The survey is required for getting more accurate information about the opinions of Russian students after the end of coronavirus quarantine when universities were opened for offline education. Unlike an interview's survey is able to demonstrate more quantitative information with small elements of qualitative analysis when there is an option to answer
“other” and to explain personal views in more detail. Furthermore, a survey as a
Figure 22. The most usable digital communication platforms for e-learning in Russia (HSU NRU, 2020)
methodology for the thesis admits receiving data from a big group of people who are a target audience for the research. As it was already written before the offline education of universities in Russia started at the beginning of February 2021 while the survey was conducted in March – April 2021. That allowed to see the core thoughts of current students about perspectives of digital communication platforms in Russian higher education in the nearest future.
In a word, one hundred thirty - seven respondents took a participation in the primary survey all of them are students at different Russian universities who had experienced with studying online during coronavirus quarantine and used digital communication platforms for that.
The survey includes seventeen questions some of them are with more than one answer possibility, some are made as scales and some questions have only one possible answer. All results are presented in a form of percentages as well as most of the questions from secondary surveys what can help in better comparative analysis question by question.
The first question was aimed to understand the prevalence of digital communication platforms for study purposes before the quarantine at Russian universities. As a result, most of the students (67,2 %) answered “No” on the question, while the rest of the people (32,8
%) selected the option “Yes”. (see Fig.23.) What is an undeniable fact of the survey which demonstrates the common situation before the coronavirus effect when two-third of students answered negatively. That means that most of the universities were not applying modern technologies for teaching their students.
Figure 23. Did you use digital communication platforms for your education at university before Coronavirus quarantine? (Author, 2021)
As it was already written before the survey is focused only on students who have used digital communication platforms during coronavirus quarantine, as a consequence, that was not asked in a separate question. Nevertheless, there is a need to emphasize that 137 respondents (100 %) were using online platforms during quarantine. The second question is about the usage of the platforms after the period of distance learning. Important to realize, almost 90 percent of respondents chose variant “Yes” answering the question, while only 10.9 percent mentioned that they are not using digital communication platforms after the quarantine. (see Fig.24.)
Figure 24. Do you use digital communication platforms for your education at university after Coronavirus quarantine? (Author, 2021)
Figures twenty – three and twenty – four introduce the huge difference between two time periods and prove that the quarantine measures influenced on digital development at Russian universities. As the percentage of those who selected affirmative answer grows on 56,8 % for around one year period. (see Fig.23. & Fig.24.) Interesting to know that seventy–
three percent of respondents mentioned that their communication platforms were changed during the transition period to and from online learning. (see Fig.25.)
Figure 25. Were digital communication platforms changed during the transition period from offline to online learning and vice versa? (Author, 2021)
Indeed, there was done regression analysis of two previous charts with one more question from the primary survey in order to understand the correlation between the three figures.
The third required for regression analysis chart is in figure 26 which shows locations of respondents’ universities dividing them into two categories. Where the first group of people is from the hugest cities with the universities from top – ranking of Russia and the second group includes people from other smaller cities. As it was already written before in subchapter 1.2.1.2. eight universities from the top ten ranking in Russia are placed in Moscow and Saint - Peterburg. As a result, the division was based on more progressive universities, which have more opportunities for digital development and which are
respectively placed in Moscow and Saint – Peterburg, and on less progressive education institutions which are placed in other cities. To be more precise, the dominant number of respondents (62 %) were from other cities while 38 percent were from Moscow and Saint – Peterburg. (see Fig.26)
Figure 26. Where is your university located? (Author, 2021)
Talking about regression analysis, the main goal was to find out the codependency of universities location and digital communication platforms usage before and after quarantine. Based on data from the survey there was gotten summary output with detailed regression statistics of 137 answers on the primary survey. Starting from the first part of the analysis which is conducted depending on figure 23 and figure 26. At the first point, there is a need to concentrate on R Square or determination coefficient which is equal 0,0359434 for the correlation. (see Table 1.) That means that the model has low meaning when the input variable badly explains the behavior of the output variable, which indicates that there is a lack of linear dependence between them. To put it differently, there is no correlation before application of digital communication platforms before the quarantine and universities in different locations. (Annex B)
Table 1. Regression Statistics for Figure 23 and 26
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0,18958743
R Square 0,0359434
Adjusted R Square 0,02880224 Standard Error 0,46454123 Observations 137
The second part of the analysis focuses on figures 24 and 26 what is aimed at the same idea as the previous analysis – to find the correlation between usage of digital communication platforms after quarantine and universities located in the hugest and smaller cities of the country. It can be seen that R Square equals 0,075216972 what introduces the same result as the previous analysis. Accordingly, there is no strong dependency between those two parameters, usage of digital communication platforms after quarantine and location of universities. (Annex B)
Table 2. Regression Statistics for Figure 24 and 26
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0,274257128
R Square 0,075216972
Adjusted R Square 0,068366727 Standard Error 0,302495071
Observations 137
The following point of the survey was to understand how deep those students have used communication platforms and to see if it was just as a tool for uploading materials for self–
study or if it was as an instrument for not only teaching but also for organizing online exams.
Markedly, 75,7 percent of respondents selected option when they had online classes together with online exams. (see Fig.27.) What shows that most of them were exercised applications and webpages for internal communication among participants of education process frequently and on its maximum with online lectures and even exams. (see Fig.27.) Some of them even had state exams online, meanwhile, almost nineteen percent picked the second variant when they had online classes with offline exams. (see Fig.27.) And the last group 5,5 percent selected version when they had to do self – study with help of educational materials which were uploaded in digital communication platforms the same as tasks which student needed to finish and upload them back. (see Fig.27.) This group of respondents also had offline exams. Furthermore, the question displays that digital communication platforms were actively used with video and audio features, but it was also used for collaboration with professors by messages and for uploading materials.
Figure 27. Which method of distance learning have you used at university during Coronavirus quarantine? (Author, 2021)
According to the figure 28, only 27 percent of people feel positive about online learning with help of internal networking platforms, the same number of respondents answered negatively. While the rest of the people (45,9 %) stayed neutral. (see Fig.28.) It demonstrates that most people are not definitely sure about those tools for their education purposes they still can find some positive and negative side of the method.
Figure 28. How do you feel about online learning with help of digital communication platforms?
(Author, 2021)
At the same time, the figure 29 shows the different situation from the previous chart as well as 51,4 percent are rather satisfied with applications of the platforms in terms of distance learning than not, and 16,2 percent are certainly sure that they are satisfied. (see Fig.29.) Henceforth, 67,6 percent of respondents were satisfied on the whole with the way of learning. (see Fig.29.) Whereas 27 percent were rather not pleased than fully satisfied and 5,3 percent selected that they are certainly not contented with the education strategy. (see Fig.29.) Nevertheless, more than 78 percent are not precisely confident in their choices for questions from the figures 28 and 29. However, the question about students’ satisfaction of the online education got more positive responses than on the question about the attitude toward the type of distance learning. The same contradiction was in the secondary survey of the National Institute of Business (NIB), but it will be discussed in more details in the next subchapter.
Figure 29. Are you satisfied with usage of digital communication platforms during the distance learning process? (Author, 2021)
The next chart introduces answers of respondents about their comfortability to study online through digital communication platforms. Most compelling evidence is that 73 percent answered affirmatively on the given question, but 54,1 percent despite on that told that there were some disadvantages. (see Fig.30.) What definitely can be as no one application was ready for such tremendous influx of users from all over the world as data centers were
overloaded. Nonetheless, 21,6 percent of students said that it was too difficult to study through digital communication platforms and only 2,7 percent selected the option that it was not comfortable as it was too easy for them. (see Fig.30.) To sum up the chart the dominant number found the form of education comfortable event with some disadvantages.
Figure 30. Was it comfortable for you to study online with help of digital communication platforms? (Author, 2021)
Indeed, it is also substantial to overlook the ideas of adaptation and motivation of students, and there are two charts in appendix which are able to graphically explain it. By all means, 59,4 percent were sure that they adapted perfectly (10,8 %) and good (48.6 %), meanwhile 27 percent selected the option that their adaptation was satisfactory. (see Fig. 31.) On the negative side, 13,5 percent had bad adaptation to a new form of education with help of digital communication platforms. (see Fig. 31.)
Figure 31. How did you adapt for online learning through digital communication platforms?
(Author, 2021)
What is more, some possible reasons for that were already discussed in the theoretical part about difficulties during distance learning. The following point is about motivation of students and 56,8 percent said that it was not changed during the transition period, 35,1 percent were confident that it was decreased and only 5,6 percent selected that it was increased. (see Fig. 32.) Overall, dominant number of students fast adapted but their motivation to study online was not increased.
Figure 32. The level of my motivation to study online through digital communication platforms was… (Author, 2021)
The succeeding question has a goal to find out the opinion of Russian students about the readiness of their universities for sudden transition to online learning and mass using of digital communication platforms. According to the next figure 33, just 16,2 percent of respondents chose the variant that their universities were well–prepared and adapted quickly to the change. On the contrary, 24,3 percent answered that their education organizations were not prepared at all. (see Fig.33.) With this in mind, it means their universities could not adapt fast for the online learning without losing time and forces. In fact, the majority of respondents (54,1 %) selected that universities were only partly prepared for the new way of teaching. (see Fig.33.) Nonetheless, other students found it difficult to answer.
Figure 33. How do you evaluate readiness of your university for online learning? (Author, 2021) As there is an analysis of universities’ readiness, it is required to evaluate professor’s adaption to a new method of their work. The figure thirty-four shows the scale from one to five where 1 is very slow adaption and 5 is a very quick adaptation of professors to work with digital communication platforms. The majority of people (45,3 %) elected level 3 which means that professors’ adaptation was in a normal pace. (see Fig.34.) The second highest group (35,8 %) selected level 4 those people were sure that their professors were relatively quick in that. (see Fig.34.) Moreover, only five percent of respondents are sure that the process was slow. (see Fig.34.) On the whole, students think that professors’ adaptation was done in a good manner.
Figure 34. How fast did your professors pull off with digital communication platforms during the quarantine? (Author, 2021)
Undoubtedly, the variety of the communication platforms is tremendous now, but there is a need to see the most usable of them. The next question of the survey is with multiple chooses where students could select more than one option. As it can be seen on the figure 35, most of respondents selected Zoom (81%), Microsoft Teams (73%), Telegram (45,3%), WhatsApp (40,1%), Slack (32,3%) and Cisco Webex (29,1%). (see Fig.35.) What is more, according to theoretical and some secondary surveys, the LMS Moodle was widely used at some of the Russian Universities, however, in the primary survey, only 10,2 percent chose it as their universities’ digital communication platforms. (see Fig.35.) Indeed, 24,1 percent of respondents picked the universities portal what introduced that they are definitely used by some of the universities. (see Fig.35.) Certainly, Zoom and Microsoft teams are the bright leaders of the rating and it can be explained as there was and there is a need to have online lectures and even practical activities for students and those two platforms are well - proven on a market as personal and corporate video and audio communication platforms.
Figure 35. Which applications of digital communication platforms are you using today at university? (Author, 2021)
Another key point is the frequency usage of those platforms by students but just for study purposes, the results of that reflected on the figure 36. The question was about the number of hours which respondents spend, and more than 59 percent clarified that they are using the type of social networks more than 6 hours per one week. (see Fig.36.) At the same time,
0,0%
27 percent of students emphasized that they are in digital communication platforms “from 3 to 6 hours”, and this was the second popular answer. (see Fig.36.) In addition, 8,1 percent of students selected variant “from 1 hour to 3 hours”, and just 5,4 percent of them chose the option “up to one hour” per one week. (see Fig.36.)
Figure 36. How much time per one week do you spend in digital communication platforms which are required for your education? (Author, 2021)
For the purpose of interpretation the advantages and disadvantages of online education through digital communication platforms there was done two next surveys. The figure 37 shows that the most popular answer of the primary research among different students was the “ability to download class material” from those platforms and 75,8 percent of people selected the option. Important to know that students could select more than one answer in the figures 37 and 38. The next popular selection was “learning in a comfortable environment” (64,9% of respondents chose it), “ability to watch recording of online classes”
(62%), “use of modern technologies for learning” (59,8%), “more free time” (56,9%),
“development of responsibility skills” (32,1%) and only 18,9 percent selected that learning quality was improved. (see Fig.37.) Consequently, the majority of respondents enjoy the opportunity to download materials and watch lectures records one more time what was definitely not possible when they had offline education.
Figure 37. What did you like during your online education through digital communication platforms? (Author, 2021)
As it was written in the previous paragraph, students faced not only with advantages but also with difficulties of online learning. In this case, most people mentioned the existence of problems with the Internet connection (80,2%), while 62,1 percent of students refer to lack of professors’ abilities to work with digital communication platforms. (see Fig.38.) Other issues are “lagging of applications” (56,9 %), “psychological barriers” (51,1%) and
“hard to use applications” (19 %). Another key point is that 16,1 percent of people do not have applicable gadgets for online learning and 13,3 percent of students do not have any of gadgets. (see Fig.38.) The problem was already discussed in more details in theoretical part, and it is only prove of primary research that some Russian students still have such issue.
What is more, 29,7 percent of respondents are sure that they did not face with any of issues during usage applications of those platforms. (see Fig.38.)
Figure 38. What problems did you have with digital communication platforms during online learning? (Author, 2021)
The last figure from the primary research is a conclusive one as it has the goal to grasp future perspectives in students’ minds of digitalization at Russian universities. The most significant evidence is that 62,1 percent of respondents were sure that it is possible to totally replace offline on online teaching with help of digital communication platforms. (see Fig.39.) However, 45,9 percent from 62,1 percent are sure that the transition requires more time, and it is not possible to do it immediately. (see Fig.39.) Meanwhile, 32,4 percent said that it is definitely not possible. (see Fig.39.) The opinions are absolutely different, but the prevalence of those who think that this replacement is probable gives a chance to believe in the quick changes in the education system in the Russian Federation.
0,0%
Figure 39. How do you think is it possible to fully replace offline education on online learning through digital communication platforms in earliest future? (Author, 2021)
All things considered, there are some results that look similar and there are some which look distinct from secondary surveys. Nevertheless, the primary research presents the time after quarantine what is different from secondary surveys and aids in comparative analysis with attention to the time difference. The survey demonstrates the growth in usage of digital communication platforms for study purposes due to coronavirus quarantine as it was shown in figure 24. The report proves that universities started to use those platforms not just for uploading materials but also for online lectures and even taking exams. As a result, many various applications are used now for learning and teaching in Russia. The majority of respondents confirmed that they are satisfied with the usage of digital communication platforms and it was relatively comfortable to study in such conditions. People also illustrated that not every university and professor were ready for online education, but a dominant number of them coped with the stress test.