Distance education: models, implementation levels and implementation challenges

DOI: 10.15293/1812-9463.2103.05

УДК 37.02

Kamenev Roman Vladimirovich

Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Director of IFMITO, Novosibirsk State
Pedagogical University, Novosibirsk. ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9367-3997
E-mail: romank54.55@gmail.com

Abramova Mariya Alekseevna

Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Professor of the Department of Psychology and Pedagogy of the IFMITO Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University,
Novosibirsk. ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6923-3564
E-mail: marika24@yandex.ru

Krasheninnikov Valeriy Vasilyevich

Candidate of Technical Sciences, Professor IFMITO,
Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University.
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6470-8145 E-mail: vkrash48@mail.ru


The article aims to consider the problem of implementing distance learning at the micro-meso and macro levels. In the study, the authors rely on systematic approach. Using the example of studies of the results of the introduction of distance learning during the pandemic, the problems faced by educational organizations at the regional level are shown. The actualization of the need for regional analysis led the authors to the conclusion that the issue is insufficiently developed at the macro level of administration of the process of implementing distance learning. The article also raises questions about the quality of “offline” and “online” training formats, the problem of commercialization of education and the transformation of university types as associated with unjustified expectations of the effectiveness of the introduction of distance learning format.

The materials presented in the article will be of interest to those specializing in the field of education management: heads of educational organizations, employees of educational management bodies at all levels.

Keywords: distance education, learning models, organization models, regional models.



1. Abramova M. A., Farnika M. Digitalization of education in the conditions of digital inequality. Vocational education in the modern world. 2019. Vol. 9. no. 4. pp. 3167-3175. DOI: 10.15372/PEMW20190403 (In Russian)

2. Zvyagintsev R. S., Kersha Yu. D., Pinskaya M. A. Transition to distance education:
a detailed analysis of the municipal case. URL: https://ioe.hse.ru/sao_region. (In Russian).

3. Kamenev R. V., Krasheninnikov V. V., Farnika M., Abramova M. A. High technologies and transformation of the education system: constructiveness and destructiveness. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2018. Vol. 8. no. 6. pp. 104-119. DOI: 10.15293/2226-3365.1806.07 (In Russian).

4. Karpov A. S. Distance educational technologies. Planning and organization of the educational process: an educational and methodological guide. Saratov: University education, 2015. 67 p. (In Russian)

5. The problems of transition to distance education in the Russian Federation through the eyes of teachers . D. I. Saprykin, A. A. Volohovich; national research University “Higher school of Economics”, the Institute of education. M.: Higher school of Economics, 2020. 32 p. (In Russian)

6. Polat E. S. the problem of determining the effectiveness of distance learning. Open education. 2005. no. 3. pp. 71-77. (In Russian)

7. Technology of distance learning: textbook. manual. A.V. Tarakanov, K. V. Sadova, E. A. Krainova-Samara: Samara State Technical University. un-t, 2017. 86 p. (In Russian)

8. Ustyuzhanina E. V., Evsyukov S. G. Digitalization of the educational environment: opportunities and threats. Bulletin of Plekhanov Russian University of Economics. 2018. № 1 (97). pp. 3-12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21686/2413-2829-2018-1-3-12. (In Russian)

9. Khutorskoy A.V. On the development of distance education in Russia. KIO. 2000.
no. 5. pp. 86-89. (In Russian).

10. Antonelli C. The new economics of the university: a knowledge governance approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2008. no. 33. pр. 1–22. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-007-9064-9

11. Jarzabkowski P., Sillince J. A. A., Shaw D. Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human Relations. 2010. no. 63 (2). pр. 219–248. DOI: 10.1177/0018726709337040

12. Hewitt-Dundas N. Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Research Policy. 2012. no. 41. pр. 262–275. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.010.

13. Polanyi M. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City. New York: Doubleday, 1966.

14. Siegel D. S., Waldman D., Link A. N. Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory research. Research Policy. 2003. no. 32 (1). pр. 27–48. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2

15. Sorlin S. Funding diversity: performance-based funding regimes as drivers of differentiation in higher education systems. Higher Education Policy. 2007. no. 20.
pр. 413–440. DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300165