp.1492-3831.

16. Costa Ribas, F. (2016). Formação de professores de língua inglesa a distância: atividades de reflexão em fóruns de discussão Fórum Linguistic, Florianópolis. Vol.13,no.1,pp.1037-1054. https://doi.org/10.5007/1984-8412.2016v13n1p1037

17. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. No. 2 (1), pp. 3-10. Available at: https://www.learningnetwork.ac.nz/shared/professionalReading/TRCONN2011.pdf

18. Mcvee, M.B., Bailey, N.M., Shanahan, L.E. (2008). Teachers and Teacher Educators Learning from New Literacies and New Technologies. Teaching Education. Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210802250216

19. Dooly, M. (2008). Technology Integrated into Language Learning: Introduction. In: Dooly, M., Eastmen, D. How We’re Going about it. Teachers’ Voices on Innovative Approaches to Teaching and Learning Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 159-164.

20. Ribas, F.C., Perine, C.M. (2018). What Does it Mean to Be an English Teacher in Brazil? Student Teachers’ Beliefs Through Narratives in a Distance Education Programme. Applied Linguistics Review. Vol. 9. Issue 2-3, pp. 273-305. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0002

21. Song, Y., Andrews, S. (2009). The L1 in L2 Learning. Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices. Muenchen: Lincom Europe. 227 p.

22. Mazzarella, D. (2015). Pragmatics and Epistemic Vigilance. Croatian Journal of Philosophy. Vol. XV, no. 44, pp. 183-199.

23. Downes, S. (2007). Downes’ Dimensions of Difference between Groups and Networks. Available at: http://www.downes.ca/post/42521

24. Bell, F. (2009). Connectivism: A Network Theory for Teaching and Learning in a Connected World. Educational Developments. The Magazine of the Staff: University of Salford, Manchester. Available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/2569/

25. Downes, S. (2012). An Introduction to Connective Knowledge. In: Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council Canada, 2012. Available at: https://www.downes.ca/files/ books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf.