Moskva, Moscow, Russian Federation
The article discusses blended learning, the ability of which to improve the quality of education in the modern conditions of digital society is no longer in doubt. The authors analyze the relationship and interdependence of blended and immersive learning and evaluate it in terms of such parameters as accessibility and a wide sector of practical use. Modern education, already called "Education 4.0", is associated with virtualization and represents dozens of different pedagogical technologies and areas of pedagogical science. Heutagogy, peeragogy and cybergogy are in focus in modern digital pedagogy. Today they are considered as modern innovative pedagogical approaches that can provide the best technological tools for digital immersive learning. This paper provides a systematic review of the scientific literature that characterizes the methodological approaches of "digital pedagogy".
immersive learning, blended learning, Education 4.0, heutagogy, peeragogy, cybergogy
1. Abdelaziz, H. A. (2014). Immersive learning design (ILD): A new model to assure the quality of learning through fipped classrooms. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 212-223. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2014.211027
2. Abraham, R. R., & Komattil, R. (2017). Heutagogic approach to developing capable learners. Medical Teacher, 39(3), 295-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2017.1270433
3. Ata, R. (2016). An exploration of higher education teaching in Second Life in the context of blended learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 15(3), 9-26
4. Ayob, N. F. S., Halim, N. D. A., Zulkifi, N. N., Zaid, N. M., & Mokhtar, M. (2020). Overview of blended learning: The efect of station rotation model on students’ achievement. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(6), 320-326. https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.06.56
5. Azizan, F. Z. (2010). Blended learning in higher education institution in Malaysia. In Proceedings of regional conference on knowledge integration in ICT (pp. 454-466). Retrieved December 1, 2020, from http://library.oum.edu.my/oumlib/sites/default/fles/fle_attachments/odl-resources/4334/blended-learning.pdf
6. Bautista, M. P. M. (2013). An immersive learning environment to develop English-speaking skills: Second life in ef. Virtu@ lmente, 1(2), 4-14
7. Beckem, J. M., & Watkins, M. (2012). Bringing life to learning: Immersive experiential learning simulations for online and blended courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 16, 61-71. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i5.287
8. Bhoyrub, J., Hurley, J., Neilson, G. R., Ramsay, M., & Smith, M. (2010). Heutagogy: An alternative practice based learning approach. Nurse Education in Practice, 10(6), 322-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2010.05.001
9. Bidarra, J., & Rusman, E. (2017). Towards a pedagogical model for science education: Bridging educational contexts through a blended learning approach. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 32(1), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1265442
10. Blaschke L. M. (2018). Self-determined Learning (heutagogy) and digital media creating integrated educational environments for developing lifelong learning skills. In D. Kergel, B. Heidkamp, P. Telleus, T. Rachwal, S. Nowakowski (Eds.), The digital turn in higher education (pp. 129-140). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19925-8_10
11. Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 56-71. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1076
12. Blaschke, L. M., & Hase, S. (2019). Heutagogy and digital media networks. Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.24135/pjtel.v1i1.1
13. Bukhteeva, E.E., Efremtseva, T.N., Kalnei, V.A., Shishov, S.E. Educational characteristics of learner autonomy // Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice. 2022. T. 22. № 11. S. 40-44.
14. Canning, N., & Callan, S. (2010). Heutagogy: Spirals of refection to empower learners in higher education. Refective Practice, 11(1), 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940903500069
15. Chen, W. S., & Yao, A. Y. T. (2016). An empirical evaluation of critical factors infuencing learner satisfaction in blended learning: A pilot study. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 1667-1671. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040719
16. Cheney, A. W., & Terry, K. P. (2018). Immersive learning environments as complex dynamic systems. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(2), 277-289. Retrieved November 12, 2020, https://fles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1185091.pdf
17. Chytas, D., Salmas, M., Skandalakis, G. P., & Troupis, T. G. (2021). Can immersive virtual reality function as a suitable alternative to conventional anatomy education methods? Anatomical Sciences Education, 14(5), 693-694. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2081
18. Colreavy-Donnelly, S., Ryan, A., O’Connor, S., Carafni, F., Kuhn, S., & Hasshu, S. (2022). Leveraging Immersive Technologies to Support Blended Learning Post Covid-19. Preprints, 2022030252. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202203.0252.v1
19. Corneli, J. (2012). Paragogical praxis. E-learning and Digital Media, 9(3), 267-272.
20. Craigg, A. (2020). Social learning theory. In R. Power (Ed.), E-learning essentials 2020 (pp. 9-13). Pressbook.com
21. Crawford, R., & Jenkins, L. (2017). Blended learning and team teaching: Adapting pedagogy in response to the changing digital tertiary environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 51-72. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2924
22. Dziuban, C., Graham, C. R., Moskal, P. D., Norberg, A., & Sicilia, N. (2018). Blended learning: the new normal and emerging technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 3
23. Gan, B., Menkhoff, T., & Smith, R. (2015). Enhancing students’ learning process through interactive digital media: New opportunities for collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 652-663
24. Jamaludin, R., McKay, E., & Ledger, S. (2020). Are we ready for education 4.0 within ASEAN higher education institutions? Thriving for knowledge, industry and humanity in a dynamic higher education ecosystem? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(5), 1161-1173. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-06-2019-0144
25. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist-learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). (2013). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2) (pp. 215-239). Routledge.
26. Kaufman, D. (2019). The shifting paradigm: Blended learning a transformative approach in teacher education. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0970
27. Konst (F. Penttilä), Taru & Kairisto-Mertanen, Liisa. (2020). Developing innovation pedagogy approach. On the Horizon. ahead-of-print.https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-08-2019-0060
28. Kudryashova, A. V., Gorbatova, T. N., & Rozhkova, N. (2016). Developing a blended learning based model for teaching foreign languages in engineering institutions. SHS Web of Conferences: Research Paradigms Transformation in Social Sciences, 28, 1128. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20162801128
29. Mohammad, S., Siang, T., Osman, S., Jamaluddin, N., Alfu, N. M., & Huei, L. (2019). A proposed heutagogy framework for structural steel design in civil engineering curriculum. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(24), 96-105
30. Moore, J. C. (2005). The Sloan Consortium quality framework and the five pillars. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved July, 15, 2007
31. Mozelius, P., & Rydell, C. (2017). Problems Afecting Successful Implementation of Blended Learning in Higher Education-The Teacher Perspective. International Journal of Information and Communication Technologies in Education, 6(2), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijicte-2017-0001
32. Mulholland, N. (2019). Re-imagining the art school: Paragogy and artistic learning. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20629-1
33. Mynbayeva, A., Vishnevskay, A., & Sadvakassova, Z. (2016). Experimental study of developing creativity of university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 407-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.113
34. Oomen-Early, J., & Early, A. D. (2015). Teaching in a millennial world. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 1(2), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/2373379915570041
35. Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 785-797. Retrieved December 16, 2020, from https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000241
36. Pisarevskiy K., Kalnei V.A., Shishov S.E. Theoretical approaches to the study of the problem of self-development of future specialists // Nuances: Estudos sobre Educação. 2022. T. 33. № 1. S. e022007.
37. Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701
38. Shishov S.E., Popey-ool S., Abylkasymova A.E., Kalnei V., Ryakhimova E.G. Transformational learning of teachers: an analysis of the effectiveness // Política e Gestão Educacional. 2022. T. 26. № S2. S. e022059.
39. Snowden, M., & Halsall, J. P. (2017). Exploring the application of a self-determined approach to learning. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 22(3), 293-303
40. Sumarsono, S. (2019). The paradigms of heutagogy and cybergogy in the transdisciplinary perspective. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 52(3), 172-182. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpp.v52i3.22882
41. Twelves, J., & Arasaratnam, L. A. (2012). Blended learning in postgraduate studies: A contextualised discussion. Journal of Christian Education, 55(1), 59-69
42. Wang, M. J. (2008). Cybergogy for engaged learning. Journal of Open and Distance Education in China,14(2), 14-22
43. Witell, L Kristensson P, Gustafsson A and Löfgren M (2011) Idea Generation: customer co-creation versus traditional research techniques, Journal of Service Management 22, 2: 140-159
44. Yusuf, Q., & Yusuf, Y. Q. (2018) Digital culture and digitagogy: A life of a digital culturalist and a digitagogist. International Conference on the Roles of Parents in Shaping Children’s Characters (ICECED). Retrieved December 8, 2020, http://jurnal.unsyiah.ac.id/ICECED/article/view/13647
45. Lomonosova N. V. Optimizaciya kriteriev smeshannogo obucheniya studentov vuza na osnove racional'nogo sochetaniya tradicionnyh i elektronnyh metodov vzaimodeystviya // Otkrytoe i distancionnoe obrazovanie. 2016. № 4 (64). S. 24-30.
46. Fomina A. S. Smeshannoe obuchenie v vuze: institucional'nyy, organizacionno-tehnologicheskiy i pedagogicheskiy aspekty // Teoriya i praktika obschestvennogo razvitiya. 2014. № 21. S. 272-279.
47. Shishov S.E., Kal'ney V.A., Popey-ool S.K., Ryahimova E.G. Immernet kak estestvennaya sreda razvitiya immersivnogo tehnologicheskogo i professional'nogo obucheniya // Nauchnye issledovaniya i razrabotki. Social'no-gumanitarnye issledovaniya i tehnologii. 2022. T. 11. № 3. S. 3-13.
