Scale for Assessing the University Digital Educational Environment (AUDEE scale): Approbation on the Belarusian Sample

The results of the approbation of "Scale for assessing university digital educational environment (AUDEE scale)" developed in 2021 in Russian Federation on the Russian-speaking Belarusian sample are presented. The study involved 523 students from different universities of the Republic of Belarus (90% female). The average age of the respondents was 19.3 ± 3.6 years (median = 19 years). The survey was conducted in September-December 2021 via the Internet using google forms. The results show that the AUDEE Scale works almost as well on the Belarusian sample as on the Russian one: the average values on the subscales practically do not differ, the internal consistency (reliability) of all scales is high. Correlations between AUDEE scales are comparable with those obtained for the Russian sample. The factor structure obtained as a result of the exploratory factor analysis also contains six scales that almost completely coincide with the scales of the original questionnaire. In the future, it is recommended to conduct further research with an expansion of the sample (taking into account sex, age, students’ specialty and university).

1. Zhousyan O. Sravnitelnyi analiz kitaiskoi i rossiyskoi tsyfrovoy obrazovatel'noi sredy v sfere vysshego obrazovaniya (na primere Moskovskogo pedagogicheskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta i Pekinskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta) [Comparative analysis of the Chinese and Russian digital educational environment in the field of higher education (on the example of Moscow State Pedagogical University and Beijing State Pedagogical University] Pedagogika i prosvesheniye = Pedagogy and education, 2022, no. 2, pp. 35-46. (In Russ., Abstr. in Engl.).
2. Kytepova L.I., Popkova A.A., Zhidkov A.A., Gordeev K.S. Proektirovaniye tsyfrovoy obrazovatel'noi sredy. [Designing a digital educational environment]. Azimut nauchnyh issledovaniy: pedagogika I psichologiya = Azimuth of scientific research: pedagogy and psychology, 2021, vol. 10, no. 2 (35), pp. 229–232. (In Russ., Abstr. in Engl.).
3. Leybina A.V., Shukuryan G.A. Ways to enhance the effectiveness of online education. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2020, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 21–33 (In Russ.). DOI:10.17759/jmfp.2020090302.
4. Magamedov A.M. Problemy i tendentsii razvitiya tsifrovogo obrazovaniya [Problems and trends in the development of digital education]. Pedagogika i prosvesheniye = Pedagogy and education, 2019, no 2. pp. 134–142. (In Russ., Abstr. in Engl.).
5. Sorokova M.G., Odintsova M.A., Radchikova N. Scale for Assessing University Digital Educational Environment (AUDEE Scale). Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2021, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 52–65. doi:10.17759/pse.2021260205. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.).
6. Briesch A.M., Chafouleas S.M., Cintron D.W., McCoach D.B. Factorial invariance of the Usage Rating Profile for Supporting Students’ Behavioral Needs (URP-NEEDS). Journal of School Psychology, 2020, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 51–60. DOI:10.1037/spq0000309.
7. Castro M.D.B., Tumibay G.M. A literature review: efficacy of online learning courses for higher education institution using meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 2019, vol. 24, pp. 1–19. DOI:10.1007/s10639-019-10027-z.
8. Dorman J.P. Validation and Use of an Instrument to Assess University-level Psychosocial Environment in Australian Universities. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2000, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 25–38. DOI:10.1080/030987700112291
9. Fraser B.J., Treagust D.F., Dennis N.C. Development of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment at universities and colleges. Studies in Higher Education, 1986, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 43–54. DOI:10.1080/03075078612331378451.
10. Herrmann K.J., Bager-Elsborg A., Parpala A. Measuring perceptions of the learning environment and approaches to learning: validation of the learn questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2017, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 526–539. DOI:10.1080/00313831.2016.1172497
11. Kim H-Y. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics. 2013, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 52–54. doi:10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52.
12. Miles S., Swift L., Leinster S.J. The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM): A review of its adoption and use. Medical Teacher, 2012, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 620–634. DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2012.668625.
13. Radchikova N., Polyanskaya E., Kozyreva N., Lobanov A., Odintsova M., Sorokova M., et al. (2022): Evaluation of DEE by University Students’ Depending on Their Personal Characteristics. Psychological Research Data & Tools Repository. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.25449/ruspsydata.19107995.v1.
14. West S.G., Finch J.F., Curran P.J. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (Hoyle R.H. ed.) Newbery Park, CA: Sage; 1995. Р. 56–75.