Introduction
All aspects of modern society are affected by the end-to-end digital technologies and artificial intelligence [Sustainability in a], nano-and biotechnologies, BigData, etc.[Lapidus].However, the development and implementation of new technologies are associated with new risks as they increase the potential ability of each and every human to create and destroy [Uvarov, 2020, p.8].All people share the responsibility for all the changes that happen in the modern world [Schwab, 2016].
Education also experiences the effect of breakthrough technologies.Digital academic environment raises the legitimate question: are the subjects of academic activity ready to become part of the new processes brought about by global digitalization?
Academic digitalization follows two main legislations.The first one includes the laws on education and is represented by the Federal Law on Education in the Russian Federation (No.273-FZ, December 29, 2012).The second covers the laws on information technology stipulated by the Federal Law on Informatization, Information Technologies, and Information Protection (No.149-FZ, July 27, 2006).
The year of 2019 saw the launch of the Federal Project on Digital Educational Environment, aimed at creating a digital academic environment in educational institutions and the general digital transformation of Russian education.The Project defines digital academic environment as a subsystem of socio-cultural environment and a set of pedagogical conditions for personal development with digital infrastructure, content, methods, and communication.
However, digital academic environment creates both opportunities and problems [Personalized Learning [Elektronnyi].The most obvious obstacle that inhibits academic modernization is the gap between the digitalization rates of academic resources and academic processes [Machekhina, 2017].
The Digital Academic Environment Project mentions student-tailored learning path along with such goals as available horizontal learning for students and teachers and the digital footprint system.Some researchers link the digital transformation of education to the individualization of learning [Trudnosti i perspektivy, 2019, p.30].This approach focuses on increasing the digital skills of academic community [Zhao, 2021] and raising the awareness of all its subjects of their own academic path.
The emerging academic model gives rise to a certain paradigm of personal ity in education.Agency becomes both a goal and a condition for a person to enter the academic process.As a result, the emphasis falls on the awareness and responsibility of each student as a participant in globalization.The Federal State Education Standard sets the following requirements for personal and meta-subject results of education: the readiness and ability of students for self-development and self-education; independence in planning and implementing academic activities, as well as designing one’s academic path [Prikaz Ministerstva prosveshcheniya].We believe that university applicants are already fully prepared to choose and plan their own academic future.
Digital transformation is directly related to such issues as choice, career counseling, and student-tailored academic path.In this regard, the problem of students’ readiness for choosing and building their own academic path is quite relevant.
Student-tailored academic path: concept and choice
Choice means overcoming uncertainty by reducing alternatives [Leont'ev, 2015].Similarly, choice is an internal activity [Batina, 2021].It manifests itself in situations of coping with adverse life circumstances [Orlova, 2007].Profession changes one’s personality in a multivariance of ways [Minyurova, 2009, p.28].
The choice of a coping strategy depends on a variety of factors [Kibal'nik, 2017], which can be divided into facilitating and demotivating.Professional personality development has its own specifics [Emil'bekova, 2018].Development of choice strategies requires psychological and pedagogical support [Kolomeets, 2013].However, decision-making also relies on intuition [Shirinbekova, 2017].
The object of choice can be represented by subjectively important relations and activities, including an individual academic path [Lukov, 2015].
Domestic science correlates individual, or tailored, academic path with student-centered education and the pedagogy of cooperation.Studies that feature tailored academic path cover such concepts as the sequence of elements in the academic activity of each student [Surtaeva, 1998], the individual path of realizing students’ personal potential [Khutorskoi, 2014], and the individual path of the subject of academic relations [Timoshina, 2012].The differentiated approach sees tailored academic path as an innovative pedagogical means of differentiating the educational process [Batina, 2021].
Foreign sources also offer a variety of definitions.For instance, the concept of learning trajectory is usually connected with mathematical education [Clements, 2011], where it represents an understanding of the process and sequence of learning [Daro, 2011].Personalized Learning Pathways (PLPs) is an alternative term reported in foreign publications [What Are Personalized].
Personalized learning is the adjustment and adaptation of academic methods and techniques to adapt the learning process to each student with their own unique learning style, needs, and background [Hopkins, 2010].Tailored academic path is a student-centered approach to e-learning, where the student designs their own education road map [Machekhina, 2017], i.e., the entire process is initiated by students themselves [Daro, 2011].
The issue is interdisciplinary and is a research object in various scientific fields.Legal science interprets the concept of tailored academic path based on the fact that students are aware of their responsibility to master the academic program [Kapitonova, 2014, p.53] and their ability to make a conscious choice while exercising their rights to education [Matveev, 2018, p.123].
Psychologists put emphasis on students as representatives of the global community [Ryazanova, 2021], the priority of personal responsibility [Bystrova, 2019], and the maximization of students’ own interests [Shamsiddinov, 2016].
The numerous pedagogical interpretations include the diversity and flexibility of academic programs and technologies [Sinitsina, 2017; Uvarov, 2020]; the variability of academic interaction, including extramural [Popova, 2014]; academic solutions based on pedagogical design [Shirinkina, 2021]; detailed and potentially changeable goals [Personalized Learning [Elektronnyi; What Are Personalized]; variability of academic environment [Kornilov; Hung, 2010].
Methods
The empirical study included a survey conducted on the premises of the Kemerovo State University.The survey determined the attitude of students to tailored academic path and academic choice.It involved 218 first-year students, 65 boys and 153 girls, aged 17— 19, the average age being 18.71 years old.The participants were divided according to their major.The group of Natural Sciences included 52 students of the Institute of Biology, Ecology, and Natural Resources.The group of Technical Sciences included 57 students that majored in Engineering Technology.The group of Education and Pedagogical Sciences involved 56 students from the Institute of Education.The group of Social Sciences included 53 students of History and International Relations.The students gave an informed voluntary consent to participate in the study.To increase the reliability, the survey was anonymous.
The first stage involved collecting empirical data through a system of diagnostic procedures.
The analysis relied on the following methods and techniques:
1) theoretical methods: a review of scientific and psychological literature;
2) psychodiagnostic methods and techniques:
the methodology for determining the choice strategy in academic choice based on D.A. Leontiev and N.V. Pilipko’s procedure for highlighting and analyzing arguments during choice-making;
an authentic questionnaire for assessing the level of awareness of such concepts as tailored academic path and digital academic environment, as well as the peculiarities of conscious choice-making in a situation of uncertainty and ideas about one’s future.
The methods followed the integrated approach to collecting data and the requirement of comparability.The scientific adequacy analysis relied on expert assessments: we selected six statements, two of which were completely true, the other two were partially true, and the remaining two were incorrect but had an associative similar meaning.The students received three points for choosing the correct statement, two points for partially correct statements, and one point for choosing an incorrect statement.
The second stage featured data processing and generalization.The statistical processing involved SPSS 23.0 for Windows and X2 Pearson contingency tables.
The research objective was to determine the subjective position of students of different majors regarding their choice of academic path.
The research hypothesis was as follows: students’ ideas about the choice of academic path differ in their understanding of choice, their participation in its implementation, and their major. Analysis and discussion
The questionnaire consisted of questions that made it possible to assess the level of students’ awareness about such concepts as tailored academic path, digital academic environment, means of obtaining information in a situation of uncertainty, and ideas about one’s own future.
The first question was What media do you appeal to when you need to make a choice in a situation of uncertainty? Figure 1 illustrates the responses.
Most respondents appeared to be guided by their own opinions and desires.They commented that for them choice depended primarily on their own goals and aspirations.As for the media, the respondents tended to look for information on official websites and in official documents.Such a preference for objective information indicated a responsible approach to choice-making.They did not regard social networks or thematic forums as a basis for an educated decision, which we interpreted as a positive trend.The students commendably turned to their parents for advice, but the majority of them clearly preferred the variant with their own opinions and desires.
To assess the awareness about the concept of tailored academic path, we asked the respondents to choose the correct definition.The definitions were provided by experts and obtained from teachers that worked with individual academic trajectories [Chekhovskii, 2012].About half of the participants (48%) provided correct interpretation (Fig. 2) and described it as an individual learning path and a sequence of obtaining knowledge and its content.
A similar number of respondents (39%) were partially informed about the phenomenon and chose such answers as individual path and individual strategy.
Few participants (13%) chose such wrong variants as directed activity and academic course.
The next question tested the understanding of the concept of digital academic environment.The correct answers were also provided by the focus groups.The introductory paragraph of this article described the concept based on regulatory documents and the Federal Project on Digital Academic Environment.The focus groups provided a number of interpretations, which is important in situations of subjective choice.
More than half of the survey participants (52%) chose the partially correct interpretation, i.e., a set of resources and a pedagogical system.Only 9% gave the correct answer: an open set of information systems and an open set of different information systems.Finally, 39% of respondents demonstrated a low level of awareness (Fig.3).
Responding to My ideas about my future: what shall I do after graduation?, the students covered the entire range of option answers (Table 1).
A quarter of the respondents had vague ideas about their future, which they associated more with external circumstances than with their personal agency. However, more than a third of the respondents were aware of their own capabilities and the need to apply their own efforts to achieve their goal. We compared the results by distributing the responses into groups based on the major (Tables 2, 3). The differences proved significant: the students of technical engineering and pedagogy gave more correct answers while those that majored in other directions usually gave partially correct answers.The differences proved to be significant, but in this case the empirical rela-
Table 1 . Responses to My ideas about my future
|
Variant |
Respondents |
|||
|
People |
% |
|
||
|
The future is a set of actions, and its targets depend on my resources and efforts. |
44 |
20.2 |
||
|
I know what I will do, and I see the ways to achieve my goals; I am aware of my capabilities and the efforts I will need to achieve my goals. |
31 |
14.2 |
||
|
I have no clear idea of what I will do, but I can see the field of activity where I want to work, and I have a general idea of what I need to do to achieve my goals. |
54 |
24.8 |
||
|
My choice will depend on a number of circumstances, including my attitude. |
38 |
17.4 |
||
|
The future depends on where you will find yourself in the future and the people you will meet. |
30 |
13.7 |
||
|
Everything depends on the situation. |
21 |
9.7 |
||
Table 2. Responses to the question about tailored academic path distributed according to the major
|
Social Sciences |
Natural Sciences |
Technical Sciences |
Education and Pedagogy |
Total |
|||||
|
Correct answer |
22 |
22 |
30 |
31 |
105 |
||||
|
Partially correct answer |
21 |
28 |
16 |
19 |
84 |
||||
|
Wrong answer |
10 |
2 |
11 |
6 |
29 |
||||
|
Total |
53 |
52 |
57 |
56 |
218 |
||||
|
Х2emp.=13.9, p≤0.05 |
|||||||||
Table 3 . Responses to the question about digital academic environment distributed according to the major
|
Social Sciences |
Natural Sciences |
Technical Sciences |
Education and Pedagogy |
Total |
|||||
|
Correct answer |
7 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
19 |
||||
|
Partially correct answer |
26 |
31 |
23 |
23 |
114 |
||||
|
Wrong answer |
20 |
17 |
28 |
28 |
85 |
||||
|
Total |
53 |
52 |
57 |
56 |
218 |
||||
|
Х2emp.=12.55, p≤0.05 |
|||||||||
tive X2 exceeded critical relative X2 to a lesser degree than in the previous question.On average, the students were less informed about the essence of digital academic environment than about that of tailored academic path.
To determine the main academic choice strategy, we used the method of extracting and analyzing arguments during choice-making developed by D.A. Leontiev and N.V. Pilipko [Leont'ev, 1995].Choice is an internal activity of constructing foundations and semantic criteria to compare available options.The students were asked to choose one statement they agreed with.We used the data obtained in our pilot study where we defined criteria for evaluating alternatives [Morozova, 2013].The students were to correlate the proposed statements with one of four strategies for planning the academic path.The semantic strategy was connected with semantic arguments.The I-strategy involved assessing the choice through the prism of one’s abilities, inclinations, and skills.The activity strategy referred to the features of education itself and the future professional activity.The situational strategy could be described as situational-opportunistic reasoning (Table 4).
Most students appealed to semantic arguments to make a choice, as well as to their capabilities, inclinations, abilities, and skills.The participants were less likely to use the activity strategy associated with a future job with a good income and stability.The revealed preferences might indicate that most students were not ready to predict their professional future, and therefore relied on their internal resources, meanings, and abilities in their choice for academic opportunities.Few students preferred the situational strategy, according to which the choice of the academic direction cannot be planned in advance and depends on each specific situation.
The strategies were not associated with the major (Х2emp.=8.3, p>0.05) and were almost equally distributed in different groups of students.
Conclusion
In the context of global digitalization, the determinants that guide students in their choice of academic path are an important research issue: young people have to choose their future responsibly, understand the consequences of their choice, and select the right ways to achieve their goals.The digital transformation of education has one practical condition: personal agency of each student in determining their education goals and content.Personal agency is a conscious and responsible attitude of each student as a participant in globalization processes.Personal agency provides skills and helps to achieve
Table 4
Strategies for choosing the future academic path
|
Strategy |
Respondents |
|||
|
People |
% |
|
||
|
Semantic strategy |
70 |
32.1 |
||
|
I-strategy |
59 |
27 |
||
|
Activity strategy |
52 |
23.8 |
||
|
Situational strategy |
37 |
17. |
||
goals throughout the entire life.The empirical data obtained in this study revealed that the students lacked meaningfulness and awareness of their own attitudes.In their choice-making, they had almost the same preferences for websites as they did for parental advice.However, most respondents were guided by their own opinions and desires.They demonstrated different degrees of awareness in terms of understanding the essence of digital academic environment and tailored academic path.The differences in their ideas about the future were also significant, but the majority saw their future as depending on external circumstances, not on their own choice.
The described empirical data testify to the manifestations of the subject position and the variability of strategies for determining the academic path.The participants had consistent and adequate ideas about tailored academic path.About 50% of them gave the correct interpretation to the essential characteristics of digital academic environment as an individual learning path and a sequence of obtaining knowledge and its content.More than half of the participants chose partially correct answers.However, their responses to the questions connected with the essence of choice and one’s own role in its implementation were fragmented.The responses to the question about the nature of tailored academic path depended on the major.The students that majored in Technical Sciences, Education, and Pedagogy gave more correct answers, while those from other groups mostly chose partially correct variants.The students were generally less well-informed about digital academic environment.
Most students relied on the semantic strategy while choosing their future academic path.However, their image of the future did not coincide with their ideas about how to achieve the future goals.While personal agency depended on the major, the differences in choice strategies were not affected by this factor.
In general, the identified features of personal agency and choice strategies showed that the students were not ready to plan their own academic path.
The results obtained might be a special case of age patterns.The period between 17 and 25 sees an active formation of ideals, values, and attitudes to oneself and others.On the other hand, they might have been caused by the objective difficulties connected with gender-related variations in personal agency and choice strategies, which is a prospective research topic.