The Ambivalent Nature of the Educational Process in Higher

Educational Institutions in the COVID – 19 Pandemic

Marina N. Cherkasova

and Anna V. Taktarova

Rostov State Transport University, 2, Rostovskogo Strelkovogo Polka Narodnogo Opolcheniya sq., Rostov-on-Don, Russia

Keywords: Ambivalence, Dualistic Oppositions, Covid 19 Pandemic, Digital University Environment, on-Line Learning.

Abstract: The ambivalent nature of the educational process in higher educational institutions was clearly manifested

during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such an organization of the learning process leads to building a new

cognitive model of the educational process. The purpose of the study is to reveal the attitude of students to

the new mode of learning and teaching and to characterize the ambivalent nature of the modern educational

process. The following methods were used: the method of questioning the reference group (204 respondents

of Russian Transport University); a qualitative and quantitative approach to the differentiation and integration

of the data obtained made it possible to designate a probabilistic assessment of the educational process

organization from the students` point of view; the dualism of the modern digital university educational

environment was considered from the point of view of an ambivalent approach proposed by foreign and

Russian scientists. Our hypothesis basing on a dissatisfaction with forced on-line learning, in which the

implementation of various educational models (face-to-face and on-line) as a result of the COVID-19

pandemic, was only partially confirmed. 7.5% of respondents expressed a dissatisfaction with online learning,

13% were satisfied with online learning, 79.5% of respondents showed ambivalent reactions (halfway

reactions). Due to the empirical study we have determined 6 dualistic oppositions of the modern digital

university environment: a) synchronous and asynchronous learning, b) simultaneous presence in two active

areas (home - university), c) virtual presence with visual absence (when the camera is turned off), d) electronic

communication in synchronous and asynchronous mode, e) interactive interaction a teacher – a student and a

student – a teacher (the student teaches the teacher to communicate within the virtual environment, f) the

opposition of generations “friend” – “alien”).

1 INTRODUCTION

The educational process in higher educational

institutions in the period of COVID – 19 pandemic

(March 2020 – the present time) is being discussed all

over the world (Mahyoob, 2020; Yekefallah et al.,

2021; Kirsch et al., 2021). The role and function of

Internet communication in the implementation of

training and upbringing has become dominant. The

instructions are received on Internet. But at the same

time negative and positive effects of Internet

communication have became stable, salient and long-

term oriented (Cherkasova and Taktarova, 2021;

Sorokova, 2020).

Discussions about the position of a specific form

of the educational trajectory in COVID-19 pandemic

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2971-6486

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3451-2114

and about the educational process content in an

inseparable combination with technological features

(Simonova et al., 2021) continue due to the constantly

emerging “coronavirus zigzags” of the educational

process (Solovov and Menshikova, 2021; Cherkasova

and Taktarova, 2021). Ambiguity of the educational

trajectory vector is leading at the present time to the

actualization of the ambivalent educational

landscape. There is a simultaneous realization of a

dual attitude towards the educational process both

from the side of the students and the teachers

(Noskova et al., 2021). At the same time, opposite

phenomena are also collided in educational process.

It is completely new for all participants of the

educational process: synchronous (interactive online

classes on various Internet platforms, including

386

Cherkasova, M. and Taktarova, A.

The Ambivalent Nature of the Educational Process in Higher Educational Institutions in the COVID – 19 Pandemic.

DOI: 10.5220/0011121100003439

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference "COVID-19: Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals" (RTCOV 2021), pages 386-391

ISBN: 978-989-758-617-0

universities` platforms or university online learning

systems) and asynchronous training (explanation,

tasks, exercises, lectures and control, monitoring,

examination, tests in the asynchronous training

system on the educational portal of the university).

Students and University teachers are at home, but at

the same time they are in the digital educational

environment of the university: in online learning

system or on various Internet platforms.

With regard to the University faculty (instructors,

Professors, tutors), such a competence as a digital

pedagogical competence or “electronic” pedagogical

culture (Isaeva, 2021), in on-line educational mode

has become dominant and advanced. It means that the

higher school teacher`s digital skills are advanced. It

is the real and unusual situation when the teacher`s

professional competence is vs the teacher`s digital

competence. The faculty`s ability to work in the

digital educational university environment and with

variety of various Internet platforms tools (virtual

whiteboards, instant messengers, chats),

understanding and adequate response to students`

reactions, management of students` reactions and the

very speed of reaction to students` reactions on

Internet.

The formation of such a cognitive model of

behavior is accompanied by various risks and pain

points (Dunaeva and Egorova, 2021), with the

simultaneous actualization of both positive and

negative qualities of online learning (Baeva et al.,

2020).

Research questions:

RQ 1: Is the attitude of the University students to

the new format of learning unambiguous?

RQ 2: How is the ambivalent nature of the

educational process in the COVID - 19 pandemic

manifested?

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The “ambivalence” category, which was extrapolated

from the field of psychiatry, was used as a supporting

theoretical basis for the study. Ambivalence was

considered from the point of view of psychoanalysis

by the Swiss clinician Eugen Bleuler as a duality of

attitudes towards external factors. According to E.

Bleuler ambivalence is a very contradictory state of

the personality taking similar to the character of

internal conflict (Bleuler, 1911). The scientist divided

ambivalence into three types: emotional, intellectual

and volitional (Bleuler, 1911).

The matter of such a conflict is manifested in the

fact that the same object or objects, phenomenon,

image simultaneously causes opposite reactions:

satisfaction

– dissatisfaction, agreement –

disagreement, solidarity – antagonism, sympathy –

antipathy, egalitarianism – hierarchism. The main

characteristics of the “ambivalence” phenomenon are

duality, contradiction, bipolarity or positive-negative,

pleasant - unpleasant, loved

– unloved. Thus, it

means a potential conflict, a conflict of

interpretations, actions, reactions within the same

phenomenon. We fully agree with the scientists

(Jaspers, 2020) from Belgium. They emphasize the

effectiveness of the educational activities

interpretation, largely consisting of contradictions,

through a bifocal lens (Jaspers, 2020), with 2 opposite

foci. At the same time, the scientists underline the

importance of empirical focus.

The category of ambivalence is an object of study

for different sciences: not only psychology and

psychiatry (Canas-Simião et al., 2021). It is studied

by social science (Olsen, 2021), linguistics (Strokal,

2020), literary criticism (Chen, 2021), social

philosophy (Amaya, 2021), pedagogy (Jaspers, 2020;

Lièvre F., 2021; Novikova, 2001; Bim-Bad, 2008;

Sheraizin, 2003).

Russian scientists L.I. Novikova and B.M. Bim-

Bad consider ambivalence as an integral part of

human essence and a mechanism for integrating and

harmonizing mutually exclusive components. This

point of view is presented in the paper, devoted to the

problems of education in secondary school. The

authors emphasize the importance of implementing

such an approach in the educational school

environment, starting from goal setting, content,

management, regulation, control and

organization. The indicated approach is also valid in

relation to the educational process at the higher

school where educational programs of higher

education are implemented in various directions. The

same point of view is presented in the study of the

Russian scientist R. M. Sheraizin.

He highlights on the one hand, academic freedom,

openness, duality, polyvalent training, partnership

within the university complex, and on the other hand,

the integrity and consistency of the educational

process, integration into the territorial scientific and

educational environment, self-organization

(Sheraizin, 2003). We fully agree with R. M.

Sheraizin that such an approach to the modernization

of university education is aimed at the successful

implementation and comprehension of the

educational process through a dual position. This

activity presupposes mutual change,

complementarity and interpenetration (Sheraizin,

2003).

The Ambivalent Nature of the Educational Process in Higher Educational Institutions in the COVID – 19 Pandemic

387

The zigzag trajectory of the

“coronavirus educational process” in higher school is

an actualization of the dualistic University faculty and

student`s experience. It is reflected even in such a

paradoxical nomination of activities within the

educational process as flipped classes (Tsytovich et

al., 2019). A number of contradictory terminological

nominations of educational discourse are being

broadcasted in all spheres of life. It only actualizes the

polarity of concepts and divides the nominated

phenomena according to the dualistic principle:

traditional learning - non-traditional learning.

Traditional education is characterized by the

nominations traditional learning (face-to-face

learning), traditional education, face-to-face

education, classroom learning (CL), off line learning.

An unconventional, new educational mode has given

the birth to such terms as distant learning (DL), on

line learning, e-learning, remote learning, full distant

learning, full E-learning, full on-line learning.

Ambiguity in choosing a new educational trajectory

and half-and-half decisions on the modern

classes mode are reflected in new educational

activities nominations: blended learning, combined

classroom learning, hybrid learning.

At the same time, we see the dynamics of the

educational process development. Non-traditional

educational technologies and methods are being

integrated into the traditional system of higher

education, and the educational university

environment becomes digital educational university

environment. But it was assumed that such a

transition would be smooth (Magomedova, 2015;

Khusyainov, 2014). But the COVID-19 pandemic

forced to make an uncompromising extreme jump

into the digital educational environment, actualizing

the dualism of the educational process. At present

time the oppositions and “pain points” were clearly

visible. It makes up the ambivalent nature of modern

university education (Isaeva et al., 2020).

The hypothesis of our study is based on

the assumption that the ambivalent nature of the

educational process in the COVID-19 pandemic is

manifested in the simultaneous implementation of

different educational models (traditional and

distance). It leads to dissatisfaction with forced on-

line learning from the side of all participants of the

higher school educational process.

3 METODOLOGY

The paper analyzes the on-line

learning organization experience in the Rostov State

Transport University during the COVID – 19

pandemic (March 2020 – the present time).

Conventionally this period was divided into the

following stages:

 an extreme jump into on-line learning,

including a full lockdown (March 2020 - June

2020);

 short-term period of face-to-face

learning (September 2020 - early October

2020);

 post-extreme period of on-line learning (early

October 2020 - January 2021);

 return to face-to-face learning (February 2021

- July 2021);

 face-to-face learning (September 2021 - the

end of October 2021);

 online learning due to the bad epidemiological

situation (end of October - 6.12.2021).

To analyze the characteristics of the educational

process during the COVID - 19 pandemic and the

students` attitude to this educational mode, the

questionnaire method was used (RQ 1, 2). A

questionnaire was developed from several blocks,

covering all 6 periods of the study. The reference

group included 204 students of the Transport

university (1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade students). The

heterogeneous stuff of the respondents was chosen

deliberately in order to analyze the dynamics of 1st,

2nd and 3rd grade students` reactions. The students

have different levels of the experience in on-line

mode. 2nd and 3rd grade students have already had

electronic educational experience and sustainable

digital long-term oriented competences. The

freshmen did not have experience of working in

digital educational university environment. The

qualitative and quantitative approach to the

differentiation and integration of the data obtained

made it possible to designate a probabilistic

assessment of the educational process organization

from the students` point of view (RQ 1).

Ambivalent approach (founder E. Bleuler) was

used to analyze the dualism of the modern digital

educational university environment and the unique

university faculty`s and students` experience of the

educational process organization (according to

Novikova) (RQ 2).

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

RQ 1: Is the attitude of the University students to the

new format of learning unambiguous?

The results were obtained during the

questionnaire survey. The participants of the

RTCOV 2021 - II International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference " COVID-19: Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals

(RTCOV )

388

reference group showed different behavioral

reactions:

 the categorical NO was expressed by 7.5% of

the respondents;

 categorical YES - 13% of the participants;

 HALFWAY reactions were expressed by

79.5% of the respondents.

Figure 1: Respondents` reactions to the question on

relevance of on-line learning.

The analysis showed that processes of diminution

and exaggeration can be observed according to the

respondents` answers when quantitative questions are

posed. This fact can’t be ignored when studying

behavioral reactions and strategies. The students who

could not confidently give unequivocal YES (13%) or

NO (7.5%) answers were referred in our study to the

group of respondents with the HALFWAY reactions

(75.5%). In the process of forming the answers, this

group (75.5%) overestimated or, on the contrary,

embellished the events or the facts. It led to the

situation when this part of the respondents could not

decide what to answer. It should be noted that,

nevertheless, all three behavioral responses are valid

for projecting the strategy of the future educational

process. Dissimulation and attributive processes in

the answers of the respondents were identified when

posing qualitative questions. Denial of some facts of

reality or the past associated with Covid-19 pandemic

as undesirable events in life was observed: “I did not

have enough communication practice with the group,

so the educational process itself was not very

interesting.” The 3rd grade students said about the

possibility to earn money and not to visit the

University. And because of it they demonstrated

answers NO.

Reverse students` reactions were fixed. It is

attribution of some features to the educational

process, which in fact are not inherent in it: “I was

very pleased with Zoom, there is a good quality of

sound and video”. Both behavioral reactions with this

type of questions show the opinion of the

respondents, indicating their emotions and feelings in

words in relation to a given object. The results and

interpretation of such reactions can be used to judge

the strategy of the studied educational phenomenon.

RQ 2: How is the ambivalent nature of the

educational process in the COVID - 19 pandemic

manifested?

The research of ambivalent nature of the

educational process in higher school in the COVID -

19 pandemic demonstrated the simultaneous

realizations of 6 dualistic oppositions: a) synchronous

and asynchronous learning, b) simultaneous presence

in two active areas (home-university), c) virtual

presence with visual absence when the camera is

turned off, d) electronic communication in

synchronous and asynchronous format, e) interactive

interaction a teacher – a student and a student – a

teacher (the student teaches the teacher to

communicate within the virtual environment, f) the

opposition of generations “friend” – “alien”. Negative

and positive features of these dualistic oppositions

were analyzed.

Table 1: Dualistic oppositions in terms of ambivalent characteristics of the educational process during the COVID-19

pandemic.

№ Dualistic oppositions Positive features Negative features

1 Synchronous -

asynchronous learning

Preserving the educational process

integrity anywhere and at any time

Technical troubles (poor Internet / no Internet / system

is overloaded); correct organization of the on-line

classes is hampered due to insufficient “electronic”

pedagogical culture

2 Simultaneous presence

in two active areas

(home -university)

Saving time and money for way to the

University; comfortable home conditions;

ability to implement diverse educational

content (online courses, podcasts,

educational sites, animation, graphical

presentation)

Household difficulties; problems with new

technologies due to the lack of stable electronic

competencies;

insufficient technological equipment of the teacher`s

and student`s workplace

3 Virtual presence with visual

absence when the camera is

turned off

There is no information noise for the

teacher and for the students due to the

students` visual absence

The reverse visual communication and visual

monitoring are impossible due to the lack of visual

information chanel.

4 Electronic communication in

synchronous and

asynchronous mode

New language of digital communication

permits to be an active participant of any

learning mode.

The language of digital communication as a new

teaching paradigm demands stable electronic teacher

culture

The Ambivalent Nature of the Educational Process in Higher Educational Institutions in the COVID – 19 Pandemic

389

5 Interactive interaction a

teacher -a student and a

student -a teacher (the

student teaches the teacher to

serf in the virtual

environmen

The young generation teaches IT

technologies the University teachers. The

teaching strategy works not only the

direction a teacher – a student, but also vs:

the student shares his life experience,

knowledge and skills.

The older generation experience is in low demand.

The younger generation IT experience is ignored by

the older generation.

6 “friend” – “alien” as a

behaviorial interaction of

the University faculty and

Homelander (The term

«Homelande» is from

RuGenerations, 2021)

Generation

Internet area is a home environment for

Homelander Generation (Z)

Internet area is not a home environment for the

University faculty. It is an alien forced area.

The ambivalent nature of the educational process

of the COVID-19 pandemic is characterized by the

presence of systemic oppositions. This dual

educational process forms a certain kind of conflict-

generating process or conflict potential. This conflict-

generating process is the base for analyze of

identified oppositions and the “pain points” of the

modern educational process. The potential of such a

conflict-generating activity in modern digital

university environment is the spring for the formation

of educational university trajectory on the basis of the

given oppositions.

The list of such oppositions will be expanded. The

very trajectory and the model of university education

are being taken shape in the context of technological

advances and the epidemiological situation.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Our hypothesis basing on a dissatisfaction with forced

on-line learning, in which the implementation of

various educational models (face-to-face and on-line)

as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, was only

partially confirmed. 7.5% of the respondents

expressed negative reactions. 13% were satisfied with

online learning, they emphasized the relevance of on-

line mode. 79.5 % of the respondents showed

ambivalent reactions (halfway reactions).

Due to the empirical study 6 dualistic oppositions

of the modern digital university environment were

determined: a) synchronous and asynchronous

learning, b) simultaneous presence in two active areas

(home-university), c) virtual presence with visual

absence when the camera is turned off), d) electronic

communication in synchronous and asynchronous

format, e) interactive interaction a teacher – a student

and a student – a teacher (the student teaches the

teacher to communicate within the virtual

environment, f) the opposition of generations “friend”

– “alien”. All these opposition were characterized

from positive and negative points of views.

The study of the modern educational process, the

students` attitude to the new learning mode and

identification of the dualism of this mode set the

vector of a hybrid educational model orientation. This

new model can be integrated into the ambivalent and

polyvalent mode of the modern digital university

environment: synchronous and asynchronous

learning format, the possibility of conducting the

educational process in a convenient (for teachers

owing electronic pedagogical culture and students)

digital mode (on-line learning system, choice of an

Internet platform) at any place and at any time.

REFERENCES

Mahyoob, M., 2020. Challenges of e-Learning during the

COVID-19 Pandemic Experienced by EFL Learners,

Arab World English Journal, 11 (4), pages 351-362.

Yekefallah, L., Namdar P., Panahi R., Dehghankar L.,

2021. Factors related to students' satisfaction with

holding e-learning during the Covid-19 pandemic based

on the dimensions of e-learning, Heliyon 7, volume 7,

issue 7.

Kirsch C., Pascale M.J. Engel de Abreu, Neumann S.,

Wealer C., 2021. Practices and experiences of distant

education during the COVID-19 pandemic: The

perspectives of six- to sixteen-year-olds from three

high-income countries, International Journal of

Educational Research Open, Volumes 2–2.

Cherkasova, M., Taktarova, A., 2021. Negative impact of

digital freedoms on Russian youth, E3S Web of

Conferences, 273, 10015.

Sorokova, M., 2020. Skepticism and learning difficulties in

a digital environment at the Bachelor's and Master's

levels: are preconceptions valid?. Heliyon, 6, e05335.

Simonova, O., Barashyan, V., Gampartsumov, A.,

Khlebnikova, M., 2021. The application of reality

simulators for improving the education quality at

universities, E3S Web of Conferences, 273, 12081.

Solovov, A.V., Menshikova, A.A., 2021. Coronavirus

Zigzags of Electronic Distance Learning, Higher

Education in Russia, Vol. 30, no. 6, pages 60-69.

Noskova, A.V., Goloukhova, D.V., Proskurina, A.S.,

Nguyen, T.H., 2021. Digitalization of the Educational

RTCOV 2021 - II International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference " COVID-19: Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals

(RTCOV )

390

Environment: Risk Assessment of Distance Education

by Russian and Vietnamese Students, Higher

Education in Russia, Vol. 30, no. 1, pages 156-167.

Isaeva, T.E., 2021. Higher School Teacher’s Competences

and “Electronic” Pedagogical Culture in the Post-

Pandemic World. Higher Education in Russia, Vol. 30,

no. 6, pages 80-96.

Dunaeva N.I., Egorova P.A., 2021. Individual resistance to

difficulties during distance learning, Vestnik of Minin

University, Vol. 9, no. 2, pages 8.

Baeva L.V., Khrapov S.A., Azhmukhamedov I.M.,

Grigorev A.V., Kuznetsova V.Yu, 2020. Digital Turn

in Russian Education: from Problems to Possibilities,

Values and Meanings, no. 5, pages 28-44.

Bleuler E., 1911. Dementia praecox oder Gruppe der

Schizophrenien, In: Handbuch der Psychiatrie

(Herausgeb. von G. Aschaffenburg), Spezieller Teil. 4.

Abteilung, 1. Haelfte. Leipzig und Wien. Franz

Deuticke, 420.

Jaspers, 2020. Linguistic dilemmas and chronic

ambivalence in the classroom: introduction, Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Development, pages 1-

14.

Canas-Simião, H., Nascimento, S., Reis, J., Freitas, C.,

2021. Complex auditory musical hallucinations with

ambivalent feelings, BMJ Case Reports, 14, e245397.

Olsen, G., 2021. Ambivalence in activation encounters,

European Journal of Social Work, psges 1-13.

Strokal, O., 2020. Between good and evil: linguistic

explication of the ambivalence of the universe in O.

Dovhiy's poetry, Actual issues of Ukrainian

linguistics: theory and practice, pages 40-57.

Chen, P., 2021. Theorizing untranslatability: Temporalities

and ambivalence in colonial literature of Taiwan and

Korea, Thesis Eleven, 162, 072551362199077.

Amaya, A., 2021. Epistemic ambivalence in law.

Philosophical Issues.

Lièvre, F., 2021. An ambivalent picture.

Novikova, L.I., 2001. Ambivalent approach in education,

Modern humanitarian approaches in the theory and

practice of education, Perm, pages 24-25.

Bim-Bad, B.M., 2008. Ambivalence category in the theory

of human education, Pedagogy, 7, pages 8-17.

Sheraizin, R. M., 2003. Ambivalent approach to the

modernization of pedagogical education in the modern

university complex, Integration of education, 3, pages

16-20.

Tsytovich, M.V., Boronenko, G.F., Yakusheva, O.V.

Flipped Classroom Technology and Its Implementation

at Various Levels of Higher Education. Bulletin of the

South Ural State University. Ser. Education.

Educational Sciences. 2019, vol. 11, no. 3, pages 21-32.

Magomedova, K.T., 2015. Stages of E-learning

Developmentand Their Impact on the Emergence of

New Technological Standards of E-learning Quality,

Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser.

Education. Educational Sciences., vol. 7, no. 2, pages

22–29.

Khusyainov, T. M., 2014. History of development and

distance education, Pedagogy and education, No. 4.

pages 30-41.

Isaeva, T., Malishevskaya, N., Cherkasova, L.,

Kolesnichenko, A., 2020. University faculty motivation

to students’ distant evaluation, E3S Web of

Conferences, 210, 18071.

The Ambivalent Nature of the Educational Process in Higher Educational Institutions in the COVID – 19 Pandemic

391