Digital Educational Environment of Teachers’ Professional Training in

Pedagogical University

Nadiia R. Balyk

1 a

, Galyna P. Shmyger

1 b

, Yaroslav Ph. Vasylenko

1 c

and Vasyl P. Oleksiuk

1,2 d

Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University, 2 Maksyma Kryvonosa Str., Ternopil, 46027, Ukraine

Institute for Digitalisation of Education of the National Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine, 9 M. Berlynskoho

Str., Kyiv, 04060, Ukraine

Keywords:

Digital Educational Environment, Teachers’ Professional Training, Pedagogical University, Research.

Abstract:

Modern tendencies of development of digital educational environment of university and model of its introduc-

tion in pedagogical university are considered. The article analyses the concept of the educational environment,

its components and features of the structure. The concept of digital educational environment is introduced.

The components of digital educational environment for the teachers’ professional training of the Ternopil

Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University (TNPU) are described: technological, didactic and so-

cial. The features of this environment such as: information saturation and openness, digital transformation,

social practices and cooperation are considered. The study of the effectiveness of digital educational envi-

ronment for teachers’ professional training was carried out on the basis of TNPU. In total, 432 masters of all

specialties of the University participated in this study. The study used the method of expert assessments for

statistical processing of results. The study was conducted to determine the level of importance of all indicators

of each component of the digital educational environment. The results of the study illustrate the signiﬁcant

changes in the technological and social components of the university digital educational environment, which

have a signiﬁcant impact on the teachers’ professional training.

1 INTRODUCTION

The key problems of the higher pedagogical school

of today are the lack of manifestation of the cul-

tural and historical context for the higher school,

which sets the framework for higher education. The

rapid development of educational management leads

to process-oriented management of an educational in-

stitution and the emergence of terms such as “educa-

tional space”, “educational landscape”, “educational

ﬁeld”, “educational environment”.

The new educational perspective on the develop-

ment of the contemporary educational environment

requires the reorganization of many aspects of future

teacher training.

The transition from traditional educational mod-

els to modern ones envisages a change in the organi-

zational, cultural, institutional dimensions, manage-

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3121-7005

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1578-0700

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2520-4515

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2206-8447

ment models and digital educational environment for

the teachers’ professional training.

Given this, there is a problem of resetting all ped-

agogical education, rethinking the role of pedagogical

universities and other educational institutions in soci-

ety, analysis of the educational environment of teach-

ers’ professional training in order to improve their

quality of knowledge.

2 RELATED WORK

The analysis of the literary sources shows that the is-

sues of formation of the educational environment are

an important component of the training of modern

specialists both in Ukraine and abroad.

The educational environment is traditionally de-

ﬁned as learning, which depends on various environ-

mental factors, a set of objective external conditions,

factors, social objects (Bondarenko et al., 2020; Hor-

batiuk et al., 2021; Dotsenko, 2021; Kyslova et al.,

2014). It is a system of inﬂuences and conditions of

personality formation, as well as opportunities for its

154

Balyk, N., Shmyger, G., Vasylenko, Y. and Oleksiuk, V.

Digital Educational Environment of Teachers’ Professional Training in Pedagogical University.

DOI: 10.5220/0010922100003364

In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology (AET 2020) - Volume 1, pages 154-166

ISBN: 978-989-758-558-6

development, which are contained in the social and

spatial-subject surroundings (Hiemstra, 1991). The

educational environment is a contemporary temporal,

spatial and social situation of learning, which con-

sists of many different educational spaces of different

levels, which have educational potential and interact

in one way or another. In this environment, the in-

teraction of different levels of the education system

and personality happens and the corresponding cul-

tural context is also included (Mandl and Reinmann-

Rothmeier, 2001). As a result of a detailed histor-

ical study, Spivakovsky et al. (Spivakovsky et al.,

2019) have determined that the most promising model

for building an educational environment is a hybrid

model. Glazunova and Shyshkina (Glazunova and

Shyshkina, 2018) have been conﬁrmed these ﬁndings

for the case of university cloud-based learning and re-

search environment.

Panchenko (Panchenko, 2010) determined that

modern specialists should be able not only to use, but

also to model and create an educational environment.

Today, the following structural components of the

educational environment are distinguished:

1. Physical environment – the room, its design, size

and the spatial structure of the training class-

rooms.

2. Human factor – the university contingent struc-

ture, its inﬂuence on the social behaviour of stu-

dents, the quality of lecturer training, etc.

3. Training program – the nature of training pro-

grams content, technologies of training, style and

methods of training, forms of educational ac-

tivities, the nature of control (education-ua.org,

2017). The components of the educational space

are united by certain ideas and values.

The main features of the educational environ-

ments that characterize the new millennium have

been determined by many researchers (OECD, 2009;

Kalimullin and Islamova, 2016; Pottert, 2004). They

point out that the university educational environment

should include such components as the information

and communication environment, the research envi-

ronment, the organizational and management envi-

ronment in accordance with the principles of inten-

sity, psychological comfort and democratic possibili-

ties of individualization of learning, openness and ac-

cessibility of information resources.

In most studies, the educational environment is

described in terms of “educational institution efﬁ-

ciency” as a social system – emotional climate, per-

sonal well-being, features of the micro-culture, qual-

ity of the educational process. The educational envi-

ronment has a signiﬁcant impact on students’ learn-

ing and behaviour. There is a strong link between

the learning environment and value components such

as students’ satisfaction and success. The educa-

tional environment deﬁnes physical and mental self-

feeling and motivation and promotes emotional and

behavioural responses. Licite and Janmere (Licite

and Janmere, 2018), Anderson and Day (Anderson

and Day, 2005) analysed the physical environment

using three aspects: the planning and size of study

rooms, ergonomics and technology, the informal en-

vironment and comfort. Describing the ideal audi-

torium, students noted the importance of technology

and comfort role. A broader understanding of the ed-

ucational environment supposes the inclusion of vari-

ous communications (press, radio, television, internet

resources) created by young people in their own cul-

tural micro-environment.

The work (Professional Standards for Teachers

Core, 2007) focuses on the importance of the profes-

sional environment of teachers and not only on their

professional training. This point should be empha-

sized, because over the past few years, academic re-

search has forced many experts to assess not only the

need to increase teacher effectiveness (for example,

through qualiﬁcation increasing), but also to change

the educational environment by improving educa-

tional institutions policies, amending laws, and sup-

porting by communities, improving decision-making

process, digitizing education that can contribute to

quality change in the education sphere.

Modern digitalization means the need to create a

new educational environment (Hatlevik and Christo-

phersen, 2013). As digital technology becomes a cen-

tral part of everyday work, teachers are forced to re-

think and transform previous educational traditions

through technology. These problems create insur-

mountable requirements for universities to develop

teachers’ professional training strategies in the con-

text of mastering digital pedagogy and the digital

educational environment (www.regjeringen.no, 2017;

Howell, 2012; Kivunja, 2013; Stommel, 2014).

3 RESULTS

3.1 The Structure of Educational

Environment

During the research the following methods were used:

analysis of scientiﬁc and methodological and techni-

cal literature in the ﬁeld of educational environments,

state standards of higher education. In the course

of the experimental research, the methods of obser-

vation, questioning and expert assessments were ap-

Digital Educational Environment of Teachers’ Professional Training in Pedagogical University

155

plied. The questioning of the respondents was con-

ducted according to the methodology of expert assess-

ments, with further processing of its results using the

methods of mathematical statistics.

Analysing the views of various scientists about the

particularities of the educational environment (Lund

and Hauge, 2011; Roth, 1999; Day, 2009), we intro-

duce the concept of digital educational environment

as a way of integrating and adopting many of its di-

mensions. In our study, as the concept of “digital

university educational environment” we will consider

systemic formation, which is a sociocultural and dig-

ital surroundings of the subject of learning, which in-

cludes technological, didactic, social components that

are able to provide quality professional training for

teachers.

Such subjects (involved in the process of creating

educational values) as lecturers, students, undergrad-

uates, graduate students, educational institutions, or-

ganizations, scientiﬁc centres are important in digital

university educational environment for teachers’ pro-

fessional training.

Transformation of education is a modern stage of

its informatization (Fedorenko et al., 2019), which in-

volves saturation of educational space with appropri-

ate digital devices, tools, systems and electronic com-

munication between them, which allows the interac-

tion of virtual and physical, i.e. creates a digital ed-

ucational environment (Iatsyshyn et al., 2019, 2021;

Kuzminska et al., 2019; Leshchenko et al., 2021;

Morze et al., 2021; Morze and Strutynska, 2021;

Pikilnyak et al., 2020; Petrenko et al., 2020; Pinchuk

et al., 2019; Trcek, 2019).

Let us consider the components of the educational

environment which were forming at the Ternopil

Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University

(TNPU) in recent years in the context of teachers’

professional training (ﬁgure 1).

The technological component of the digital edu-

cational environment for teachers’ professional train-

ing was provided through the creation of a digital

environment for the university. The University dig-

ital environment infrastructure is a system of soft-

ware, computing and telecommunications tools that

implements the providing of information, computing,

telecommunication resources and services to all par-

ticipants in the educational process. Various tools

have been integrated into the university digital envi-

ronment, which enrich the educational process. In

terms of infrastructure this environment is based on

the use of university LMS, cloud-based learning envi-

ronment (CBLE), university digital repository, Web

2.0 services. Kuzminska et al. (Kuzminska et al.,

2020) found 4 main components that group all the

factors of the digital educational environment into

such areas of focus as IT infrastructure and resources’

provision, students’ and teachers’ digital competen-

cies, scientiﬁc and educational communication be-

tween the students, teachers, and stakeholders, and

educational process organization (Kuzminska et al.,

2020).

The effectiveness of CBLE in teaching and re-

search has been investigated and tested in (Spirin

et al., 2016, 2019).

We consider that indicators of technological com-

ponent development are:

1. University network and Internet access. TNPU

provides access for students and lecturers from

anywhere on campus to the resources of educa-

tional environment and the Internet. Local wired

and wireless technologies have been used for this

purpose. All resources are accessed using a single

authentication data.

2. Learning Management System and courses.

An advanced learning management system is

functioning at the university. All subjects that are

studying by students have relevant e-courses in

this system. In total, more than 600 courses have

been developed by lecturers. Practically all kind

of students’ activities are recorded in this system.

3. Cloud services and laboratories. Since 2012,

the lecturers of Computer Sciences Department

and Methodology of Its Teaching have been work-

ing on the deployment of a cloud-oriented learn-

ing environment.

Today, it operates according to a hybrid model

and integrates many services of public and private

platforms. Signiﬁcant computing power was re-

quired to deploy cloud infrastructure. Due to the

high cost of server equipment, it was decided to

use ordinary components for personal computers.

As a result, a corporate cloud was designed, in-

stalled, and conﬁgured. The free Apache Cloud-

Stack platform was used to solve this problem. It

provides the deployment of the corporate cloud

according to the most functional model “Infras-

tructure as a service”.

In general, the physical infrastructure of the cor-

porate cloud has the form shown in ﬁgure 2.

It now operates according to a hybrid model and

integrates many services of public and private

platforms. CBLE provides uniﬁed, ubiquitous

and secure access to ﬁle and computing resources

(repositories, virtual computers, and networks).

Cloud infrastructure provides management of ed-

ucational resources, aggregation of computing re-

sources, knowledge sharing services, increasing

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

156

Figure 1: Transformation model of the Digital educational environment (DEE) of the TNPU.

the ﬂexibility of their use by participants in the

educational environment.

4. Hardware for 3D design and printing. Within

the frame of work of STEM-centre (Balyk et al.,

2019) promising technologies of 3D-modeling

and 3D-printing, technologies of virtual and aug-

mented reality, technologies of the Internet of

things, robotics are being implemented at the Uni-

versity. These technologies ensure the execu-

tion of innovative projects through the formation

of tool environments, the use of project man-

agement services. Work on educational projects

(for example, a project on 3D-reconstruction and

3D-printing of the destroyed historical castles of

Ternopil region) takes place inside a technologi-

cally equipped modern educational environment.

5. Open environment. An open, non-formal learn-

ing environment with lecturers and students has

created at the University. The traditional aca-

demic hierarchy is gradually being replaced by

an approach where students are respected as ju-

nior colleagues, and their opinions are appreciated

and encouraged by more experienced colleagues.

Such teaching is based on modern didactic ap-

proaches such as personality-oriented and syner-

gistic. The technological basis of open educa-

tion at TNPU is modern digital technologies, in

particular cloud. This approach encourages dia-

logue and collaboration between students and lec-

turers, and creates new opportunities for the de-

velopment of up-to-date professional training for

future teachers.

6. University archives and repositories. The

University has implemented a system of digital

archives. The TNPU Institutional Repository con-

tains materials published by lecturers, such as:

monographs, books, manuals, articles, abstracts.

Some faculties have digital archives for educa-

tional purposes. In addition to the materials of lec-

turers, they contain the results of students’ learn-

ing – materials of practices, articles of students,

master’s works, etc.

Digital Educational Environment of Teachers’ Professional Training in Pedagogical University

157

Figure 2: Scheme of the university corporate cloud.

Among the important components of the digital

educational environment of the university should be

distinguished didactic, which includes the structure of

students’ activities, teaching style, nature of control,

forms of study, the content of study programs. For

example, the professorial and teaching staff of TNPU

pays special attention to the modernization of educa-

tional programs in the context of the tasks of the New

Ukrainian School through:

• implementation of a competency, personality-

oriented approach in pedagogical education;

• formation of managerial skills for effective activ-

ity in the conditions of real autonomy of educa-

tional institutions;

• providing practical training through continuous

pedagogical practice of students at different ed-

ucational institutions.

In TNPU, the didactic component of the digital

educational environment for future teachers’ profes-

sional training is characterized by digital transforma-

tion, student-centred education; using:

• thematic project studies;

• critical thinking;

• group work;

• social practices.

Let’s take a closer look at these efﬁciency indica-

tors of the didactical component for digital educa-

tional environment:

1. Digital transformation. The digital transforma-

tion of the university educational environment is a

series of coordinated steps and changes in the in-

formation infrastructure, in the digital culture of

lecturers and students. This makes it possible to

embody new educational models, including digi-

tal pedagogy, and transform the activities of the

university, aiming at value propositions and strate-

gic directions for the development of modern so-

ciety.

2. Group work. Group work is characteristic of

many university disciplines. Its purpose is for stu-

dents to practice teamwork in small groups, as

well as to develop problem-solving and leadership

skills. Group work is an important aspect of fu-

ture teacher training with aim of real professional

situations modelling.

3. Critical thinking. Critical thinking is encour-

aged in all activities at the university. At seminars,

workshops, laboratory work the students analyse

and present solutions to problems and tasks. The-

oretical concepts are tested in practical situations,

and practical experience is used to develop and

enrich the theory.

4. Student-centred education. Studying at TNPU

is student-centred. There is great support from

educators, lecturers play the role of facilitators,

helping students understand the content of the

course. The focus is on giving students the op-

portunity to develop their critical and analytical

thinking skills, self-study, group work, problem-

solving and leadership skills to prepare them for

careers.

5. Thematic project studies. The teaching methods

used in university study focus on critical analysis

of course content using real cases where possible.

Invited teachers and speakers from schools, local

authorities, and public organizations participate in

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

158

the educational program to further link research

with the professional environment.

6. Pedagogical practices. Much of the learning pro-

cess takes place outside the classroom when stu-

dents apply acquired professional competencies in

real-life situations while undergoing pedagogical

practices. Learning technologies are partly be-

yond the bound of university classrooms.

Let us characterize the indicators of the effective-

ness of the social component of digital educational

environment of teacher training of the TNPU in the

context of exploring ways of improving their profes-

sional development.

It is traditionally considered that university edu-

cation is constructed based on the context of the sur-

rounding reality, the cultural space and the environ-

ment in which the education takes place. Therefore,

at TNPU the main indicators of the effectiveness of

digital educational environment of teacher training in

the social aspect are: social innovation, leading devel-

opment, corporate culture, leadership, social partner-

ship, and social communication:

1. Social innovation. In our opinion, the departure

from the traditional functions of TNPU and the

implementation of innovative ones became impor-

tant for the professional development of teachers:

• creation of conditions for the system of qual-

itative training and professional development

of teachers through overcoming the fragmented

responsibility of different educational institu-

tions for different stages of becoming and pro-

fessional development of the educator;

• transition from “translational” education to “ac-

tive” based on the implementation of digital

technologies, project and competency learning

technologies.

2. Leading development. The essence of leading-

edge development lies:

• in building curricula and learning programs in

the university around cross-cutting topics rele-

vant to a particular public community, a united

territorial community;

• in preparing graduates to organize the life of

their local community in accordance with the

principles of sustainable and successful devel-

opment.

3. Corporate culture. We consider that not only

structural components are the social component

achievement of the digital university educational

environment, but ﬁrst of all – corporate culture.

The key factor to the success of university edu-

cation transformation projects has been the for-

mation of a collective subject for change. The

corporate culture of the university is based on a

system of values that determine the philosophy

of its activity, the attractiveness of the university

brand in the scientiﬁc, educational and contempo-

rary socio-cultural environment.

4. Social leadership. Social leadership means:

• engraftment of innovation as a way of thinking

and a key leadership tool;

• distributed leadership in the development of

new educational decisions and educational re-

forms,

• formation of teachers, as educators of leaders

of the new generation, integral personalities.

The University promotes the growth of students

as individuals through quality professional train-

ing of highly qualiﬁed professionals and personal

growth.

5. Social partnership. Digital educational environ-

ment at the TNPU serves as a catalyst for a new

social reality in the region. The University is an

active social partner and an element of the social

system. The collaboration and partnership of the

university educational environment with various

actors of the educational ﬁeld and the public is

developing. Lecturers share knowledge and ex-

perience in the educational environment, give the

products of their professional and innovative ac-

tivities in the public usage, participate in volunteer

activities, assessments and expertise, and more.

6. Social communication. Communication has be-

come a key prerequisite for the creation of new

meanings, ideas and projects of the University, or-

ganization of applied research at the request of re-

gional companies, authorities and the local com-

munity. It is important that the university is open

to industry, government and other stakeholders.

We believe that the greater the degree of open-

ness of a university, the better it develops. The

University successfully builds all necessary for its

own existence and development of communica-

tions with other entities – authorities, manufactur-

ing companies, civil society institutions.

The process of involving the components (techno-

logical, didactic, social) of the educational environ-

ment of TNPU in the educational process is shown in

ﬁgure 3.

The basis of modern innovative teaching at the

university is teaching students to solve problems. The

problems that the authors propose to solve arise from

the life context of a person or a local community. This

can apply to any aspect of life: work, study, leisure,

Digital Educational Environment of Teachers’ Professional Training in Pedagogical University

159

Figure 3: Teacher’s training at the Pedagogical University in the context of digital pedagogy.

and so on. The authors began by encouraging students

to use digital technology to solve speciﬁc problems.

To solve the problem, students must ﬁrst deter-

mine its essence, use the opportunities of the digital

educational environment of the university (technolog-

ical, didactic, social) and the relevant digital compe-

tencies. This concerns, ﬁrst of all, the ability to inter-

pret, understand and express one’s creativity through

digital tools with the involvement of critical think-

ing. Students are guided by critical thinking and other

technologies (project management, system thinking,

design thinking, etc.) as a basis for meaningful and ef-

fective participation in solving problems of their com-

munity. The conscious use of digital competencies in

the process of solving life’s problems has an impor-

tant social impact through the development of a prod-

uct or solution aimed at solving a practical problem.

Digital pedagogical technologies provide new

conditions for students’ activities and the formation

of their competencies in demand by the digital soci-

ety and the digital economy.

3.2 The Study on the Effectiveness of

Educational Environment Design

In order to determine the effectiveness of the created

digital educational environment for the teachers’ pro-

fessional development in 2017/2019, a study was con-

ducted in the form of a survey among future teachers.

432 masters of all pedagogical specialties of the Uni-

versity participated in the survey. We viewed under-

graduates as internal stakeholders.

The questionnaire suggested to assess the impor-

tance of development each component of the digital

university educational environment. In each compo-

nent we have identiﬁed indicators of its development

(table 1).

In each questionnaire, we explained to the experts

the value of each indicator. To determine the most

signiﬁcant indicators of educational environment

development, we used the ranking method. It was to

determine the relative importance of the objects under

study based on their ordering. A scoring system

for assessment was proposed for each component.

In each component of the educational environment

development, the experts gave points. One point

was awarded to the least signiﬁcant indicator and six

points to the highest signiﬁcant one. The results of

the survey are summarized in a table, the columns

of which correspond to the codes of indicators,

and in rows – sequence numbers of experts (see

table 2, where ﬁrst column is sequence numbers of

experts). The table data can be viewed in its entirety

by the hyperlink: https://drive.google.com/ﬁle/d/

1YHaqVE0NSVktz9GlwzqGVGy2HAK7CDWy/

view?usp=sharing.

In order to prevent psychological clues that could

inﬂuence the expert’s choice of a certain ranking or-

der, indicators of a certain criterion in the card were

placed in alphabetical order.

An expert assessment method was chosen to work

out the results of the survey, which was applied to

each component of the university educational envi-

ronment individually due to the independent ranking

of indicators within each component.

The most obvious value of assessment an indica-

tor is its total rank, which is determined by all experts

∑

i=1

j , where R

j is the j-th indicator exhib-

ited by the i-th expert, m is the number of experts).

However, such aggregate rankings will be objec-

tive if there is a certain level of agreement between the

experts. The degree of such agreement is described

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

160

Table 1: List of indicators for assessment of the components of the digital university educational environment.

Component of

the educational environment

Cipher of

indicator

The name (description) of the indicator

Technological

University network and Internet access

Learning Management System and courses

Cloud services and laboratories

Open environment

Hardware for 3D design and printing

University archives and repositories

Didactic

Digital transformation

Group work

Critical thinking

Student-centred education

Thematic project studies

Pedagogical practices

Social

Social innovation

Leading development

Corporate culture

Social leadership

Social partnership

Social communication

Table 2: The ﬁnal results of the study data processing.

Technological Didactic Social

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

1 5 6 3 4 1 2 6 5 1 4 2 3 6 5 1 4 2 3

2 6 5 4 3 1 2 6 4 5 1 3 2 6 3 4 1 5 2

...

432 6 5 4 3 1 2 4 5 6 1 2 3 6 4 1 5 3 2

2394 1946 1573 1405 770 984 2368 2153 1300 1119 969 1164 2369 1682 750 1736 1593 934

882 434 61 -107 -742 -528 856 641 -212 -393 -543 -348 857 170 -762 224 81 -578

S(d

) 1810798 1758963 1734814

W 0.55445265 0.539 0.53118692

by Kendall’s coefﬁcient of concordance W (Legendre,

2010), which is deﬁned as follows:

1. For each indicator, we ﬁnd the difference between

the totals and their average:

∑

i=1

j − 0.5 · m · (n + 1) (1)

2. Find the sum of squares of values obtained from

relation (1) S(d

S(d

) =

∑

j=1

∑

j=1

∑

i=1

j − 0.5 · m · (n + 1)

(2)

3. The maximum value of S(d

)

max

) =

· m

· (n

− n)

is achieved if all experts rank the criteria (indica-

tors) equally.

4. The coefﬁcient of concordance is equal:

W =

S(d

)

max

)

12 · S(d

)

· (n

− n)

(3)

According to formulas (1) – (3) we ﬁnd the values

of the total ranks S

, the values d

, S(d

) and calculate

the coefﬁcient of concordance W for each component

of the educational environment. The results of the cal-

culations are presented in table 2.

This value is always between zero and one. If

W = 0, then there is no correlation between expert

rankings, if W = 1, then the rankings are completely

the same. We get the coefﬁcient W = 0.55; 0.54; 0.53

is substantially different from zero, so it can be argued

that there is objective agreement between experts.

However, such a value of W is not a criterion for

objectivity, since it could be obtained by accidentally

Digital Educational Environment of Teachers’ Professional Training in Pedagogical University

161

setting of ranks one or the other indicators.

The value m · (n − 1) ·W is distributed by the law

with n − 1 degree of freedom. Using the ratio

12 · S(d

)

mn · (n + 1)

we ﬁnd the value of χ

= 1197.62; 1187.77; 1147.36

for the relevant components of the educational envi-

ronment. Comparing them with the table value for

ϑ = n − 1 = 5 degrees of freedom and for the signif-

icance level of α = 0.01, we obtain χ

> χ

= 15.1.

Hence, we conclude that there is consistency between

experts’ ﬁndings.

Consider the results of the survey regarding the

importance of technological, didactic and social com-

ponents of the university digital educational environ-

ment for teachers’ professional development of teach-

ers of the pedagogical university (ﬁgures 4, 5 and 6).

Figure 4: Study results of technological component impor-

tance of university digital educational environment in the

context of teachers’ professional development.

Figure 5: Study results of didactic component importance

of university digital educational environment in the context

of teachers’ professional development.

From the conducted study it follows that:

• of the technological component, the most im-

portant for the teachers’ professional develop-

ment are University network and Internet ac-

cess, Learning Management System and courses,

Cloud services and laboratories;

• of the didactic component most important for

Figure 6: Study results of social component importance of

university digital educational environment in the context of

teachers’ professional development.

the teachers’ professional development are Digi-

tal transformation, Group work, Critical thinking;

• of the social component the most important for

the teachers’ professional development teachers

are Social innovation, Social leadership, Leading

development.

To determine the signiﬁcance degree of each com-

ponent of the educational environment, we calculated

the arithmetic mean of the scores for each indicator

(table 3). The indicator was considered positive if the

arithmetic mean of expert estimates was at least 3.0.

The signiﬁcance degree of each component was

determined as follows:

• not signiﬁcant enough: more than 50% of the cri-

teria are negative;

• critically signiﬁcant: 50% – 55% of the criteria

are positive;

• signiﬁcant enough: 56% – 75% of the criteria are

positive;

• highly signiﬁcant: 76% – 100% of the criteria are

positive.

From the conducted study it follows that at the

TNPU over the past three years, according to the view

of undergraduates, technological and social compo-

nents of the digital educational environment have be-

come crucial for teachers’ professional development.

We tried to investigate the speciﬁcs of the distri-

bution of grades depending on the specialty (educa-

tional, scientiﬁc achievements) of masters.

To do this, we used the Kendall package from the

language R. In our table, we added a column group,

which tracks the afﬁliation of students to one of the

groups such as:

1 – undergraduates majoring in computer science

2 – masters of natural or technical specialties

(physics, mathematics, labor training)

3 – masters of humanities or arts

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

162

Table 3: Signiﬁcance degrees of the university educational environment.

Technological component Didactic component Social component

Indicators

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Average

value

5.54 4.50 3.64 3.25 1.78 2.28 5.48 4.98 3.01 2.59 2.24 2.69 5.48 3.89 1.74 4.02 3.69 2.16

% 66.7% 50.0% 66.7%

Degree of signiﬁcance

signiﬁcant enough critically signiﬁcant signiﬁcant enough

Function kendall.global from R computes and

tests the coefﬁcient of concordance among several

group of judges through a permutation test. We used

it to identify signiﬁcant group associations.

Here is a fragment of the function kendall.global

call as follows:

kendall.global(transpose(cr1), group = trans-

pose(groups))

Vector cr1 contains columns T1-T6 from the data

frame. They correspond to the Technological com-

ponent of the model. The group vector contains the

numbers 1, 2, 3. They are responsible for grouping.

To comply with the syntax of the function, we trans-

posed these vectors using the transpose() function.

The results of calculating the concordance coefﬁ-

cients for all three components are shown at table 4.

The result of the function contains the following

data:

• W – Kendall’s coefﬁcient of concordance;

• χ

– Friedman’s χ

statistic used in the permuta-

tion test of W .

To analyze the obtained concordance coefﬁcients,

we use the following interpretation of the distribution

W (Landis and Koch, 1977; Legendre, 2005):

• 0.01 – 0.20 – poor agreement;

• 0.21 – 0.40 – fair agreement;

• 0.41 – 0.60 – moderate agreement;

• 0.61 – 0.80 – good agreement;

• 0.81 – 1.00 – very good agreement.

Based on the data from table 4, we can draw the

following conclusions.

In all three groups for Didactic and Social compo-

nents, the concordance coefﬁcient W is in the range of

0.41 to 0.60, which corresponds to the mediocre con-

sistency of estimates within each group of experts for

Didactic and Social components. Our groups of ex-

perts differ little in terms of their readiness to use dig-

ital technologies in their learning and future profes-

sional activities, but their specialties and orientation

of vocational education programs are somewhat dif-

ferent in terms of their ability to assess Didactic and

Social components according to relevant criteria. This

explains the fact that the concordance coefﬁcients W

for all three groups are mediocre.

If we consider the concordance coefﬁcient W for

the Technological component, it corresponds good

agreement for group 1. This is not surprising, because

experts of group 1 (undergraduates majoring in com-

puter science) are able not only to use digital tech-

nologies, but also to develop them. Therefore, they

are able to assess the Technological component of the

digital educational environment of the university ac-

cording to the relevant criteria more unanimously and

more professionally. For groups 2 and 3, the concor-

dance coefﬁcient W for the Technological component

is within the same limits as the coefﬁcient W for all

groups in Didactic and Social components.

In the RStudio environment using the function

qchisq (p = 0.95, df = 5) we found the critical value

= 11.0705 for degrees of freedom and for the sig-

niﬁcance level of α = 0.05, which corresponds to

the value obtained from other sources. As can be

seen from table 4, the values of χ

calculated by the

kendall.global() function for all three groups and for

each component of the digital educational environ-

ment of the university are in the range from 337 to

476, which are signiﬁcantly higher than χ

. This in-

dicates the consistency of expert assessments within

each group at the appropriate signiﬁcance level.

4 CONCLUSIONS

An analysis of the literature indicates that the term

“educational environment” has no unambiguous inter-

pretation. The study proposes to deﬁne the design of

the digital educational environment as a systemic for-

mation, which includes technological, didactic, social

components that are able to provide quality profes-

sional training for teachers.

It should be noted that the design features of the

modern digital educational environment of the TNPU

Digital Educational Environment of Teachers’ Professional Training in Pedagogical University

163

Table 4: Concordance analysis for 3 groups.

Statistical indicator Group.1 Group.2 Group.3

Technological component

W 6.609843e-01 4.683366e-01 5.467262e-01

4.759087e+02 3.372024e+02 3.936429e+02

Didactic component

W 5.636905e-01 5.701720e-01 5.272652e-01

4.058571e+02 4.105238e+02 3.796310e+02

Social component

W 5.811287e-01 5.189649e-01 5.101356e-01

4.184127e+02 3.736548e+02 3.672976e+02

are: openness and information saturation, student-

centred education, thematic project studies, social

practices, a harmonious blend of pedagogy and digital

technology and, as a result, the digital transformation

of the entire educational environment.

To identify the effectiveness of the created de-

sign of the university educational environment for the

teachers’ professional development the components

of their formation and their corresponding indicators

were determined. In the process of research, the un-

dergraduates noted that the greatest inﬂuence on their

professional development has social (Social innova-

tion, Social leadership and Leading development) and

technological component of the digital educational

environment (University network and Internet access,

Learning Management System and courses, Cloud

services and laboratories).

Thus, the activities in the digital educational en-

vironment of the university are aimed at the profes-

sional development of the individual and the creation

of conditions for the socialization of students on the

basis of social and cultural values accepted in society.

We consider that in the development of educa-

tional environment design of pedagogical university

promising directions are such as:

• developing educational strategies and monitoring

their implementation and effectiveness;

• realization by the university of its socially trans-

formative role – social and humanitarian innova-

tions, humanitarian paradigm of education;

• organizing effective interaction between the uni-

versity and external players in order to attract in-

vestments to create quality conditions for learning

and nurturing successful and competitive human

capital.

The perspectives of further research are in experi-

mental testing the created digital educational environ-

ment by other internal and external stakeholders like

as lecturers, teachers, developers, IT-managers etc.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. and Day, K. (2005). Purposive environments:

engaging students in the values and practices of his-

tory. Higher Education, 49(3):319–343.

Balyk, N., Shmyger, G., Vasylenko, Y., Oleksiuk, V., and

Skaskiv, A. (2019). Stem-approach to the trans-

formation of pedagogical education. In Smyrnova-

Trybulska, E., editor, E-learning, volume 11 of

E-learning and STEM Education, pages 109–125.

Studio Noa for University of Silesia, Katowice-

Cieszyn. https://us.edu.pl/wydzial/wsne/wp-

content/uploads/sites/20/2020/01/E-learning-11.pdf.

Bondarenko, O., Pakhomova, O., and Lewoniewski, W.

(2020). The didactic potential of virtual informa-

tion educational environment as a tool of geogra-

phy students training. CEUR Workshop Proceedings,

2547:13–23.

Day, K. (2009). Creating and sustaining effective learn-

ing environments. AISHE-J: The All Ireland Jour-

nal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Educa-

tion, 1(1):1–13. http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-

j/article/view/9.

Dotsenko, N. A. (2021). Technology of application of

competence-based educational simulators in the in-

formational and educational environment for learn-

ing general technical disciplines. Journal of Physics:

Conference Series, 1946(1):012014.

education-ua.org (2017). Analytical report on the

virtual round table “How to manage the in-

teraction environment of all participants in

the educational process?”. http://education-

ua.org/ua/draft-regulations/966-analitichnij-zvit-pro-

virtualnij-kruglij-stil-yak-zdijsnyuvati-upravlinnya-

seredovishchem-vzaemodiji-usikh-uchasnikiv-

osvitnogo-protsesu.

Fedorenko, E., Velychko, V., Stopkin, A., Chorna, A., and

Soloviev, V. (2019). Informatization of education as

a pledge of the existence and development of a mod-

ern higher education. CEUR Workshop Proceedings,

2433:20–32.

Glazunova, O. and Shyshkina, M. (2018). The concept,

principles of design and implementation of the univer-

sity cloud-based learning and research environment.

CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2104:332–347.

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

164

Hatlevik, O. E. and Christophersen, K.-A. (2013). Digi-

tal competence at the beginning of upper secondary

school: Identifying factors explaining digital in-

clusion. Computers & Education, 63(1):240–247.

https://www.learntechlib.org/p/132296/.

Hiemstra, R. (1991). Aspects of effective learn-

ing environments. New Directions for Adult

and Continuing Education, 50:5–12. https:

//www.researchgate.net/publication/229764841

Aspects of effective learning environments.

Horbatiuk, R. M., Bilan, N. M., Sitkar, O. A., and Ty-

moshchuk, O. S. (2021). The formation of educa-

tional environment in foreign language training of en-

ergy engineering students by means of project tech-

nology. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,

1840(1):012047.

Howell, J. (2012). Teaching With ICT: Digital Pedagogies

For Collaboration And Creativity. Oxford University

Press, Victoria, Melbourne.

Iatsyshyn, A., Kovach, V., Romanenko, Y., and Iatsyshyn,

A. (2019). Cloud services application ways for prepa-

ration of future PhD. CEUR Workshop Proceedings,

2433:197–216.

Iatsyshyn, A. V., Popov, O. O., Kovach, V. O., Iatsyshyn,

A. V., Artemchuk, V. O., Radchenko, O. O., Deinega,

I. I., and Kovalenko, V. V. (2021). Formation of the

scientist image in modern conditions of digital soci-

ety transformation. Journal of Physics: Conference

Series, 1840(1):012039.

Kalimullin, A. and Islamova, Z. (2016). Formation of

Information-Educational Environment in the Partner

Universities of University of Shanghai Cooper-

ation Organization. IEJME, 11(6):1879–1890.

https://www.iejme.com/download/formation-of-

information-educational-environment-in-the-partner-

universities-of-university-of.pdf.

Kivunja, C. (2013). Embedding digital pedagogy in pre-

service higher education to better prepare teachers for

the digital generation. International Journal of Higher

Education, 2(4):131–142.

Kuzminska, O., Mazorchuk, M., Morze, N., and Kobylin,

O. (2019). Attitude to the digital learning environment

in Ukrainian universities. CEUR Workshop Proceed-

ings, 2393:53–67.

Kuzminska, O., Mazorchuk, M., Morze, N., and Kobylin,

O. (2020). Digital learning environment of ukrainian

universities: The main components to inﬂuence the

competence of students and teachers. Communica-

tions in Computer and Information Science, 1175

CCIS:210–230.

Kyslova, M. A., Semerikov, S. O., and Slovak, K. I. (2014).

Development of mobile learning environment as a

problem of the theory and methods of use of infor-

mation and communication technologies in educa-

tion. Information Technologies and Learning Tools,

42(4):1–19.

Landis, J. R. and Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of

observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics,

33(1):159–174.

Legendre, P. (2005). Species associations: The Kendall

coefﬁcient of concordance revisited. Journal of

Agricultural Biological and Environmental Statis-

tics, 10(2):226–245. https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/225333998 Species associations The

Kendall coefﬁcient of concordance revisited.

Legendre, P. (2010). Coefﬁcient of concordance.

In Salkind, N. J., editor, Encyclopedia of Re-

search Design, volume 1, pages 164–169.

SAGE Publications, Inc., Los Angeles. http:

//adn.biol.umontreal.ca/

∼

numericalecology/Reprints/

Legendre Coefﬁcient of concordance 2010.pdf.

Leshchenko, M. P., Kolomiiets, A. M., Iatsyshyn, A. V., Ko-

valenko, V. V., Dakal, A. V., and Radchenko, O. O.

(2021). Development of informational and research

competence of postgraduate and doctoral students in

conditions of digital transformation of science and

education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,

1840(1):012057.

Licite, L. and Janmere, L. (2018). Student expectations to-

wards physical environment in higher education. In

17th International Scientiﬁc Conference ”Engineer-

ing for Rural Development”. Proceedings, volume 17

of ERDev2018, pages 1198–1203. Latvia Univ. of Life

Sciences and Technologies, Jelgava, Latvia. http://tf.

llu.lv/conference/proceedings2018/Papers/N361.pdf.

Lund, A. and Hauge, T. E. (2011). Designs for teach-

ing and learning in technology-rich learning environ-

ments. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6:258–

271. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?

doi=10.1.1.863.5703&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Mandl, H. and Reinmann-Rothmeier, G. (2001). Environ-

ments for learnings. In Smelser, N. J. and Baltes, P. B.,

editors, International encyclopedia of the social and

behavioral sciences, pages 4697–4701. Elsevier, 1st

edition edition.

Morze, N., Varchenko-Trotsenko, L., Terletska, T., and

Smyrnova-Trybulska, E. (2021). Implementation of

adaptive learning at higher education institutions by

means of Moodle LMS. Journal of Physics: Confer-

ence Series, 1840(1):012062.

Morze, N. V. and Strutynska, O. V. (2021). Digital trans-

formation in society: key aspects for model devel-

opment. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,

1946(1):012021.

OECD (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning

Environments: First Results from TALIS. Executive

summary. https://www.oecd.org/berlin/43024880.pdf.

Panchenko, L. (2010). Information and educational envi-

ronment of the modern university. LNU named after

Taras Shevchenko, Luhansk.

Petrenko, L., Varava, I., and Pikilnyak, A. (2020). Moti-

vation readiness of future software engineer’s profes-

sional self-improvement and prospects of its forma-

tion in college cloud environment. CEUR Workshop

Proceedings, 2643:626–647.

Pikilnyak, A. V., Stetsenko, N. M., Stetsenko, V. P., Bon-

darenko, T. V., and Tkachuk, H. V. (2020). Compara-

tive analysis of online dictionaries in the context of the

digital transformation of education. CEUR Workshop

Proceedings, 2879:70–81.

Pinchuk, O., Sokolyuk, O., Burov, O., and Shyshkina, M.

Digital Educational Environment of Teachers’ Professional Training in Pedagogical University

165

(2019). Digital transformation of learning environ-

ment: Aspect of cognitive activity of students. CEUR

Workshop Proceedings, 2433:90–101.

Pottert, A. (2004). Powerful learning environments: Unrav-

elling basic components and dimensions. Internet and

Higher Education, 7(2):154–157.

Professional Standards for Teachers Core (2007).

Professional standards for teachers core.

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/standards core.pdf.

Roth, W. (1999). Learning environments research, lifeworld

analysis, and solidarity in practice. Learning Environ-

ments Research, 2(3):225–247.

Spirin, O., Nosenko, Y., and Iatsyshyn, A. (2016). Current

requirements and contents of training of qualiﬁed sci-

entists on information and communication technolo-

gies in education. Information technology and learn-

ing tools, 56(6):219–239.

Spirin, O., Oleksiuk, V., Oleksiuk, O., and Sydorenko, S.

(2019). The group methodology of using cloud tech-

nologies in the training of future computer science

teachers. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2104:294–

304.

Spivakovsky, A., Petukhova, L., Kotkova, V., and Yurchuk,

Y. (2019). Historical approach to modern learn-

ing environment. CEUR Workshop Proceedings,

2393:1011–1024.

Stommel, J. (2014). Critical digital pedagogy: a def-

inition. https://hybridpedagogy.org/critical-digital-

pedagogy-deﬁnition/.

Trcek, D. (2019). Driving digital transformation

through e-government. CEUR Workshop Proceedings,

2422:263–273.

www.regjeringen.no (2017). Digitalisation strat-

egy for the higher education sector 2017–

2021. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/

779c0783ffee461b88451b9ab71d5f51/en-gb/pdfs/

digitaliseringsstrategi-for-uh-sektoren-engelsk-ve.

pdf.

AET 2020 - Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

166