Use of digital technologies for innovation in teaching: Comparison of international and domestic approaches

Issue 56, 2024

Dmytrii Verbivskyi, Serhii Zhukovskyi, Olena Usata, Olena Fonariuk, Viktoriia Humeniuk

Received 09.12.2023, Revised 27.03.2024, Accepted 21.06.2024

https://doi.org/10.54919/physics/56.2024.258hf7

Abstract

Relevance. The research article is relevant as it compares international and Ukrainian approaches to using digital technologies in education, aiming to identify common features, differences, and areas for further development in enhancing teaching and learning through technology.

Purpose. The study aims to compare and analyse international and Ukrainian approaches, in Ukraine and France, to the use of digital technologies in teaching to identify common and distinctive features and determine directions for further development in this area.

Methodology. The study conducted a survey of teachers of higher education institutions in Ukraine, at the European University, Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University, Dragomanov Ukrainian State University and Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, and a comparative analysis of approaches to the use of digital technologies in education in the educational space of Ukraine and France.

Results. This research has shown that the use of digital technologies in education contributes to the creation of a dynamic and effective learning environment. The comparative analysis of the use of digital technologies in teaching mathematics and computer science in Ukraine and France shows that both countries use interactive whiteboards, online resources and individualised approaches to learning, which indicates a general interest in the use of modern technologies in education. However, Ukraine faces challenges related to the limited availability and development of digital infrastructure, as well as limited financial resources for the introduction of digital technologies in the educational process compared to France.

Conclusions. Ukraine and France are actively working to innovate and develop modern approaches to education, which creates a positive outlook for the future use of digital technologies in educational institutions.

Keywords: digital technologies; innovations; virtual reality; gamification; learning effectiveness; multimedia materials; online platforms

Suggested citation

Verbivskyi D, Zhukovskyi S, Usata O, Fonariuk O, Humeniuk V. Use of digital technologies for innovation in teaching: Comparison of international and domestic approaches. Sci Herald Uzhhorod Univ Ser Phys. 2024;(56):2587-2599. DOI: 10.54919/physics/56.2024.258hf7

Download article

References

  1. Hrynevych LM, Morze NV, Boiko MA. Scientific education as the basis for innovative competence formation in the conditions of digital transformation of the society. Inform Tech Learn Tool. 2020;77(3):1-26.
  2. Gurevych R, Boichuk V, Konoshevskyi L, Konoshevskyi O, Kostenko N. Use of innovative technologies in the educational process. Youth Mark. 2023;5(213):18-23.
  3. Pears M, Yiasemidou M, Ismail MA, Veneziano D, Biyani CS. Role of immersive technologies in healthcare education during the COVID-19 epidemic. Scott Med J. 2020;65(4):112-119.
  4. Salar R, Arici F, Caliklar S, Yilmaz RM. A model for augmented reality immersion experiences of university students studying in science education. J Sci Educ Tech. 2020;29:257-271.
  5. Ryan GV, Callaghan S, Rafferty A, Higgins MF, Mangina E, McAuliffe F. Learning outcomes of immersive technologies in health care student education: Systematic review of the literature. J Med Int Res. 2022;24(2):e30082.
  6. Sabirli ZE, Çoklar AN. The effect of educational digital games on education, motivation and attitudes of elementary school students against course access. World J Educ Tech. 2020;12(4):325-338.
  7. Videnovik M, Trajkovik V, Kiønig LV, Vold T. Increasing quality of learning experience using augmented reality educational games. Mult Tool Applic. 2020;79:23861-23885.
  8. Behnamnia N, Kamsin A, Ismail MA, Hayati A. The effective components of creativity in digital game-based learning among young children: A case study. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;116:105227.
  9. Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine No. 776 “On Approval of the Concept of Teacher Education Development”; 2018. https://mon.gov.ua/npa/pro-zatverdzhennya-koncepciyi-rozvitku-pedagogichnoyi-osviti
  10. Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine “On Instructional and Methodological Recommendations for Teaching Academic Subjects/Integrated Courses in General Secondary Education Institutions in the Academic Year 2023/2024”; 2023. https://osvita.ua/legislation/Ser_osv/89974/
  11. Digital Education Strategy 2023-2027; 2023. https://www.education.gouv.fr/strategie-du-numerique-pour-l-education-2023-2027-344263
  12. François S, Schevenels M, Dooms D, Jansen M, Wambacq J, Lombaert G, Degrande G, De Roeck G. Stabil: An educational Matlab toolbox for static and dynamic structural analysis. Comp Appli Engin Educ. 2021;29(5):1372-1389.
  13. Hiyam B, Zoubi A, Khataybeh A. Utilizing MATHEMATICA software to improve students’ problem solving skills of derivative and its applications. Int J Educ Res. 2019;7(11):57-70.
  14. Buffardi K, Wang R. Integrating videos with programming practice. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 241-247). New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2022.
  15. Vidergor HE, Ben-Amram P. Khan academy effectiveness: The case of math secondary students’ perceptions. Comp Educ. 2020;157:103985.
  16. Hamed G, Aljanazrah A. The effectiveness if using virtual experiments on students’ learning in the general physics lab. J Inform Tech Educ Res. 2020;19:976-995.
  17. Ho NT, Pham HH, Sivapalan S, Dinh VH. The adoption of blended learning using Coursera MOOCs: A case study in a Vietnamese higher education institution. Austral J Educ Tech. 2022;38(6):121-138.
  18. Qiu R. Udemy: blended and e-learning for transforming teaching and learning. In: Anticipating and Preparing for Emerging Skills and Jobs: Key Issues, Concerns, and Prospects (pp. 215-220). Singapore: Springer; 2020.
  19. Shi Y, Lin X. Exploring the characteristics of adults’ online learning activities: A case study of EdX online institute. Res Learn Tech. 2021;29:1-13.
  20. Fiorella L, Stull AT, Kuhlmann S, Mayer RE. Fostering generative learning from video lessons: Benefits of instructor-generated drawings and learner-generated explanations. J Educ Psych. 2020;112(5):895-906.
  21. Talan T, Doğan Y, Batdı V. Efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games: A comparative meta-analysis and a meta-thematic analysis. J Res Tech Educ. 2020;52(4):474-514.
  22. Li Q, Zhang J, Xie X, Luximon Y. How shared online whiteboard supports online collaborative design activities: A social interaction perspective. In: Proceedings of the AHFE 2021 Virtual Conferences on Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, and Human Factors in Communication of Design (pp. 285-293). Cham: Springer;2021.
  23. Sikora YB, Usata OY, Mosiiuk OO, Verbivskyi DS, Shmeltser EO. Approaches to the choice of tools for adaptive learning based on highlighted selection criteria. CEUR Work Proceed. 2020;2879:398-410.
  24. Pellas N, Mystakidis S, Kazanidis I. Immersive virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A systematic review of the last decade scientific literature. Virt Real. 2021;25(3):835-861.
  25. Al-Ansi AM, Jaboob M, Garad A, Al-Ansi A. Analyzing augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) recent development in education. Soc Sci Human Open. 2023;8(1):100532.
  26. Wu CH, Tang YM, Tsang YP, Chau KY. Immersive learning design for technology education: A soft systems methodology. Front Psych. 2021;12:745295.
  27. Tan J, Chen Y, Jiao S. Visual studio code in introductory computer science course: An experience report; 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10174
  28. Filip P, Čegan L. Comparison of MySQL and MongoDB with focus on performance. In: 2020 International Conference on Informatics, Multimedia, Cyber and Information System (ICIMCIS) (pp. 184-187). Jakarta: IEEE; 2020.
  29. Makris A, Tserpes K, Spiliopoulos G, Zissis D, Anagnostopoulos D. MongoDB Vs PostgreSQL: A comparative study on performance aspects. GeoInform. 2021;25:243-268.
  30. Moler C, Little J. A history of MATLAB. Proceed ACM Program Lang. 2020;4:81.
  31. Boll A, Brokhausen F, Amorim T, Kehrer T, Vogelsang A. Characteristics, potentials, and limitations of open-source Simulink projects for empirical research. Softw System Model. 2021;20(6):2111-2130.
  32. Shen R, Lee MJ. Learners’ perspectives on learning programming from interactive computer tutors in a MOOC. In: 2020 IEEE symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 1-5). Dunedin: IEEE; 2020.
  33. Anyatasia FN, Santoso HB, Junus K. An evaluation of the Udacity MOOC based on instructional and interface design principles. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020;1566(1):012053.
  34. Okmawati M. The use of Google Classroom during pandemic. J Engl Lang Teach. 2020;9(2):438-443.
  35. Tolmach М. Digital technologies in education: possibilities and trends of application. Dig Platf Inform Tech Sociocult Spher. 2021;4(2):159-171.
  36. Brotcorne P. Digital technologies and inequalities. Empirical work on young people’s digital practices in education. In: Le Numérique en Éducation et Formation Approches Critiques (pp. 88-104). Paris: Presses des Mines; 2022.
  37. Fluckiger C, Zabban V. Digital technologies and learning. RESET. 2023;12:1-14.
  38. Ramos JL, Cattaneo AA, de Jong FP, Espadeiro RG. Pedagogical models for the facilitation of teacher professional development via video-supported collaborative learning. A review of the state of the art. J Res Tech Educ. 2022;54(5):695-718.
  39. Vanbecelaere S, Van den Berghe K, Cornillie F, Sasanguie D, Reynvoet B, Depaepe F. The effectiveness of adaptive versus non‐adaptive learning with digital educational games. J Comp Assist Learn. 2020;36(4):502-513.
  40. Hamilton D, McKechnie J, Edgerton E, Wilson C. Immersive virtual reality as a pedagogical tool in education: A systematic literature review of quantitative learning outcomes and experimental design. J Comp Educ. 2021;8(1):1-32.
  41. Kuhail MA, ElSayary A, Farooq S, Alghamdi A. Exploring immersive learning experiences: A survey. Inform. 2022;9(4):75.
  42. Horri N, Pietraszko M. A tutorial and review on flight control co-simulation using Matlab/Simulink and flight simulators. Autom. 2022;3(3):486-510.
  43. Klimek B, Skublewska-Paszkowska M. Comparison of the performance of relational databases PostgreSQL and MySQL for desktop application. J Comp Sci Inst. 2021;18:61-66.
  44. Milad K. The effectiveness of incorporating interactive learning platforms to programming lectures. Afaq J Hum Apll Stud. 2024;1:245-253.‎
Make a Submission

Indexing

info@physics.uz.ua