Responsibility and Digital Competence of Future Socionomic

Professionals: Relationship and Features of Development

Olena I. Bondarchuk

1 a

, Valentyna V. Balakhtar

2,4 b

, Nina Lytvynenko

3 c

, Nataliia Pinchuk

1 d

Oleh Shmanko

4 e

, Arnold Kiv

5 f

, Vasyl Oleksiuk

6 g

, Andrii V. Pavlenok

7 h

Kateryna Balakhtar

2,3,4 i

and Tamara Grubi

8 j

University of Educational Management, 52A Sichovykh Striltsiv Str., Kyiv, 04053, Ukraine

National Aviation University, 1 Liubomyra Huzara Ave., Kyiv, 03058, Ukraine

O. O. Bogomolets National Medical University, 13 Tarasa Shevchenko Blvd, Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine

Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University, 2 Kotsiubynskyi Str., Chernivtsi, 58012, Ukraine

Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, Beer Sheva, 8410501, Israel

Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University, 2 M. Kryvonosa Str., Ternopil, 46000, Ukraine

International Education College, Minzu University of China, 27 Zhongguancun South Ave., Beijing, 100081, China

Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Bulvarno-Kudriavska St, 18/2, Kyiv, 04053, Ukraine

Keywords:

Future Specialists of Socionomic Professions, Responsibility, Information, Digital Competence, Psychologi-

cal Safety.

Abstract:

The article dwells on to the study of the relationship between responsibility and digital competence of fu-

ture professionals in socionomic professions and the study of the features of their development. The role of

responsibility as a vital indicator of digital competence of future specialists of socionomic professions was

determined, which determines their conscious and responsible activities in the context of obtaining and dis-

seminating information in the digital space, promoting both their own psychological safety alongside psycho-

logical safety of other members of the digital community. The results of an empirical study were highlighted,

which revealed an insufﬁcient level of both responsibility and cognitive-operational components of digital

competence for a signiﬁcant number of future specialists in socionomic professions. Gender differences in

the manifestations of responsibility of future specialists depending on the gender are characterized accord-

ing to which the female respondents were slightly more responsible for the consequences of dissemination

of information than male specialists. The expediency of promoting the development of responsibility of fu-

ture specialists of socionomic professions as an indicator of their digital competence is stated, which can be

provided in a specially organized psychological training. The program of responsibility development as a

component of digital competence of future specialists of socionomic professions and the results of its appro-

bation are presented, which testify to the effectiveness of this program.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3920-242X

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6343-2888

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6572-2392

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1904-804X

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9491-4564

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0991-2343

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

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4613-7179

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9154-9095

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2345-588X

1 INTRODUCTION

The development of the digital society in today’s

complex conditions leads to the growing role of in-

formation and digital technologies, in general, and in

professional activities, in particular. This, in turn, re-

quires the development of digital competence, the cre-

ation of conditions conducive to effective work with

a variety of information sources, the identiﬁcation of

factors that ensure these processes, and so on. To-

day, the infrastructure of the metaverse is still evolv-

Bondarchuk, O., Balakhtar, V., Lytvynenko, N., Pinchuk, N., Shmanko, O., Kiv, A., Oleksiuk, V., Pavlenok, A., Balakhtar, K. and Grubi, T.

Responsibility and Digital Competence of Future Socionomic Professionals: Relationship and Features of Development.

DOI: 10.5220/0012061700003431

In Proceedings of the 2nd Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology (AET 2021), pages 75-91

ISBN: 978-989-758-662-0

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

ing. Researchers, educators, policymakers and dig-

ital designers have the chance to use the potential

of the metaverse as a three-dimensional, global, in-

terconnected, exciting and online space in real-time.

Therefore we need new ways to connect the phys-

ical virtual reality (VR) (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2022).

The digital competence is recognised by the EU as

one of the 8 key competencies for a full life con-

dition and activity, which according to the updated

Digital Competence framework (DigComp 2.2) con-

tains 5 main blocks of competencies (Adz, 2016) (in-

formation literacy and data literacy; communication

and interaction; digital content; security; problem-

solving). Digital competence is especially important

for specialists in socionomic professions who work

in the human-human system, and their activities sup-

port and develop the human capital and intellectual

potential of the country. This imposes special re-

quirements on the training of future specialists in so-

cionomic professions, providing their ability to nav-

igate independently in the digital space, strive for

self-regulation, search for professionally vital infor-

mation, and be able to analysing and systematising,

use digital technologies as a set of professional so-

lutions, be responsible for the consequences of in-

formation dissemination, help prevent cyberbullying,

mobbing and other negative phenomena that accom-

pany the formation of a digital society. Digital com-

petence combines knowledge, skills, motivation and

responsibility. Thus, taking into account these com-

ponents, the following components should be distin-

guished: information and media literacy – knowledge,

skills, motivation and responsibility due to the search-

ing, organization, archiving of digital information and

its critical thinking, as well as the creation of infor-

mation objects using digital resources (text, graph-

ics, audio and video); communicative competence –

knowledge, skills, motivation and responsibility nec-

essary for various forms of communication (e-mail,

chats, blogs, forums, social networks, etc.); technical

competence – knowledge, skills, motivation and re-

sponsibility which allow effectively and safely using

the hardware and software to solve various problems;

consumer competence – knowledge, skills, motiva-

tion and responsibility in making it possible to solve

with the help of digital means and the Internet vari-

ous everyday tasks that involve meeting needs, solv-

ing speciﬁc life situations, etc. (Soldatova et al., 2013,

p. 5). However, scholars point to several speciﬁc dif-

ﬁculties coming from what was originally considered

the upside of the whole idea – the lack of rigid rules,

the lack of controlling teachers, and the lack of condi-

tions forced upon students. Electronic training of fu-

ture professionals, in many cases, are simply neither

ready nor even aware of their lack of readiness to take

control over how what and when they learn (Postek

et al., 2010, p. 105). Moreover, in our opinion, there

is an additional conﬁrmation of the development of

responsibility as a vital component of future profes-

sionals’ digital competence.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

It should be noted that some aspects of the research

problem have already been the subject of attention of

researchers. Thus, there were investigated the follow-

ing: the psychological aspects of computer literacy

those contribute to the effective use of digital tech-

nologies in both educational and professional activ-

ities (Balakhtar, 2018; Balakhtar et al., 2022; Bon-

darchuk et al., 2022b; Meshko et al., 2020; Osadchyi

et al., 2020); information personality culture of spe-

cialists (Voitovych et al., 2022); the problem of dig-

ital competence and its separate components (Balyk

et al., 2019; Bezverbnyi and Shyshkina, 2022; Burov

et al., 2020; Kartashova et al., 2018; Kiv et al., 2019;

Klochko and Fedorets, 2022; Nosenko and Sukhikh,

2019; Semerikov et al., 2021; Shokaliuk et al., 2020;

Yevtuch et al., 2021; Soldatova et al., 2013; Riezina

et al., 2022), in general, and future specialists of var-

ious proﬁles: teachers (Mintii et al., 2021; Oleksiuk

and Spirin, 2022; Spirin and Vakaliuk, 2019; Zaika

et al., 2021), economists (Hlushak et al., 2020), spe-

cialists in agronomy (Yevstratiev, 2020).

The investigations were conducted on the studies

of the socio-psychological consequences of the devel-

opment of digital technologies on the personality of a

specialist or a user (Vakulich, 2006; Yeung, 2019), in-

cluding in the context of responsibility for the conse-

quences of using digital technologies (Aguilera et al.,

2007; Aguinis and Glavas, 2012; Rupp et al., 2013;

Glavas, 2016).

There are studies of CSR (Corporate social re-

sponsibility) which are focused on the macro and in-

stitutional levels (Aguilera et al., 2007; Aguinis and

Glavas, 2012; Rupp et al., 2013), and some studies

are focused of how CSR inﬂuences employees – mi-

cro level (Glavas, 2016).

On the other hand, many works are devoted

to the study of various aspects of psychological

and pedagogical problems of professional and per-

sonality development of future specialists, includ-

ing in the context of responsibility and professional

ethics (Bezrukova, 2015; Meshko et al., 2021; Vi-

noslavskaya, 2002, 2005) et al. The Digital Compe-

tence Framework for Citizens (DigComp 2.2), men-

tioned in the Digital Competence Framework for Citi-

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

zens, highlights responsibility as an important indica-

tor of digital competence, but the content of responsi-

bility, in our opinion, is somewhat generalised as the

ability to apply and adapt different communications

in digital environments alongside the various forms

of behaviour, know-how, aspects of cultural and age

diversity, using digital technologies (Dig, 2021).This,

in turn, requires the responsible use of ICT and in-

cludes issues of privacy and copyright, ethical issues

and the ability to evaluate digital information (Hatle-

vik et al., 2021).

We read, write, listen and communicate differ-

ently than we did 500 years ago (Coiro et al., 2008). It

is quite reasonable in our information society (Martin

and Grudziecki, 2006) to understand digital compe-

tence as a basic need if we are to function in soci-

ety (Chapman, 1999), as an essential requirement for

life (Bawden, 2008) or even as a survival skill (Eshet,

2004).

The speciﬁcity of the professional activity of spe-

cialists of socionomic professions determines the in-

creased requirements for their professional compe-

tence, in general, and digital competence, in partic-

ular. This is a signiﬁcant number of factors that are

directly dependent on the more general problem of the

relationship between science, morality and ethics. So-

cionomists deal with social relations at different levels

of their implementation in accordance with legal doc-

uments (Constitution, Law of Ukraine “On Informa-

tion”, norms, rules, etc.), which deﬁne the concepts

of information, information relations, objects of these

relations, rights and responsibilities of their partici-

pants, information ownership (Law, 1992).

Currently, many codes of ethics have been devel-

oped, which contain relevant rules, including on the

responsible use of information, protection of infor-

mation systems from viruses and artiﬁcially created

errors in them. Within the ethics of the media, a sepa-

rate area of digital ethics is identiﬁed and designed to

address a number of issues due to the needs of selec-

tion and evaluation of information, contextualisation

of information, information control, information se-

curity and reliability of information (Nazarov, 2005,

p. 222). However, compliance with these rules is not

enough. In particular, decision-making in the process

of information retrieval requires an appropriate level

of formation in the personality of the future special-

ist of socionomic professions of responsibility, which

will allow ensuring the regulation of activities based

on ethical norms and principles (Papakitsya, 2014,

p. 36). At the same time, it is digital competence ac-

cording to the National Council on Curriculum and

Assessment (NCCA) (National Council for Curricu-

lum and Assessment, 2004) that contributes to learn-

ing, the growth of achievements and motivation of

professionals, and the spread of technology in every-

day life, which will allow all citizens to be functional

in our knowledge society (Ferrari, 2012). Higher

educational institutions should provide the necessary

skills and knowledge to determine the social, eth-

ical and environmental impacts of entrepreneurship

(Bampton and Maclagan, 2005), moreover, integrate

ethical and social responsibility aspects in curricu-

lum design (Nelson et al., 2012; Stonkut

e et al., 2018;

Rodr

ıguez-G

omez et al., 2020).

Modern psychological science has accumulated

considerable theoretical and practical material on var-

ious aspects of personal responsibility, in general

(Bezrukova, 2015; Kosulya, 2010; Nazarenko, 2016;

Papakitsya, 2014).

The study is aimed at theoretical and empirical re-

search of psychological features of responsibility of

future specialists of socionomic professions as an in-

dicator of their digital competence.

3 THEORETICAL

SUBSTANTIATION OF

RESPONSIBILITY AS AN

INDICATOR OF DIGITAL

COMPETENCE OF FUTURE

SPECIALISTS OF

SOCIONOMIC PROFESSIONS

The ratio of freedom and responsibility, the ratio of

social and personal responsibility, understanding of

responsibility as a moral category, action and an im-

portant component of education are being signiﬁcant

in the study of responsibility in the context of digital

competence of future specialists of socionomic pro-

fessions (Kartashova et al., 2018).

Scientists interpret the concept of responsibility

in different ways, namely: the presence of freedom

because only free beings can recognize a sense of

responsibility (Agazzi, 2009); the possibility of ful-

ﬁlling an obligation or a duty; quality, which is an

indicator of reliability and trust; an element of gov-

ernment, responsibility for something, certain obliga-

tions to others (Dic, 2022); “The ability of the indi-

vidual to understand the compliance of the results of

his/her actions with the goals set, recognised in a soci-

ety or the collective by the norms, as a result of which

there is a feeling of complicity in a common cause,

and in case of non-compliance, a feeling of unfulﬁlled

duty; the individual’s readiness to admit that he or

she himself/herself is the cause of the consequences

Responsibility and Digital Competence of Future Socionomic Professionals: Relationship and Features of Development

of his/her behaviour and activities” (Prykhodko and

Yurchenko, 2020, p. 34), etc.

Henceforward, on the one hand, responsibility is

inconceivable without freedom, but on the other hand,

freedom without responsibility becomes arbitrariness.

Behind the solution of this dilemma is the freedom

of choice, in general, for everyone in society. Thus,

a person always has a choice, however, only a per-

son should be responsible for this choice (Kosulya,

2010; Prykhodko and Yurchenko, 2020). Therefore,

a person has the right to make decisions and act in

accordance with his/her opinion, but he/she must also

be personally responsible for the results of his/her ac-

tions, and not shift the blame for the negative results

of his/her decisions and actions to others. This in-

dicates the phenomenon of “personal responsibility”.

In addition, in the framework of social responsibility,

the latter is seen as a certain relationship between the

individual and society, aimed at the beneﬁt of society

as a whole, making decisions that meet the goals and

values of mankind.

Responsibility in the social context is a certain

concept that integrates common human values, ethical

norms of behaviour of the government agencies em-

ployees, public organisations, research institutions,

different levels of business structures etc.

Worth noting the concept of responsibility is

formed on the basis of the international standard of

social responsibility ISO 26000, developed in 2003 by

the Strategic Advisory Group on Social Responsibil-

ity from around the world (Lazorenko and Kolyshko,

2008). Ukraine was among these countries. This stan-

dard makes clear the relationship between the princi-

ples of social responsibility and organisational gover-

nance structures.

A signiﬁcant contribution to the study of as-

pects of social responsibility in the educational sphere

in Ukraine also was made by Vinoslavskaya (Vi-

noslavskaya, 2002). Responsibility from the stand-

point of action or not action, but conscious, is con-

sidered through a personal form of behaviour – an act

(Bondarchuk et al., 2022a; Zinchenko and Meshch-

eryakova, 2003). Investigating the act, Rubinshtein

(Rubinshtein, 2002) considered it as a special kind of

action. The content of the act determines the moral

behaviour of the individual, his/her value attitude not

only to the results of his/her work but also to the in-

formation itself; has the following properties: axio-

logical, responsibility, eventfulness (Bakhtin, 1986).

Romenets created in modern Ukrainian psychologi-

cal science the so-called action paradigm, according

to which “an action becomes . . . not only a subject

but also a methodical basis for the study of the psy-

che” (Tatenko et al., 1999, p. 181). An act is a “way

of personal existence in the world” (Romanets, 2006,

p. 13).

The concept of action allows the assessment of ac-

tions performed by the subject in information retrieval

activities, which requires the adoption of certain crite-

ria according to which this assessment can be carried

out and determine the degree of responsibility of fu-

ture socionomic specialists in the implementation of

information retrieval activities. In particular, such a

criterion may be the result of the performed action

(aftereffect), its impact on the well-being of the envi-

ronment. This requires the deﬁnition of some motiva-

tion as a motive and the identiﬁcation of the degree of

its morality. After all, a moral act is a holistic act and

is manifested in the unity of motive, action and result

(Rogozha, 2010).

Considering the above, it is worth noting that

decision-making in action always testiﬁes to freedom

of choice, and this choice lies in the moral and ethical

plane of the personality of a specialist of socionomic

professions, forming a responsible attitude to infor-

mation as a value based on predicting possible conse-

quences for the use of this information and, however,

be prepared to be held accountable for these conse-

quences.

With regard to digital competence, the concept

of “competence” should be understood in the sense

proposed by European educational experts. Digi-

tal competence is “a set of knowledge, skills, values

and attitudes, as well as strategies needed to use in-

formation and communication technologies and digi-

tal media for effective, critical, creative, independent

and ethically-oriented learning” (Ferrari et al., 2012).

Digital competence involves the conﬁdence and, at

the same time, critical application of digital technolo-

gies for the creation, retrieval, processing, exchanging

of information at work, in public space and in private

communication respectively. At the same time, in-

formation and media literacy, basics of programming,

algorithmic thinking, working with databases, acquir-

ing Internet and cybersecurity skills, understanding

the ethics of working with information (copyright, in-

tellectual property, etc.) are essential too (Zaporozht-

seva, 2019).

Thus, digital competence implies the continu-

ous ability of future specialists of socionomic pro-

fessions to master competencies (knowledge, skills,

motivation, and responsibility), conﬁdently, critically

and safely choose and apply various information and

communication technologies in professional activi-

ties. The activity and attitude to it should be based on

a sense of responsibility, understanding of the rights

and rules of behaviour and activity in the digital world

(Soldatova et al., 2013). At the same time, responsi-

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

bility is correlated with the problem of the safety of

modern technologies in the information world.

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In order to study the characteristics of the responsi-

bility of future specialists of socionomic professions,

their attitude to information as a value and willing-

ness to be responsible for its use alongside the impact

on the formation of digital competence, we conducted

an empirical study. Accordingly, we used the methods

of Papakitsa (Papakitsa, 2013) “Responsibility for the

use of information” and the authors modiﬁed ques-

tionnaire “Information” (Law, 1992), aimed at deter-

mining the level of awareness of future specialists of

socionomic professions, content and properties of in-

formation, responsibility for its dissemination, and

adapted methodology “Index of digital competence”

(Soldatova et al., 2013) – digital competence, blocks

“Knowledge” and “Skills”, which determine the cog-

nitive and operational components of digital compe-

tence of the individual.

The observational stage of the study (2019-2020)

was attended by 748 students – future specialists

in socionomic professions of the 1st, 3rd and 5th

courses. At the formative stage (2021) – 60 peo-

ple, 29 of them formed an experimental group (di-

vided into 2 subgroups of 14 people each for the con-

venience of training, providing and receiving feed-

back from all participants within the appropriate time

frame) and 31 – control. The research was carried

out based on the University of Education Manage-

ment and the Yuriy Fedkovych National University of

Chernivtsi. Respondents were distributed according

to gender: 40.1% – men, 59.9% – women. Statistical

processing of the obtained data was carried out using

the computer program SPSS (version 23.0).

5 ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS

OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

At the ﬁrst stage of the empirical research, based on

the results of the analysis of the data of the “Informa-

tion” questionnaire, an insufﬁcient level of awareness

by future specialists of socionomic professions of the

content and properties of information, responsibility

for its dissemination, and the like was found.

At the ascertaining stage of the empirical study

based on the results of the analysis of the data of the

questionnaire “Information” revealed an insufﬁcient

level of awareness of future specialists of socionomic

professions content and properties of information, re-

sponsibility for its dissemination and more.

Thus, regarding the ﬁrst question “Information

is. . . ”, only 22.2% of respondents answered in the af-

ﬁrmative and agreed with the proposed interpretation

of the concept of “information”. In particular, there

were such answers as the following: facts understand-

able to a person; information about the world around

us that is understandable to humans; information that

carries a semantic load; a set of symbols or drawings

that are accessible to human perception; information

presented in any form and understandable to a person,

etc. At the same time, 77.8% of respondents gave an-

swers that may be grouped into two groups. The ﬁrst

group (59.6%) consisted of such answers as, for ex-

ample, the following: information – this is what you

can receive something new, data, knowledge, skills,

everything new that surrounds us, the properties of

the world. As you can see from the above exam-

ple, respondents take information for data or ready-

made knowledge. The second group (24.4%) – such

answers as the like: method of development, means,

source of development, method of governing society,

means of achieving the goal, and so forth. The an-

swers obtained indicate that this group of respondents

considers information as a tool of achieving goals.

Besides, there were 2.8% respondents who found it

difﬁcult to answer the ﬁrst question.

Regarding the second question “The main sources

of information for me are ...”, the answers of the re-

spondents according to the semantic units of content

analysis have the following distribution: Internet –

91.4%, books – 64.0%, subject expert – 38.9%, mass

media – 47.5%. At the same time, 8.2% of respon-

dents gave such answers as, for example, the world

around them, data, personal life conclusions, prac-

tice. This suggests that respondents understood the

questions but were unable to classify their answers.

Furthermore, 0.5% of respondents found it difﬁcult to

answer in general.

Moreover, 6.8% of respondents understood the

essence of the third question “Digital competence

is. . . ”, giving complete, detailed answers such as the

following: the degree of readiness to work in a digital

environment, the ability to perceive and process infor-

mation for their needs using digital tools, possession

of digital technologies and their use for successful ac-

tivity in the modern world, etc. At the same time,

other respondents gave incomplete, fragmentary an-

swers, primarily related to the level of knowledge of

digital technologies (“know how to act on the Inter-

net, social networks”), mastering modern innovations

in the digital world (43.8%) or skills use the Internet,

the ability to ﬁnd certain information, etc. (42.1%).

Responsibility and Digital Competence of Future Socionomic Professionals: Relationship and Features of Development

Besides, 7.3% of respondents found it difﬁcult to an-

swer the third question.

The answers to the fourth question “Information

has the following properties ...” according to the se-

mantic units of content analysis have the following

distribution: adequacy – 4.4%, relevance – 8.2%, re-

liability – 6.4%, accessibility – 6.7 %, objectivity –

3.8% and completeness of information – 2.5%. Fur-

thermore, 11.1% of respondents found it difﬁcult to

answer.

Nevertheless, the respondents answered not only

according to the semantic units of content analysis

but also to several additional answers. We grouped

these additional answers into two groups. The ﬁrst

group (64.1%) includes such answers as, for exam-

ple: cognitive, developmental, usefulness, harmful-

ness, variability, instability, inﬂuence. The second

group (35.9%) includes the following answers, e.g.:

by content, by volume, by place, by quality, technical

and professional. Although these examples of prop-

erties cannot be attributed to the group of semantic

units that are compiled for this study based on ac-

cepted properties of information in the scientiﬁc and

educational literature, they reﬂect different aspects of

the category of property as a whole in the philosoph-

ical plane, and the accepted answer within the frame-

work of this study does not fully express the meaning

determined by the semantic units of content analysis.

Only 22.5% of respondents gave the correct an-

swers to the ﬁfth question “Digital technologies are

...”. These are, for instance, the following: informa-

tion processing technology, where the tool is a com-

puter and various digital tools; technologies that allow

receiving, processing, transmitting and storing infor-

mation using a computer; computer technologies that

allow the user to effectively search and further pro-

cess information. At the same time, 76.5% of respon-

dents gave incorrect answers, which can be grouped

into two groups. The ﬁrst group (38.7%) includes

the following answers, for instance, as the like: com-

puter, Internet, technical base, technology that cre-

ates information, digital technology. As can be seen

from the given example, it can be assumed that this

group of respondents believes that information and

computer technologies are generally a technique, or

a separate device or a network itself, while not indi-

cating which particular technique and the subject of

processing, without focusing on key words – tech-

nology, information – and work will be carried out

based on some technical device (computer). From the

dictionary of philosophy of science and technology

(Gub, 2003), the term technology – is a set of various

devices, mechanisms and devices that do not exist in

nature and are made by human to meet socio-cultural

needs. Thus, the answers of the respondents indicate

either a misunderstanding of the term “technology” or

a misunderstanding that technology can be tools that

do not belong to the so-called new information tech-

nologies.

The second group (29.8% of the respondents) in-

cludes the following answers, for instance, as the like:

type of activity aimed at developing technical means;

a set of knowledge that is used to create and use com-

puter technology; the ability to correctly ﬁnd and use

information in their activities. As can be seen from

the given examples of answers, the respondents be-

lieve that information and computer technologies are

a certain amount of knowledge or the abilities and

skills of a person to perform any actions. Besides,

9.7% of the respondents found it difﬁcult to answer.

Exclusively 11.3% were able to justify their

choice a search engine, answering on the sixth ques-

tion “I used a search engine to ﬁnd information. I

argue my choice by the fact that ...”, e.g.: a user-

friendly interface, no advertising, and the ability to

search on English-language sites, access speed, and

ease of search. Worth noting, the name of the search

engines corresponded to the given arguments of the

respondents, like the following: the Google search

engine is the speed of indexing pages, the absence of

advertising.

Moreover, 88.7% of respondents could not argue

their choice and answered very superﬁcially, for in-

stance: the most popular, convenient, well-known,

familiar, used by my friends, and the like. Besides,

0.5% of the respondents found it difﬁcult to answer.

Thus, the analysis of the given as examples an-

swers showed that there is a certain dissonance be-

tween the high level of development of digital tech-

nology in general and the low level of knowledge of

the content of the information concept, the patterns of

its existence, understanding of the variability of infor-

mation sources, including methods of searching for

information in the network, using search engines and

the responsible attitude to its distribution.

The latter conclusion was conﬁrmed by the anal-

ysis of the data of the “Responsibility” questionnaire,

aimed at studying the attitude to information as a

value and the willingness to bear responsibility for the

consequences of its use.

The results obtained indicate that only 17.0% of

the respondents have a high level of responsibility in

the context of receiving and disseminating informa-

tion (table 1). Other respondents do not fully (56.7%)

or do not understand at all (27.3%) that the possession

of information is already valuable. This indicates that

information that satisﬁes the need for personal devel-

opment, learning new things to prepare for a future

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

profession, and is not of value for the respondents.

They also do not realise the possible negative con-

sequences of using the information in their activities

and, as a result, do not fully realise their responsibil-

ity for the consequences of using this information, in

general. In addition, these respondents often under-

estimate the negative consequences of spreading un-

necessary information about themselves, which can

negatively affect their psychological and even, some-

times, physical safety.

Table 1: Distribution of researched future specialists of so-

cionomic professions by levels of responsibility.

Levels of

responsibility

Development indicators

(number of respondents, in%)

Low 27.3

Average 56.7

High 17.0

At the same time, according to the criterion χ

the peculiarities of the responsibility of future special-

ists of socionomic professions of different genders are

stated (table 2).

Table 2: Features of responsibility of future specialists of

socionomic professions depending on gender.

Gender of the

respondents

Levels of responsibility

(number of respondents,

in%)

Low Average High

Female 19.9 56.9 25.2

Male 34.7 56.5 8.8

As follows from table 1, a high level of respon-

sibility was found in 25.2%, future female special-

ists against 8.8% of future male socionomic profes-

sions, while a low level of competence was found

in 34.7% of male, and among female – only in 19.9

% (p <0.05). Thus, the future specialists of so-

cionomic professions of the female gender have a

slightly higher rate of development of digital compe-

tence than males.

Differences in the development of responsibility

of the respondents depending on gender are consis-

tent with the position of the gender approach, which

states that women strive for social activity, are more

responsible for their actions, seek to control their be-

haviour in accordance with social expectations (Burn,

1995).

The obtained data also correlate with those ob-

tained by Pryadein (Pryadein, 2001). He highlights

that “in the implementation of responsible cases in

female students to a greater extent than in male stu-

dents, the desire to adhere to ethical norms prevails.

More often than students, they prioritize the public

over the personal”. Thus, when analysing the beneﬁts

of meaningful signs of responsibility by young peo-

ple, the scientist received the following data accord-

ing to the following components: “The desire to com-

ply with ethical standards” (female students – 78%,

male students – 68%), “Guidance of duty” (female

students – 69%, male students – 62%), “Priority of

publicity over personal” (female students – 62%, male

students – 51%) (Pryadein, 2001, p. 171).

Thus, according to the results of empirical re-

search, responsibility needs special development for a

signiﬁcant number of future specialists in socionomic

professions.

On the other hand, in accordance with the pur-

pose of our study, the levels of development of cog-

nitive and operational components of digital compe-

tence were established by the relevant blocks “Knowl-

edge” and “Skills” of the methodology “Index of Dig-

ital Competence” – authors –(Soldatova et al., 2013).

Hence, 9.3% of respondents have a high level of

development of the cognitive component of digital

competence, are able to use the Internet for educa-

tion, install their own software update settings on the

device used to work on the Internet. At the same time,

30.5% of the respondents are characterised by an av-

erage and 60.2% – a low level of development of the

cognitive component of information readiness. The

results showed that the respondents are not awareness

enough about the various mobile applications and the

possibilities of its usage; the Internet is used only to

maintain relationships with friends, make purchases,

payments and more (table 3).

Table 3: Distribution of researched future specialists of so-

cionomic professions by levels of development of cognitive

component of digital competence.

Levels of development of

the cognitive component

digital competence

Number of

respondents, in%

Low 60.2

Average 30.5

High 9.3

Examining the operational component of digital

competence of future specialists of socionomic pro-

fessions, difﬁculties in understanding the content and

analysis of the semantic structure of the text, in con-

structing questions about missing information, ﬁnd-

ing a piece of information from another text. Thus,

only 9.8% of respondents are able to use special

search engine settings (operators) to ﬁnd speciﬁc in-

formation; make payments using electronic payment

systems and Internet banking, use cloud technolo-

gies to store and work with own content (for exam-

ple, Google Docs, Etherpad, Microsoft Ofﬁce Live),

Responsibility and Digital Competence of Future Socionomic Professionals: Relationship and Features of Development

check the reliability of software sources, etc. 52.6%

of respondents are able to browse the network in

order to search people with whom they would like

to communicate, ﬁnd inaccurate information, mark

(“Check”) in those places where they have been (e.g.,

in a social network or through special services), etc.

Moreover, 37.6% of respondents can only post their

photos, posts, statuses on social networks and special

services (Twitter, Tumbrl, Instagram), ﬁnd the most

proﬁtable offers of goods and services on the Internet,

interact with members of various Internet communi-

ties (via Twitter, forum, wiki, etc.), create and post

videos on a special service (e.g. YouTube), etc.

Regarding the second question of the question-

naire “Give your name to the text”, 52.7% of respon-

dents formulated the title of the text according to its

content and gave the following answers: information

inequality in the world, opportunities for social net-

works to study and work, setting up antivirus pro-

grams, cookies ﬁles, to protect personal information.

There was not found the respondents who would hes-

itate to answer. However, 47.3% of respondents could

not create and post videos on a special service (e.g.,

YouTube), create multiple user accounts for a particu-

lar computer, change their passwords, settings for ac-

cessing their information on social networks for dif-

ferent user groups etc.

47.3% of respondents coped with the task and

in accordance with the content of the text formu-

lated queries on the third question “Please formulate

a query for the search engine for the missing, in your

opinion, information in the text”, for example the fol-

lowing: methods of combating information inequal-

ity, with information crime in Ukraine, information

terrorism in the world, problems of access to infor-

mation in Ukraine, digital gap and measures to elim-

inate it. From the given answers to this question of

the questionnaire it should be noted that future spe-

cialists of socionomic professions are interested only

in the question concerning information processes in

the world, and Ukraine respectively. 11.6% of the

respondents hesitated with the answer. At the same

time, 41.1% of respondents formulated queries that

do not relate to the content of the text. Accordingly,

it can be assumed that the respondents either did not

understand the instructions or did not understand the

content of the proposed text, for instance: earnings

on the Internet, globalization (not understanding the

term – author’s note) in Ukraine, whether these prob-

lems can be solved (what problems – author’s note)

and in what ways.

To the fourth question “Did you notice informa-

tion that is not related to the topic of the text? If so, in-

dicate the number of the sentence or paragraph”, only

26.1% of respondents were able to ﬁnd and indicate

this fragment, 8.2% found it difﬁcult to answer. At the

same time, 65.7% of respondents could not ﬁnd and

accordingly indicated that they did not have such in-

formation, or pointed to an incorrect fragment of the

text.

According to the generalization of the obtained

results, the levels of development of the operational

component of digital competence are determined (ta-

ble 4).

Table 4: Distribution of researched future specialists of so-

cionomic professions by levels of development of opera-

tional component of digital competence.

Levels of operating room

development component of

digital competence

Number of

respondents, in%

Low 37.6

Average 52.6

High 9.8

As it follows from the data given in table 4, a small

number of respondents have (9.8%) a high level of

development of the operational component of digital

competence

Hence, 52.6% and 37.6% of the respondents char-

acterise, respectively, the average and low levels of

development of the operational component of digital

competence of future specialists in socionomic pro-

fessions.

Thus, we can conclude that future specialists of

socionomic professions are insufﬁciently prepared to

develop “normal” information literacy and skills of

semantic analysis of information as the basis of their

digital competence in professional activities and re-

sponsibility for its use and dissemination, which in

our opinion may be explained by gaps in the modern

education system.

6 RESPONSIBILITY

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AS

A COMPONENT OF DIGITAL

COMPETENCE OF FUTURE

SPECIALISTS OF

SOCIONOMIC PROFESSIONS

AND RESULTS OF ITS

APPROBATION

In our opinion, the development of digital competence

and responsibility for the use of information dissem-

ination in professional activities may be facilitated

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

by the creation of an educational environment taking

into account this need in the modern education sys-

tem, alongside the organization of specially organized

training. The patterns and mechanisms of develop-

ment of information competence and responsibility

should be taken into account, deﬁning the principles,

content, methods and forms, as well as the expected

result. In addition, the development of information

competence requires the creation of special psycho-

logical conditions as a mechanism that takes into ac-

count and implements favourable psychological fac-

tors (ﬁgure 1).

Favourable psychological conditions for the de-

velopment of responsibility and digital competence of

future specialists in socionomic professions include:

• organization of special socio-psychological train-

ing with emotional comfort and creative freedom,

which will expand awareness of the essence of

the responsibility and digital competence, ways of

their development and role in future professional

activities;

• orientation of future specialists on the value at-

titude to digital competence and its development,

alongside the responsibility for its use and dissem-

ination;

• formation of beliefs about one’s value, ability to

use information resources responsibly;

• the desire for personal self-development, self-

regulation of emotional state, reﬂexive and prog-

nostic abilities;

• formation of motivation for search activities, fo-

cus on success in educational and professional ac-

tivities;

• development of the ability to be reﬂective on the

way to achieving information competence, under-

standing the possibilities and conditions of its de-

velopment in today’s challenging conditions;

• development of abilities to use information re-

sources in educational and professional activities,

be successful and independent in solving complex

professional problems in the future professional

activity area, purposeful and able to responsibly

manage the information environment;

• the need for constant personal and professional

growth, expanding the information, business and

psychological ﬁeld, enabling the emergence and

development of complex subjective relationships,

exchange of experience, knowledge, skills and

abilities based on moral values of society and per-

sonality of the future specialist, according to his

focus on self-realization (Onoprienko-Kapustina,

2021, p. 124);

• introduction of innovative forms and methods in

the process of professional training of future spe-

cialists, modelling future professional activities in

higher education, quality and effective coopera-

tion with practice bases to reach the top of pro-

fessional maturity as the main condition for self-

realization, as an opportunity to realize their so-

cial potential (Sotska, 2017, p. 388).

The creation of such conditions in higher educa-

tion institutions is carried out by implementing the

process of training a psychological program for the

development of responsibility and digital competence

of future specialists in socionomic professions, built

on the following basic principles:

• “taking into account the needs of the individual

in self-organization, self-determination and self-

development; recognition of the priority of indi-

viduality and self-worth of the individual” (Zeer,

2005, p. 269);

• reﬂexivity (self-analysis of their behaviour and

activities, as well as the behaviour of other partic-

ipants in the program, providing mandatory feed-

back during the completion of all stages of train-

ing and practical classes);

• purposefulness (observance of the purpose,

awareness and perception by future specialists of

the development of their information competence

in the process of professional training);

• adherence to uniform ethical principles in the use

of information resources (Dustin, 2007) because

every person has the right to freedom, happi-

ness, development and expression of all abilities,

and good is a criterion for assessing social phe-

nomena, equality, justice, humanity as a desirable

norm in society;

• efﬁciency, predictability and control (Lyons and

Lovelock, 2004, p. 37-54);

• creativity and creative position (openness to new

experiences, generating innovative ideas, mod-

elling, designing ways to develop information

competence, responsibly using the features of in-

terpersonal interaction, which approves and sup-

ports any initiative, expression of any position

(Balakhtar et al., 2022), experimenting with per-

sonal resources, ﬁnding non-standard solutions;

• the principle of partnership (creating an atmo-

sphere of security, trust, openness, which allows

future professionals to experiment with their be-

haviour without being ashamed of mistakes);

• activity and autonomy (aimed at achieving suc-

cess in educational and professional activities,

self-realization and self-realization, developing

Responsibility and Digital Competence of Future Socionomic Professionals: Relationship and Features of Development

Figure 1: The program of development of responsibility as an indicator of digital competence of future specialists of socio-

nomic professions.

the ability to autonomy by performing specially

designed exercises, playing situations that allow

all members of the group to actively participate in

them);

• the principle of uncertainty (set in the instructions,

where in most cases there are no clear rules for

the task, future professionals are free to ﬁnd solu-

tions);

• the principle of spontaneity (spontaneity makes it

possible to change the usual behavioural stereo-

types with further activation of the individual cre-

ative potential).

Among the forms and methods of development of

responsibility and digital competence of future spe-

cialists of socionomic professions, it is worth not-

ing: express survey using the Mentimeter program,

brainstorming (expert evaluation based on the results

of project defence); individual and group exercises;

modelling; practicum; training, creative tasks; ques-

tionnaires; method of active learning “Alphabet”, or-

ganizational and activity game, situation analysis, re-

ﬂection etc.

Forms of development of responsibility and digital

competence of future specialists of socionomic pro-

fessions: individual (questionnaires, creative tasks,

design etc.) and group (interactive mini-lectures, dis-

cussions, modelling, discussions, games, analysis of

professional situations etc.) as in general halls on the

ZOOM platform and in session halls, as well as work

on the online board (Google Jamboard, Padlet etc.).

Methods and forms of work were selected in such

a way as to ensure the development of responsibil-

ity and digital competence of future specialists in so-

cionomic professions based on their individual qual-

ities and abilities. They will develop mental strate-

gies, search activities and motivation to carry out in-

formation retrieval activities as close as possible to

the professional, alongside providing an opportunity

to develop practical knowledge, skills and abilities to

work with information in conditions of uncertainty.

This approach, in our opinion, will help ensure

the development of digital competence of future so-

cionomic professionals and responsibility for the use

and dissemination of information in professional ac-

tivities due to the implementation of certain psy-

chological conditions, principles, forms and methods

and prove its effectiveness by predetermined criteria.

The speciﬁcs of this work combined theoretical and

practical-reﬂective components that allowed gaining

new knowledge, master new tools and the experience

their use in future practice. In particular, informing

future specialists about the work procedures was car-

ried out at the ZOOM conference, alongside – being

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

acquainted with the instructions for the use of digital

services and ways to connect them.

The study of participants’ expectations was car-

ried out using an online board (Google Jamboard,

Dashboard etc.), followed by a group discussion in

ZOOM). Participants answer the following questions:

“Why do I strive to develop information compe-

tence?”; “What is the importance for me of informa-

tion for professional activities and personal life, in

general, and the possibility of negative consequences

during the process of ﬁnding and using information?”

Deﬁning the rules of group work “Brainstorming”

(group form of developing rules for the process of

ﬁnding information as an opportunity to achieve a cer-

tain level of professional and personal development).

Multimedia presentation: “What will our training be

like? (deﬁnition of the purpose and tasks of train-

ing)”.

Team building (5-7 people): grouping; announce-

ment of tasks for presentation; immersing participants

in the problem (micro discussion on the development

of the ability to predict the consequences of the use

of information, along with the willingness to take re-

sponsibility for it). Presentation of teamwork.

The theoretical aspect was an interactive lecture:

“The essence of information and features of work-

ing with it: thinking and its styles, behavioural strate-

gies, professional responsibility etc.”, which allowed

participants to be more active (argue on problematic

issues, give interesting examples, draw conclusions

etc.). For example, instructing and activating the

knowledge of the group - participants were asked to

express in one word “What does it mean to be respon-

sible?” Clear instructions were provided to demon-

strate the Mentimeter screen. The discussion took

place after the exercise.

The practical-reﬂexive component included a

workshop, training, the elements of which were:

mini-presentations, diagnostic, analytical and psych-

ogymnastic exercises, discussion, brainstorming (ex-

ercise “16 associations”), role play, project tasks,

modelling, modelling, creative homework (“My re-

sponsibility: past, present and future”, “What are the

typical mistakes, problems that arise in the process of

ﬁnding and using the information in professional ac-

tivities?”), the method of active learning “Alphabet”,

organizational and activity game, situation analysis,

reﬂection and others. The work was carried out in

groups in the session halls on the ZOOM platform us-

ing an online board (Google Jamboard, Miro etc.). In

particular, the diagnosis of responsibility, the search

for opportunities and conditions for its development.

To do this, future specialists were informed about the

tasks and conditions of the activity: 1) to identify

the main contradictions and problems in the develop-

ment of responsibility; 2) to analyze the possibilities

of developing responsibility; 3) to determine the con-

ditions for the development of responsibility. After

the announcement of the tasks, the participants were

divided into groups and the work was carried out in

the session halls. The speakers of the teams presented

the results of the work in the main hall (2 minutes for

each team. Brainstorming in groups in session halls

on the ZOOM platform using an online board (Google

Jamboard, Miro etc.) involved the development of a

program to empower and develop responsibilities as

part of information competence.

Creative homework, such as “My responsibility:

past, present and future”, included an analysis of their

life situations. Drawing up a summary table of fac-

tors which are conducive to the development of com-

pliance and the following scheme: which you used in

the past, use today and factors that could be used in

the future.

In the process of program implementation, we

paid considerable attention to future specialists’ re-

ﬂections on their actions, statements, actions, opin-

ions, solving practical problems, analysis of the situ-

ations of educational and professional activities of fu-

ture specialists in socionomic professions that require

responsibility. After all, it is impossible to achieve

success in professional activities without reﬂexivity

as the most important regulatory component of per-

sonality, which allows him/her to consciously build

his/her life. This encouraged us to use reﬂection,

completing each exercise, action, session and train-

ing, in general.

Analysis of the results of the approbation of the

program showed its effectiveness (table 5). In the ex-

perimental group, the implementation of the program

of development of responsibility of future specialists

was carried out following psychological conditions,

principles, methods and forms of work that provided

holistic and systematic work aimed at developing re-

sponsibility as part of information competence of the

experimental group members.

In the control group, classes were conducted

traditionally, according to the requirements of the

educational-professional program and the curriculum

of professional training of future specialists, with only

two sections before and after the approbation of the

program.

In both the experimental and control groups, sec-

tions were performed according to the same methods

as at the ascertaining stage of the empirical study. Sta-

tistical processing of the results of approbation of the

program “Development of responsibility as a com-

ponent of digital competence of future professionals

Responsibility and Digital Competence of Future Socionomic Professionals: Relationship and Features of Development

Table 5: Distribution of respondents of experimental and control groups on the levels of responsibility development before

and after the approbation of the program.

Levels of

responsibility

development

Groups, the number of respondents in %

Before the approbation (I stage) After the approbation (II stage)

Control group Experimental group Control group Experimental group

low 38.5 42.9 38.5 7.7*

average 53.8 53.6 50.0 65.4*

high 7.7 3.5 11.5 26.9*

*– differences are statistically signiﬁcant at the level p < 0.05

of socionomic professions” was carried out using the

SPSS version 23.0. Criterion χ

was used to com-

pare the results between the experimental and control

groups and the G-criterion of signs to assess the sta-

tistical signiﬁcance of differences in the results sepa-

rately in the experimental and control groups.

Table5 shows that before the approbation (I stage)

there were no signiﬁcant differences between the ex-

perimental and control groups in the levels of respon-

sibility development. After the approbation (second

stage) in the experimental group, in contrast to the

control. The expressed positive dynamics of levels

of development of responsibility are ﬁxed. Thus, the

number of studied future specialists with a low level

of responsibility decreased from 42.9% to 7.7%, and

with a high level, on the contrary, increased from

3.5% to 26.9%.

It is equally important that positive trends in the

development of the cognitive component of digital

competence were identiﬁed. In particular, the posi-

tive, statistically signiﬁcant dynamics of the levels of

the cognitive component of digital competence of the

participants of the experimental group after the appro-

bation were noted (table 6).

Table 6 dwells on the statistically signiﬁcant dif-

ferences in the levels of the cognitive component be-

tween the results of the ﬁrst and second stages in the

experimental group participants.

In particular, it is an increase in the number of re-

spondents with a high level of development of this

component from 17.8% to 50.0%, and a decrease with

a low level from 28.6% to 3.6% (p <0.05). Instead, in

the control group according to the results of the ﬁrst

and second sections, small differences were found,

which, in general, do not affect the levels of the cog-

nitive component of the digital competence of the

experimental group participants. Thus, the number

of studied future specialists with a low level of self-

efﬁcacy decreased from 23.1% to 19.20%, and with a

high level, on the contrary, increased from 19.2% to

26.9%. At the same time, the identiﬁed differences

are not statically signiﬁcant.

Such a positive dynamics of the levels of the cog-

nitive component was due to the growth of awareness

of the essence of the component of digital compe-

tence, knowledge of late mobile applications and the

possibilities of their use in socionomic professions,

increasing opportunities to use the Internet.

There was also an increase in the number of par-

ticipants in the experimental group with a high level

of the operational component of digital competence

(table 7).

Table 7 shows among the participants of the ex-

perimental group between the results of the ﬁrst and

second sections recorded statistically signiﬁcant dif-

ferences in the levels of the operational component of

digital competence: a reduction of low from 50.0%

to 15.4%, while an increasing high development from

7.7% to 23.1% (p <0.05).

In the control group, the results of the ﬁrst and

second sections showed minor differences: the num-

ber of low-level specialists decreased from 48.0% to

40.0% (although the differences are not statically sig-

niﬁcant) and generally do not affect the levels of op-

erational competence of digital competence.

Thus, the comparative analysis of the results of ap-

probation of the program allowed making conclusions

about positive changes in the growth of information

literacy and skills of semantic analysis of information

as the basis of their digital competence in professional

activities and responsibility for its use and dissemina-

tion.

7 CONCLUSIONS

Responsibility is an important indicator of the digital

competence of future specialists in socionomic pro-

fessions, which determines their conscious and re-

sponsible activities in the context of obtaining and

disseminating information in the digital space, con-

tributes to their own psychological safety and psycho-

logical safety of other members of digital community.

The results of the empirical study revealed an in-

sufﬁcient level of both responsibility and cognitive-

operational components of digital competence for a

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

Table 6: Distribution of respondents of experimental and control groups by levels of the cognitive component of digital

competence before and after the approbation of the program.

Levels of the

cognitive component

of digital competence

Groups, the number of respondents in %

Before the approbation (I stage) After the approbation (II stage)

Control group Experimental group Control group Experimental group

low 23.1 28.6 19.2 3.6*

awerage 57.7 53.6 53.8 46.4*

high 19.2 17.8 26.9 50.0*

*– differences are statistically signiﬁcant at the level p < 0.05

Table 7: Distribution of experimental and control groups by levels of operational component of digital competence before and

after the approbation of the program.

Levels of the

operational component

of digital competence

Groups, the number of respondents in %

Before the approbation (I stage) After the approbation (II stage)

Control group Experimental group Control group Experimental group

low 48.0 50.0 40.0 15.4*

awerage 48.0 42.3 56.0 61.5*

high 4.0 7.7 4.0 23.1*

*– differences are statistically signiﬁcant at the level p < 0.05

signiﬁcant number of future specialists in socionomic

professions.

Furthermore, statistically signiﬁcant differences

in the manifestations of responsibility of future spe-

cialists depending on gender were found: female re-

spondents were slightly more responsible for the con-

sequences of information dissemination than male

(p < 0.05). Such differences appear to be gender in

nature, as women live in a more controlled and rigidly

structured world than men. Therefore, women are

more focused on complying with regulations on their

activities, in this case, educational and professional.

There were no statistically signiﬁcant differences

in both responsibility and digital competence, de-

pending on the profession of the representative of the

socionomic profession.

Men are more likely to be characterised with con-

cepts of independence and initiative, and reinforced

with the norms of “anti-emotionality” (Burn, 1995)

which determines their greater autonomy and self-

control.

The expediency of promoting the development of

responsibility of future specialists of socionomic pro-

fessions as a component of their digital competence,

which can be provided in specially organized psycho-

logical training, is stated.

The program of responsibility development as

an indicator of digital competence of future special-

ists of socionomic professions, which includes psy-

chological conditions (organization of special socio-

psychological training; values of IC and its develop-

ment; formation of beliefs about self-worth, respon-

sible use of information resources; desire for self-

development, reﬂective and prognostic abilities; gain-

ing motivation for search activities, etc.), principles

(taking into account the needs of the individual; re-

ﬂexivity; purposefulness; adherence to uniform ethi-

cal principles in the use of information resources; ef-

ﬁciency, predictability and control; creativity and cre-

ative position; principle of partnership; principle un-

certainties, etc.), methods (express survey using the

Mentimeter program, brainstorming (expert evalua-

tion of project defence results); modelling; workshop;

training, creative tasks; questionnaires; method ac-

tive learning “Alphabet”, organizational and activity

game, situation analysis, reﬂection, etc.) and forms

(individual forms (questionnaires, creative tasks, de-

sign, etc.) and group (interactive mini-lectures, dis-

cussions, modelling, workshops, trainings, discus-

sions, game, analysis of professional situations, etc.)

work.

The results of approbation of the program testify

to its effectiveness: after the conduction of the for-

mative experiment, the participants of the experimen-

tal group, in contrast to the control, recorded statis-

tically signiﬁcant positive dynamics of responsibil-

ity as an indicator of digital competence. Accord-

ingly, it is possible to use the responsibility develop-

ment program as an indicator of digital competence in

the process of their professional training and refresher

courses.

The study does not cover all aspects of the re-

lationship between responsibility and digital compe-

tence of future specialists in socionomic professions

and the peculiarities of their development. In our

opinion, an in-depth study of the factors of develop-

Responsibility and Digital Competence of Future Socionomic Professionals: Relationship and Features of Development

ment of specialists’ responsibility, as well as study of

the psychological readiness of teachers of higher edu-

cation institutions to responsibility and digital compe-

tence of future specialists of socionomic professions

in the process of training in the mental network, work

in virtual environment and practical psychologists ed-

ucation – to the psychological support of such train-

ing.

REFERENCES

(1992). Law of Ukraine “On Information”.

(2003). Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. INFRA-M.

(2016). Project “Digital Agenda of Ukraine” – 2020. Con-

ceptual Background (version 1.0). https://ucci.org.ua/

uploads/ﬁles/58e78ee3c3922.pdf.

(2021). Description of the framework of digital competence

for citizens of Ukraine. DigCompUA for Citizens 2.1.

https://tinyurl.com/yc5e7pzp.

(2022). Responsibility.

Agazzi, E. (2009). Why has science also moral dimensions?

Questions of philosophy, (10):93–104. http://vphil.ru/

index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=73.

Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., and Gana-

pathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate

social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social

change in organizations. Academy of Management

Review, 32(3):836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.

2007.25275678.

Aguinis, H. and Glavas, A. (2012). What We Know

and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsi-

bility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal

of Management, 38(4):932–968. https://doi.org/10.

1177/0149206311436079.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). To the philosophy of action. In

Philosophy and sociology of science and technology.

Yearbook 1984-1985, pages 80–160.

Balakhtar, K. S., Bondarchuk, O. I., and Ostapov, S. E.

(2022). Creativity of Foreign Languages Teachers in

Ukrainian Higher Education Institutions: Empirical

Data. In Semerikov, S., Osadchyi, V., and Kuzmin-

ska, O., editors, Proceedings of the 1st Symposium

on Advances in Educational Technology - Volume 1:

AET, pages 81–96. SciTePress. https://doi.org/10.

5220/0010920500003364.

Balakhtar, V. V. (2018). Inﬂuence of information and com-

munication technologies for forming professional per-

sonal competence of social work specialist. Informa-

tion Technologies and Learning Tools, 66(4):93–104.

https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v66i4.2066.

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

Skaskiv, A. (2019). Design of Approaches to the De-

velopment of Teacher’s Digital Competencies in the

Process of Their Lifelong Learning. In Ermolayev,

V., Mallet, F., Yakovyna, V., Kharchenko, V. S., Ko-

bets, V., Kornilowicz, A., Kravtsov, H., Nikitchenko,

M. S., Semerikov, S., and Spivakovsky, A., editors,

Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on

ICT in Education, Research and Industrial Appli-

cations. Integration, Harmonization and Knowledge

Transfer. Volume II: Workshops, Kherson, Ukraine,

June 12-15, 2019, volume 2393 of CEUR Workshop

Proceedings, pages 204–219. CEUR-WS.org. http:

//ceur-ws.org/Vol-2393/paper 237.pdf.

Bampton, R. and Maclagan, P. (2005). Why teach ethics

to accounting students? A response to the sceptics.

Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(3):290–300.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2005.00410.x.

Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and Concepts of Digital Lit-

eracy. In Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M., editors,

Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices,

number 2008, pages 17–32. Peter Lang Publishing.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291334632.

Bezrukova, O. A. (2015). Social responsibility in mod-

ern Ukrainian society: sociological conceptualization

and experience of empirical research. Classic private

university, Zaporizhyia.

Bezverbnyi, I. A. and Shyshkina, M. P. (2022). The Use of

Serverless Technologies to Support Data Processing

within the Open Learning and Research Systems. In

Semerikov, S., Osadchyi, V., and Kuzminska, O., ed-

itors, Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Advances

in Educational Technology - Volume 2: AET, pages

489–494. INSTICC, SciTePress. https://doi.org/10.

5220/0010933200003364.

Bondarchuk, O., Balakhtar, V., Gorova, O., Lytvynenko,

N., Pinchuk, N., Shmanko, O., Kiv, A., and Oleksiuk,

V. (2022a). Features of responsibility of future spe-

cialists of the socionomic professions as an indicator

of their digital competence. Educational Technology

Quarterly, 2022(1):35–55. https://doi.org/10.55056/

etq.12.

Bondarchuk, O. I., Balakhtar, V. V., Ushenko, Y. O.,

Gorova, O. O., Osovska, I. M., Pinchuk, N. I.,

Yakubovska, N. O., Balakhtar, K. S., and Moskalov,

M. V. (2022b). The Psychological Safety of the Ed-

ucational Environment of Ukrainian Higher Educa-

tion Institutions in a Pandemic: Empirical Data of

a Comparative Analysis of Participants’ Assessments

Studying Online. In Semerikov, S., Osadchyi, V.,

and Kuzminska, O., editors, Proceedings of the 1st

Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

- Volume 1: AET, pages 14–31. SciTePress. https:

//doi.org/10.5220/0010920100003364.

Burn, S. M. (1995). The Social Psychology of

Gender. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sci-

ences/Languages.

Burov, O., Bykov, V., and Lytvynova, S. (2020). ICT Evolu-

tion: from Single Computational Tasks to Modeling of

Life. In Sokolov, O., Zholtkevych, G., Yakovyna, V.,

Tarasich, Y., Kharchenko, V., Kobets, V., Burov, O.,

Semerikov, S., and Kravtsov, H., editors, Proceedings

of the 16th International Conference on ICT in Ed-

ucation, Research and Industrial Applications. Inte-

gration, Harmonization and Knowledge Transfer. Vol-

ume II: Workshops, Kharkiv, Ukraine, October 06-10,

2020, volume 2732 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings,

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

pages 583–590. CEUR-WS.org. http://ceur-ws.org/

Vol-2732/20200583.pdf.

Chapman, B. (1999). Digital Literacy: By Paul Gilster.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997. 276 p. $22.95

($12.95, paper). ISBN 0-471-16520-4. Government

Information Quarterly, 16(1):77–78. https://doi.org/

10.1016/S0740-624X(99)80019-7.

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., and Leu, D. J., edi-

tors (2008). Handbook of Research on New Literacies.

Routledge.

Dustin, D. (2007). The McDonaldization of Social Work.

Routledge.

Eshet, Y. (2004). Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Frame-

work for Survival Skills in the Digital era. Journal of

Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1):93–

106. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/4793.

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An

analysis of frameworks. Technical Report JRC68116,

Joint Research Centre of the European Commission,

Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2791/82116.

Ferrari, A., Punie, Y., and Redecker, C. (2012). Under-

standing Digital Competence in the 21st Century: An

Analysis of Current Frameworks. In Ravenscroft, A.,

Lindstaedt, S., Kloos, C. D., and Hern

andez-Leo, D.,

editors, 21st Century Learning for 21st Century Skills,

volume 7563 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,

pages 79–92, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Hei-

delberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33263-0

Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and

Organizational Psychology: An Integrative Review.

Frontiers in Psychology, 7:144. https://doi.org/10.

3389/fpsyg.2016.00144.

Hatlevik, O. E., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., and Rohatgi, A.

(2021). Digital Downsides in Teacher Education.

Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Ed-

ucation (NJCIE), 5(4):123–139. https://doi.org/10.

7577/njcie.4227.

Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J., Hadani, H. S., Golinkoff,

R. M., Clark, K., Donohue, C., and Wartella,

E. (2022). A whole new world: Education

meets the metaverse. Policy brief, Center

for Universal Education at The Brookings In-

stitution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/

a-whole-new-world-education-meets-the-metaverse/.

Hlushak, O. M., Semenyaka, S. O., Proshkin, V. V., Sapozh-

nykov, S. V., and Lytvyn, O. S. (2020). The usage

of digital technologies in the university training of

future bachelors (having been based on the data of

mathematical subjects). CTE Workshop Proceedings,

7:210–224. https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.354.

Kartashova, L. A., Bakhmat, N. V., and Plish, I. V. (2018).

Development of teacher’s digital competency in terms

of information and educational environment of a sec-

ondary education establishment. Information Tech-

nologies and Learning Tools, 68(6):193–205. https:

//doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v68i6.2543.

Kiv, A. E., Shyshkina, M. P., Semerikov, S. O., Striuk,

A. M., and Yechkalo, Y. V. (2019). Aredu 2019 - how

augmented reality transforms to augmented learning.

In Kiv, A. E. and Shyshkina, M. P., editors, Proceed-

ings of the 2nd International Workshop on Augmented

Reality in Education, Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine, March

22, 2019, volume 2547 of CEUR Workshop Proceed-

ings, pages 1–12. CEUR-WS.org. https://ceur-ws.org/

Vol-2547/paper00.pdf.

Klochko, O. V. and Fedorets, V. M. (2022). Using immer-

sive reality technologies to increase a physical educa-

tion teacher’s health-preserving competency. Educa-

tional Technology Quarterly, 2022(4):276–306. https:

//doi.org/10.55056/etq.431.

Kosulya, I. Y. (2010). “Social responsibility”: approaches

to the deﬁnition and analysis of the concept. So-

ciospace: an interdisciplinary collection of scientiﬁc

papers on sociology and social work, (1):185–188.

Lazorenko, O. and Kolyshko, R. (2008). CSR Guidance.

Basic Information on Corporate Social Responsibil-

ity. Energija, Kyiv.

Lyons, K. and Lovelock, R. (2004). The McDonaldization

of Social Work - or ’Come Back Florence Hollis, All

Is (or Should Be) Forgiven’. In Lyons, K. and Love-

lock, R., editors, Reﬂecting on Social Work - Disci-

pline and Profession, pages 37–54. Routledge, Lon-

don.

Martin, A. and Grudziecki, J. (2006). DigEuLit: Concepts

and Tools for Digital Literacy Development. Inno-

vation in Teaching and Learning in Information and

Computer Sciences, 5(4):249–267. https://doi.org/10.

11120/ital.2006.05040249.

Meshko, H., Meshko, O., Drobyk, N., and Mikheienko,

O. (2020). Psycho-pedagogical training as a mean

of forming the occupational stress resistance of fu-

ture teachers. E3S Web of Conferences, 166:10023.

https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202016610023.

Meshko, H. M., Habrusieva, N. V., and Kryskov, A. A.

(2021). Research of professional responsibility of

students of technical specialities by means of infor-

mation and communication technologies. Journal of

Physics: Conference Series, 1840(1):012058. https:

//doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1840/1/012058.

Mintii, I. S., Vakaliuk, T. A., Ivanova, S. M., Chernysh,

O. A., Hryshchenko, S. M., and Semerikov, S. O.

(2021). Current state and prospects of distance learn-

ing development in ukraine. In Lytvynova, S. H. and

Semerikov, S. O., editors, Proceedings of the 4th In-

ternational Workshop on Augmented Reality in Ed-

ucation (AREdu 2021), Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine, May

11, 2021, volume 2898 of CEUR Workshop Proceed-

ings, pages 41–55. CEUR-WS.org. https://ceur-ws.

org/Vol-2898/paper01.pdf.

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

(2004). Curriculum, Assessment and ICT

in the Irish Context: A Discussion Paper.

https://ncca.ie/media/1787/curriculum assessment

and ict in the irish context a discussion paper.pdf.

Nazarenko, K. S. (2016). Conceptualization of the concept

of “social responsibility”. Bulletin of NTUU “KPI”.

Politology. Sociology. Law: a collection of scientiﬁc

papers, 1/2 (29/30):70–75.

Nazarov, V. N. (2005). Applied ethics. Gardariki.

Responsibility and Digital Competence of Future Socionomic Professionals: Relationship and Features of Development

Nelson, J. K., Poms, L. W., and Wolf, P. P. (2012). De-

veloping Efﬁcacy Beliefs for Ethics and Diversity

Management. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 11(1):49–68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/

23100456.

Nosenko, Y. and Sukhikh, A. (2019). The Method for Form-

ing the Health-Saving Component of Basic School

Students’ Digital Competence. In Ermolayev, V., Mal-

let, F., Yakovyna, V., Kharchenko, V. S., Kobets, V.,

Kornilowicz, A., Kravtsov, H., Nikitchenko, M. S.,

Semerikov, S., and Spivakovsky, A., editors, Pro-

ceedings of the 15th International Conference on ICT

in Education, Research and Industrial Applications.

Integration, Harmonization and Knowledge Transfer.

Volume II: Workshops, Kherson, Ukraine, June 12-15,

2019, volume 2393 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings,

pages 178–190. CEUR-WS.org. https://ceur-ws.org/

Vol-2393/paper 248.pdf.

Oleksiuk, V. and Spirin, O. (2022). The Experience of

Using Cloud Labs in Teaching Linux Operating Sys-

tem. In Ignatenko, O., Kharchenko, V., Kobets,

V., Kravtsov, H., Tarasich, Y., Ermolayev, V., Es-

teban, D., Yakovyna, V., and Spivakovsky, A., edi-

tors, ICTERI 2021 Workshops, pages 281–291, Cham.

Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.

1007/978-3-031-14841-5 18.

Onoprienko-Kapustina, N. V. (2021). Psykholohichni

osoblyvosti rozvytku samoefektyvnosti maybutnikh

fakhivtsiv sotsial’nykh sluzhb u protsesi profesiynoyi

pidhotovky. PhD thesis, Ivan Zyazyun Institute of

Pedagogical and Adult Education of the National

Academy of Educational Sciences of Ukraine. https:

//nrat.ukrintei.ua/searchdoc/0421U102031.

Osadchyi, V., Varina, H., Prokoﬁev, E., Serdiuk, I., and

Shevchenko, S. (2020). Use of AR/VR Technolo-

gies in the Development of Future Specialists’ Stress

Resistance: Experience of STEAM-Laboratory and

Laboratory of Psychophysiological Research Cooper-

ation. In Sokolov, O., Zholtkevych, G., Yakovyna, V.,

Tarasich, Y., Kharchenko, V., Kobets, V., Burov, O.,

Semerikov, S., and Kravtsov, H., editors, Proceedings

of the 16th International Conference on ICT in Ed-

ucation, Research and Industrial Applications. Inte-

gration, Harmonization and Knowledge Transfer. Vol-

ume II: Workshops, Kharkiv, Ukraine, October 06-10,

2020, volume 2732 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings,

pages 634–649. CEUR-WS.org. https://ceur-ws.org/

Vol-2732/20200634.pdf.

Papakitsa, E. K. (2013). The responsibility as an indi-

cator of information readiness of future engineers to

their profession. Bulletin of the Perm University,

(3(15)):133–136.

Papakitsya, O. K. (2014). Psychological features of devel-

opment of information readiness of future engineers

for professional activity. The dissertation on competi-

tion of a scientiﬁc degree of the candidate of psycho-

logical sciences 19.00.07 - pedagogical and age psy-

chology, NPU named after M. P. Drahomanov.

Postek, S., Ledzi

nska, M., and Czarkowski, J. (2010). Psy-

chological and pedagogical problems of distance ed-

ucation for adults. Problems of Education in the

21st Century, 22:99–108. http://oaji.net/articles/2014/

457-1400515828.pdf.

Pryadein, V. P. (2001). Responsibility as a systemic quality

of personality. Publishing house of UrGPU, Ekaterin-

burg.

Prykhodko, Y. O. and Yurchenko, V. I. (2020). Psykholo-

hichnyi slovnyk-dovidnyk [Psychological dictionary-

reference book]. Karavela, Kyiv, 4 edition.

Riezina, O. V., Puzikova, A. V., and Kotyak, V. V. (2022).

The experience of thesis writing in terms of the

methodological students’ digital competence devel-

opment. Educational Dimension, 7:242–260. https:

//doi.org/10.31812/educdim.4715.

Rodr

ıguez-G

omez, S., Garde-S

anchez, R., Arco-Castro,

M. L., and L

opez-P

erez, M. V. (2020). Does the use

of social media tools in classrooms increase student

commitment to corporate social responsibility? Fron-

tiers in Psychology, 11:3690. https://doi.org/10.3389/

fpsyg.2020.589250.

Rogozha, M. M. (2010). Moralnyi postupok i moralnoe

deistvie: kriterii otcenki (Moral act and moral ac-

tion: evaluation criteria). Eticheskaia mysl, (10).

https://tinyurl.com/3mu55az5.

Romanets, V. A. (2006). The act and rise of canonical psy-

chology. In Tatenko, V. O., editor, Man. Subject. Act.

Philosophical and psychological studies, pages 11–

36. Lybid, Kyiv.

Rubinshtein, S. L. (2002). Fundamentals of general psy-

chology. Piter.

Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., and Skarlicki,

D. P. (2013). Applicants’ and Employees’ Reactions

to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Moderating

Effects of First-Party Justice Perceptions and Moral

Identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4):895–933. https:

//doi.org/10.1111/peps.12030.

Semerikov, S. O., Teplytskyi, I. O., Soloviev, V. N., Hama-

niuk, V. A., Ponomareva, N. S., Kolgatin, O. H., Kol-

gatina, L. S., Byelyavtseva, T. V., Amelina, S. M., and

Tarasenko, R. O. (2021). Methodic quest: Reinventing

the system. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,

1840(1):012036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/

1840/1/012036.

Shokaliuk, S. V., Bohunenko, Y. Y., Lovianova, I. V., and

Shyshkina, M. P. (2020). Technologies of distance

learning for programming basics on the principles of

integrated development of key competences. CTE

Workshop Proceedings, 7:548–562. https://doi.org/10.

55056/cte.412.

Soldatova, G. U., Nestik, T. A., Rasskazova, E. I., and

Zotova, E. Y. (2013). Tcifrovaia kompetentnost po-

drostkov i roditelei. Rezultaty vserossiiskogo issle-

dovaniia (Digital competence of teenagers and par-

ents. Results of the all-Russian study). Internet Devel-

opment Foundation. https://ifap.ru/library/book536.

pdf.

Sotska, H. (2017). Akmeolohichnyi pidkhid u pedahohich-

nii osviti Ukrainy [Acmeological approach to teacher

education in Ukraine]. Edukacja dla przyszło

sci w

swietle wyzwa

n XXI wieku, 1:387–396. https://lib.iitta.

gov.ua/709238/.

AET 2021 - Myroslav I. Zhaldak Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology

Spirin, O. M. and Vakaliuk, T. A. (2019). Formation

of information and communication competence of

bachelors of informatics on the use of cloud-oriented

learning environment. Information Technologies and

Learning Tools, 72(4):226–245. https://doi.org/10.

33407/itlt.v72i4.3262.

Stonkut

e, E., Vveinhardt, J., and Sroka, W. (2018). Training

the csr sensitive mind-set: The integration of csr into

the training of business administration professionals.

Sustainability, 10(3):754.

Tatenko, V. O., Kirichuk, O. V., and Roments, A. V. (1999).

Action as a principle of constructing the theory and

history of psychology. In Fundamentals of psychol-

ogy, pages 169–193. Lybid, Kyiv, 4 edition.

Vakulich, T. M. (2006). Psychological factors of preven-

tion of Internet addiction of teenagers. Dissertation ...

psychol. science: 19.00.07, TsIPPO APN of Ukraine,

Kyiv.

Vinoslavskaya, O. V. (2002). In Collection of scientiﬁc

works of teachers and graduate students of the Fac-

ulty of Management and Marketing, pages 345–371.

IPC Polytechnic Publishing House, Kyiv.

Vinoslavskaya, O. V. (2005). Technology of formation

of professional ethics of managers. In Karamushka,

L. M., editor, Technologies of work of organizational

psychologists, pages 170–191. INCOS, Kyiv.

Voitovych, O. P., Horbatiuk, R. M., Voitovych, I. S.,

Shyshkina, M. P., and Shostakivska, N. M. (2022).

Formation of Information Culture of Vocational Edu-

cation Specialists. In Semerikov, S., Osadchyi, V., and

Kuzminska, O., editors, Proceedings of the 1st Sym-

posium on Advances in Educational Technology - Vol-

ume 2: AET, pages 480–488. INSTICC, SciTePress.

https://doi.org/10.5220/0010933100003364.

Yeung, K. (2019). A study of the implications of ad-

vanced digital technologies (including AI systems) for

the concept of responsibility within a human rights

framework. Technical Report DGI(2019)05. https:

//tinyurl.com/2xhayuhc.

Yevstratiev, S. (2020). Digital competences of junior

bachelors in agronomy. Educological discourse,

(3):185–205. https://doi.org/10.28925/2312-5829.

2020.3.11.

Yevtuch, M. B., Fedorets, V. M., Klochko, O. V., Shyshk-

ina, M. P., and Dobryden, A. V. (2021). Develop-

ment of the health-preserving competence of a phys-

ical education teacher on the basis of N. Bernstein’s

theory of movements construction using virtual real-

ity technologies. In Lytvynova, S. H. and Semerikov,

S. O., editors, Proceedings of the 4th International

Workshop on Augmented Reality in Education (AREdu

2021), Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine, May 11, 2021, volume

2898 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 294–

314. CEUR-WS.org. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2898/

paper16.pdf.

Zaika, O. V., Vakaliuk, T. A., Riabko, A. V., Kukharchuk,

R. P., Mintii, I. S., and Semerikov, S. O. (2021).

Selection of online tools for creating math tests.

In Lytvynova, S. H. and Semerikov, S. O., edi-

tors, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop

on Augmented Reality in Education (AREdu 2021),

Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine, May 11, 2021, volume 2898 of

CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 82–106. CEUR-

WS.org. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2898/paper04.pdf.

Zaporozhtseva, Y. S. (2019). Information and digital com-

petence as a component of the modern educational

process. Innovative Pedagogy, 1(12):79–82. https:

//doi.org/10.32843/2663-6085.2019.12-1.15.

Zeer, E. F. (2005). Kompetentnostnyi podkhod

k obrazovaniiu. Obrazovanie i nauka, (3

(33)):27–40. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/

kompetentnostnyy-podhod-k-obrazovaniyu.

Zinchenko, V. P. and Meshcheryakova, B. G., editors

(2003). Large psychological dictionary. OLMA Me-

dia Group, Moscow.

Responsibility and Digital Competence of Future Socionomic Professionals: Relationship and Features of Development