The relationship of students’ psychological security level in the digital educational environment

Aleksandra Kobicheva

Peter the Great Saint-Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia

Cite: Kobicheva A. The relationship of students’ psychological security level in the digital educational environment. J. Digit. Art Humanit., 3(2), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.33847/2712-8148.3.2_3

Abstract. Currently some studies that demonstrate the correlation between students’ level of psychological security and their academic performance and engagement have been published. Many studies have examined the importance of the level of psychological safety among students, some of which have proposed a methodology for assessing this indicator. To assess students’ level of psychological security in studying, there were conducted online surveys. The sample included 351 students between the ages of 19 and 21 (M = 19.57, SD = 0.59), predominantly female (57%).  As a result of the survey, it was found that women showed a higher level of psychological safety. The same trend was found in levels of academic engagement and academic performance. Using linear regression analysis, psychological safety was found to positively affect academic performance and attainment, especially in an online educational environment.
Keywords: Psychological Security, Behavioral Engagement, Cognitive Engagement, Emotional Engagement, Academic Performance.

References
  1. Baranova, T., Kobicheva, A., Tokareva, E.: Web-based Environment in the Integrated Learning Model for CLIL-Learners: Examination of Students’ and Teacher’s Satisfaction. In: Antipova T., Rocha A. (eds) Digital Science 2019. DSIC 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1114, 263-274, Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37737-3_24.
  2. Baranova, T.A., Kobicheva, A.M., Tokareva, E.Y. Effects of an Integrated Learning Approach on Students’ Outcomes in St. Petersburg Polytechnic University.  ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 77-81 (2019). doi.org/10.1145/3369199.3369245
  3. Buzzetto-More, N. A., Koohang, A. Student perceptions of various e-learning components. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4, 113-135 (2009).
  4. Miguel Moneo, J., Caballé, S., Xhafa, F., Prieto-Blazquez, J. Security in online web learning assessment. World Wide Web, 18 (2015). 10.1007/s11280-014-0320-2. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262936851_Security_in_Online_Learning_Assessment_Towards_an_Effective_Trustworthiness_Approach_to_Support_E-Learning_Teams [accessed Nov 05 2020]
  5. Volodarskaya, E. B., Grishina A. S., Pechinskaya, L. I. Virtual Learning Environment in Lexical Skills Development for Active Vocabulary Expansion in Non-Language Students Who Learn English. 2019 12th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE), Kazan, Russia, pp. 388-392 (2019).
  6. Tavangarian, D., Leypold, M., Nölting, K., Röser, M. Is E-learning the Solution for Individual Learning? Journal of e-learning, Vol. 37, No. 2, 317-348 (2004).
  7. Lowenthal, P. R., Wilson, B., Parrish, P. Context Matters: A Description and Typology of the Online Learning Landscape. In M. Simonson (Ed.), 32nd Annual proceedings: Selected research and development papers presented at the annual convention (2009).
  8. Nazarova, L.G. The Effectiveness of E-Learning in Corporate Learning. Acta of Turin Polytechnic University in Tashkent, Vol. 8, Iss. 4, Article 8 (2018).
  9. Iacob, N. The use of distributed databases in e-learning systems. Proceeding of the World Conference on Educational Sciences, Instanbul, Turkey, 2673-2677 (2011).
  10. Baranova T., Kobicheva A., Tokareva E. (2021) Total Transition to Online Learning: Students’ and Teachers’ Motivation and Attitudes. In: Bylieva D., Nordmann A., Shipunova O., Volkova V. (eds) Knowledge in the Information Society. PCSF 2020, CSIS 2020. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 184. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65857-1_26
  11. Mohd Alwi, N. a. I.-S., F. User’s Perception in Information Security Threats in E-Learning. The 2nd International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Madrid, Spain (2009).
  12. Kovacova, L., Vackova, M. Implementation of e-learning into the Process Security Education in Universities. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 414-419 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.810
  13. Rafei, F., Ramid, M., Hashini F. Understanding Patients from Social Security, Iran University of Medicine. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery, 1 (2010).
  14. Sadeghian, E., Heidariyann, A. Stressful Factors and their Relation with Psychological Security of Students at Hamedan Medical University, Iran University of Medicine. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery, 1 (2010).
  15. Dashkina, A.I.; Khalyapina, L.P.; Kobicheva, A.M.; Odinolaya, M.A.; Tarkhov, D.A. Developing a Model of Increasing the Learners’ Bilingual Professional Capacity in the Virtual Laboratory Environment. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7022.
  16. Fredricks, J.A., McColskey, W. The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Christenson, S., Reschy, A.L., Wylie, C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, pp. 319–339 (2012). doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37
  17. Halverson, L.R., Graham, C.R., Spring, K.J., Drysdale, J.S., Henrie, C.R. A thematic analysis of the most highly cited scholarship in the first decade of blended learning research. Internet High. Educ., 20, 20–34 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.004
  18. Puritat, K. Enhanced Knowledge and Engagement of Students Through the Gamification Concept of Game Elements. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) (2019). 9. 41. 10.3991/ijep.v9i5.11028.
  19. Mader, S., Bry, F. Fun and Engagement in Lecture Halls through Social Gamification. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) (2019). 9. 113. 10.3991/ijep.v9i2.10163.
  20. Abuaisheh, A., Grant, L., Sumukadas, N., Hadad, A. Fostering Engineering Students Engagement Using Problem-Based Learning and Course Learner Agent Object Portfolios. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) (2016). 6. 45. 10.3991/ijep.v6i4.6086.
  21. Eccles, J., Wang, M.T. Part I commentary: So what is student engagement anyway? In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement; Christenson, S.L., Reschly, A.L., Wylie, C., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, pp. 133–145 (2012). doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_6
  22. Sinatra, G.M., Heddy, B.C., Lombardi, D. The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educ. Psychol., 50, 1–13 (2015). doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
  23. Li, Y., Lerner, R.M. Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence: Implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and substance use. Dev. Psychol., 47, 233–247 (2011).
  24. Salmela-Aro, K., Upadyaya, K. The school work engagement inventory: Energy, dedication and absorption (EDA). Eur. J. Psychol. Assess., 28, 60–67 (2012).
  25. Salmela-Aro, K., Upadyaya, K. School burnout and engagement in the context of demands–resources model. Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 84, 137–151 (2014).
  26. Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K. School work engagement and burnout among Finnish high school students and young adults: Profiles, progressions, and educational outcomes. Dev. Psychol., 50, 649–662 (2014).
  27. Wang, M.-T., Peck, S.C. Adolescent educational success and mental health vary across school engagement profiles. Dev. Psychol., 49, 1266–1276 (2013).
  28. King, R.B. Sense of relatedness boosts engagement, achievement, and well-being: A latent growth model study. Contemp. Educ. Psychol., 42, 26–38 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.002
  29. Gobert, J.D., Baker, R.S., Wixon, M.B. Operationalizing and detecting disengagement within online science microworlds. Educ. Psychol., 50, 43–57 (2015). doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.999919
  30. Ketonen, E.E., Malmber, L., Salmela-Aro, K., Muukkonen, H., Tuominen, H., Lonka, K. The role of study engagement in university students’ daily experiences: A multilevel test of moderation. Learn. Individ. Differ., 69, 196–205 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.001
  31. Lin, L. Student learning and engagement in a blended environment: A mixed methods study. In Learner Experience and Usability in Online Education; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, pp. 256–269 (2018). doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4206-3.ch010
  32. Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., Kim, D., Reschly, A.L. Measuring cognitive and psycho-logical engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. J. Sch. Psychol., 44, 427–445 (2006). doi:.2006.04.00210.1016/j.jsp
  33. Greene, B. Measuring Cognitive Engagement With Self-Report Scales: Reflections From Over 20 Years of Research. Educational Psychologist, 50 (2015). 10.1080/00461520.2014.989230
  34. Guay, F., Vallerand, R., Blanchard, C. On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175-213 (2000). 10.1023/A:1005614228250
  35. Ayub, N. Effect of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation on Academic Performance. Pakistan Business Review, 12, 363-372 (2010).

Published online 27.12.2022