Программные инструменты ИИ: исследование эволюции электронных учебников в высшем образовании

Актуальность. Несмотря на то, что электронные учебные пособия прошли путь эволюции от мультимедийных ресурсов до интерактивных обучающих платформ, в научном сообществе до сих пор отсутствует их однозначная интерпретация. Широкий спектр существующих моделей электронных учебных пособий, от простых цифровых копий до сложных интерактивных платформ, интегрирующих мультимедийный контент и инструменты для самоконтроля, обусловливает необходимость их дальнейшего изучения. Настоящее исследование посвящено анализу концепции электронных учебных пособий в восприятии студентов и преподавателей инженерных специальностей. Гипотеза. Студенты и преподаватели высших учебных заведений демонстрируют различные паттерны взаимодействия с традиционными (бумажными) и электронными учебными пособиями. Методы и материалы. Данное исследование включает анализ литературы, рассмотрение культурно-исторической теории деятельности в качестве теоретической основы, а также анализ эмпирических данных, полученных с использованием инструментов смешанного метода исследования: анкетирования студентов инженерных специальностей и интервью с преподавателями инженерных дисциплин. Результаты. Результаты, полученные в ходе анкетирования и интервью, позволяют по-новому взглянуть на эволюцию электронных учебников в образовании. Электронные учебники и цифровые обучающие платформы открывают перспективные направления развития высшего образования. Выводы. Исходя из результатов исследования, можно отметить, что образовательным учреждениям необходимо уделять внимание повышению осведомленности и углублению понимания электронных учебных пособий, а также проводить целевые информационные и обучающие мероприятия для студентов и преподавателей.

1. Anagnos, T., Sheppard, S.D., & Billington, S.L. (2018). Integrating a digital textbook into a statics course. In: 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1—5). San Jose, CA. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8659190
2. Brunet et al., 2011; Brunet, D.P., Bates, M.L., Gallo III, J.R., & Strother, E.A. (2011). Incoming dental students’ expectations and acceptance of an electronic textbook program. Journal of Dental Education, 75(5), 646—
3. Anderson, T.A., Baker-Eveleth, L., & Stone, R.W. (2024). Exploring the Characteristics and Attitudes of Electronic Textbook Users and Nonusers. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 22(5), 15— https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.22.5.3203
4. Brown, T.H., Zhao, Y., & Leung, V. (2005). Donald O. Hebb’s synapse and learning rule: A history and commentary. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(8), 851— https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.09.009
5. Chen, 2019; Chen, L. (2019). Retailers’ differentiation strategy and pricing in the rental market of digital content: A case of e-textbooks. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 14(3), 61— http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762019000300105 
6. Chung, K.S., Byun, H.W., Kim, S., & Yu, H.C. (2018). Interactive digital textbook development methodology for higher education. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 8(4-2), 1534— https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.8.4-2.5636
7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
8. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press.
9. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In: Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1—46). Cambridge University Press.
10. Dlodlo, N., & Foko, T.E. (2012). Challenges facing eTextbook provision to South African schools. In: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning, Helsinki, Finland, 16—18 October 2012. http://hdl.handle.net/10204/6340
11. 2014 Eicker-Nel, S., & Matthee, M. (2014). The adoption of tablet-based e-textbooks in a South African private school. In:B. Cohen (Ed.), Proceedings of the e-Skills for Knowledge Production and Innovation Conference, Cape Town, 17—21 November 2014 (pp. 109—123). Informing Science Institute. https://proceedings.e-skillsconference.org/2014/e-skillsProceedingsOnline.pdf
12. Embong et al., 2012; Embong, A.M., Noor, A.M., Hashim, H.M., Ali, R.M., & Shaari, Z.H. (2012). E-books as textbooks in the classroom. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1802— https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.903
13. Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In: Sannino, H. Daniels & K.D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303—328). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809989.020
14. Felvégi, E., & Matthew, K.I. (2012). eBooks and literacy in K–12 schools. Computers in the Schools, 29(1-2), 40— https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2012.651421
15. Friese, S. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti (3rd ed.). Sage.
16. Gu, X., Wu, B., & Xu, X. (2015). Design, development, and learning in e-Textbooks: What we learned and where we are going. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(1), 25— https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0023-9
17. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., Restrepo, A., Sabra, H., & Trouche, L. (2018). E-textbooks and connectivity: Proposing an analytical framework. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 539— https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9782-2
18. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., Sabra, H., & Trouche, L. (2016). Collective design of an e-textbook: Teachers’ collective documentation. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2), 187— https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9331-x
19. Hardman, J. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of pedagogical change with information communication technologies in no-fee primary schools in a developing context: A cultural historical activity theory analysis. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 6(3), 125— https://doi.org/10.30845/jesp.v6n3p16
20. Hardman, K (2007). Current situation and prospects for physical education in the European Union. Brussels: European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2007/369032/IPOL-CULT_ET(2007)369032_EN.pdf
21. Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt‐Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15— https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01090
22. Hyman, J.A., Moser, M.T., & Segala, L.N. (2014). Electronic reading and digital library technologies: Understanding learner expectation and usage intent for mobile learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 35— https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9330-5
23. Jang, D.H., Yi, P., & Shin, I.S. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of digital textbook use on students’ learning outcomes in South Korea: A meta-analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 57— https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0232-7
24. Janiesch, C., Zschech, P., & Heinrich, K. (2021). Machine learning and deep learning. Electronic Markets, 31(3), 685— https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00475-2
25. Jao, C.S., Brint, S.U., & Hier, D.B. (2005). Making the neurology clerkship more effective: Can e-Textbook facilitate learning? Neurological Research, 27(7), 762— https://doi.org/10.1179/016164105X35639
26. Kahn, K., & Winters, N. (2021). Constructionism and AI: A history and possible futures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1739— https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13088
27. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B.A. (2009). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press.
28. Lau, K.H., Lam, T., Kam, B.H., Nkhoma, M., Richardson, J., & Thomas, S. (2018). The role of textbook learning resources in e-learning: A taxonomic study. Computers & Education, 118, 10— https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.005
29. Laurillard, D. (1999). A conversational framework for individual learning applied to the ‘learning organisation’ and the ‘learning society’. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(2), 113— https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(199903/04)16:2<113::AID-SRES279>3.0.CO;2-C
30. Mangen, A., & Van der Weel, A. (2016). The evolution of reading in the age of digitisation: An integrative framework for reading research. Literacy, 50(3), 116— https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12086
31. Martin-Beltrán, M., Tigert, J.M., Peercy, M.M., & Silverman, R.D. (2017). Using digital texts vs. paper texts to read together: Insights into engagement and mediation of literacy practices among linguistically diverse students. International Journal of Educational Research, 82, 135— https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.01.009
32. Mouri, K., Ren, Z., Uosaki, N., & Yin, C. (2019). Analyzing learning patterns based on log data from digital textbooks. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 17(1), 1—
33. Muggleton, S. (2014). Alan Turing and the development of artificial intelligence. AI Communications, 27(1), 3— https://doi.org/10.3233/AIC-130579
34. Ogata, H., Yin, C., Oi, M., Okubo, F., Shimada, A., Kojima, K., & Yamada, M. (2015). e-Book-based learning analytics in university education. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2015), Hangzhou, China, 30 November — 4 December (pp. 401—406). Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
35. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A.J., Courduff, J., Carter, K., & Bennett, D. (2013). Electronic versus traditional print textbooks: A comparison study on the influence of university students' learning. Computers & Education, 63, 259— https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.022
36. Rzyankina, E. (2024). E-Textbooks as a Teaching Aid at a University of Technology in South Africa: A Cultural-Historical Activity Theory Analysis. Education Sciences, 14(10), Article 1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101079
37. Sannino, A. (2008a). Experiencing conversations: Bridging the gap between discourse and activity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38(3), 267—291, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2008.00371.x
38. Sannino, A. (2008b). From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(3), 234—257, https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030802186769
39. Sannino, A. (2010). Teachers’ talk of experiencing: Conflict, resistance and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 838— https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.021
40. Thanh, N.C., & Thanh, T.T. (2015). The interconnection between interpretivist paradigm and qualitative methods in education. American Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), 24—
41. Van Barneveld, A., Arnold, K., & Campbell, J. (2012). Analytics in higher education: Establishing a common language. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. ELI Paper 1: 2012. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2012/1/eli3026-pdf.pdf
42. Viberg, O., Hatakka, M., Bälter, O., & Mavroudi, A. (2018). The current landscape of learning analytics in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 98— https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.027
43. Vygotsky, L.S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In: Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (135—143). Sharpe.
44. Wakefield, K. (2021). A guide to the types of machine learning algorithms. SAS Institute UK. https://www.sas.com/en_gb/insights/analytics/machine-learning.html
45. Wertsch, J.V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In:B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85—100). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-004