Interactivity in the language online classroom: from the index of system intelligence to the systemic changes in education

Cover Page

Cite item


Problem and goal. The article examines the changing nature and intensity of the teaching-learning interaction with the digital technologies becoming commonplace in higher education, whether in support of its traditional, blended, or fully online formats. The relevance of the study is determined by the need to identify the nature of interactivity, its types, didactic functions, methods and means of implementation in these new digitally enhanced learning spaces as one of their effectiveness parameters and indicators. Methodology. The study contextualizes its findings within the larger body of theoretical and applied research in the field of psychology, pedagogy and methodology, the formation and development of information educational media, vocational and electronic foreign language pedagogy in Russia and abroad. To verify the preliminary conclusions, the experience of designing a Moodle-based electronic training course was used. The quality of its interactive content was assessed on the basis of data from a questionnaire survey of students as a tool for their retrospective reflection upon completion of work on the thematic modules of the online course. Results. The principles, stages and technologies for designing interactive electronic educational resources have been developed and described, based on the pedagogical scenario, which forms the basis of a vocationally oriented foreign language course for master's students of a non-linguistic university. Instructional design is recognized as effective if it provides for complex types of learning and teaching interactions, the nature and intensity of which change as educational tasks become more complex, aimed at improving students' thinking skills of a higher order within the collaborative work and growing engagement into the online course. The functions of ICT as an element of an interactive educational ecosystem also vary, allowing the teacher and/or student at each stage of training to orchestrate the set of resources according to the teaching-learning goals. Conclusion. The results obtained revealed the diversity of forms and didactic functions of interactivity, stimulating the cognitive activity of students that results in the construction of new knowledge in the form of an intellectual artifact with its subsequent verification in a social context. The methodological value of the approach used in the study lies in shifting its research focus away from the comparative assessments of in-class and e-learning formats when discussing the quality teaching and learning issue towards an approach that delves more closely into choosing the appropriate methods and mechanisms for enhancing learning spaces with digital technologies and maximizing their effect.

About the authors

Larisa M. Galchuk

Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management

Author for correspondence.

candidate of philological sciences, associate professor, associate professor of the Department of Foreign Languages

56 Kamenskaya St, Novosibirsk, 630099, Russian Federation


  1. Palloff RM, Pratt K. Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2001.
  2. Raab RT, Ellis WW, Abdon BR. Multisectoral partnerships in e-learning: A potential force for improved human capital development in the Asia Pacific. The Internet and Higher Education. 2001;4(3-4):217-229.
  3. Nazarenko AL. Informacionno-kommunikacionnye tekhnologii v lingvodidaktike: distancionnoe obuchenie [Information and communication technologies in linguodidactics: distance learning ]. Moscow: Izd-vo Moskovskogo universiteta Publ.; 2013.
  4. Dawley L. The Tools for Successful Online Teaching. London: Information Science Publishing; 2007.
  5. Ko S, Rossen S. Teaching Online: A Practical Guide. New York: Routledge; 2017.
  6. Grinshkun VV. Definition of approaches to complex research of information educational environment in general, professional and additional education systems. RUDN Journal of Informatization in Education. 2019;16(1):12-21.
  7. Yang N. eLearning for Quality Teaching in Higher Education Teachers’ Perception, Practice, and Interventions. Singapore: Springer; 2020.
  8. Moore JC. The Sloan Consortium Quality Framework and the Five Pillars. Available from: (accessed: 21.08.2020).
  9. Titova SV. Cifrovye tekhnologii v yazykovom obuchenii: teoriya i praktika [Digital technologies in language training: theory and practice]. Moscow: Editus Publ.; 2017.
  10. Prepodavateli vyskazali svoe mnenie o vynuzhdennom perekhode obrazovatel'nogo processa v onlajn [Teachers expressed their opinion about the forced transition of the educational process to online]. Available from: (accessed: 21.08.2020).
  11. Distancionnoe obrazovanie [Distance education]. Available from: researches/distance_education/2020 (accessed: 21.08.2020).
  12. Blake R. Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2013.
  13. Blake R. Distance Education for Second and Foreign Language Learning. In: Thorne SL, May S. (eds.) Language, Education and Technology, Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer International Publishing AG; 2017. p. 157-168.
  14. Nazarenko AL. Informatizaciya obrazovaniya: sintez tradicionnogo i elektronnogo obucheniya (opyt sozdaniya novoj modeli lekcionnogo kursa) [Informatization of education: synthesis of traditional and e-learning (experience of creating a new model of a lecture course)]. Otkrytoe obrazovanie [Open education]. 2015;2(109):70-74.
  15. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. NY.: Longman; 2000.
  16. Gavronskaya YuYu. “Interaktivnost'” i “Interaktivnoe obuchenie” [“Interactivity” and “Interactive learning”]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher education in Russia]. 2008;(7):101-104.
  17. Nozdryakova EV. Interaktivnoe obuchenie - real'nost' ili vymysel sovremennogo obrazovaniya? [Interactive learning-reality or fiction of modern education?]. Interaktivnoe obrazovanie [Interactive education]. 2017;(1):5-10.
  18. Technology to Scaffold Learning. Computers & Education. 2008;50:449-462.
  19. Pelz B. (My) Three Principles of Effective Online Pedagogy. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. 2004;8(3):33-46. Available from: distancefaculty/pdfs/Online-Pedagogy-Pelz.pdf (accessed: 21.08.2020).
  20. Tight М. Key Concepts in Adult Education and Training. London, New York: Routledge; 2006.
  21. Beauchamp G, Kennewell S. The influence of ICT on the interactivity of teaching. Education and Information Technologies. 2008;13(4):305-315.
  22. Jonassen DH. Instructional design for microcomputer software. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1988.
  23. Oliver R. Interactive Information Systems: Information Access and Retrieval. The Electronic Library. 1995;13(3):187-194.
  24. Oliver R. Interactions in multimedia learning materials: the things that matter. In: McBeath C, Atkinson R. (eds.) The Learning Superhighway: New world? New worries?: Proceedings of the Third International Interactive Multimedia Symposium (Perth, Western Australia, January 21-25, 1996) (p. 303-308). Available from: (accessed: 21.08.2020).
  25. Stack S. Learning Outcomes in an online vs traditional course. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2015;9(1):Article 5. Available from: (accessed: 21.08.2020).
  26. Melnichuk MV. Samoaktualizaciya v processe obucheniya inostrannomu yazyku v nelingvisticheskom vuze [Self-actualization in the process of teaching a foreign language in a non-linguistic university]. Pedagogicheskij zhurnal [Pedagogical journal]. 2016;6(5A):151-160.
  27. Thorne SL, May S. Language, Education and Technology, Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer International Publishing AG; 2017.
  28. Conrad R, Donaldson J. Engaging the online learner: Activities and resources for creative instruction. John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
  29. Allen IE, Seaman J, Garrett R. Blending in: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States. USA: Sloan Consortium; 2007.

Copyright (c) 2020 Galchuk L.M.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies