Тамара В. Николић, Универзитет у Београду, Филозофски факултет, Београд, Србија, имејл:
Никола Ђ. Коруга, Универзитет у Београду, Филозофски факултет, Београд, Србија
Александар M. Булајић, Универзитет у Београду, Филозофски факултет, Београд, Србија
Иновације у настави, XXXVIII, 2025/1, стр. 89–105

| PDF | | Extended summary PDF |
DOI: 10.5937/inovacije2501089N

Резиме: Колико се учење мења под утицајем нових технологија, тако и само учење мења дигитално окружење у коме се одвија, чинећи да се оно прилагођава нашим потребама. Овај рад анализира различите перспективе и могућности које дигитално окружење пружа за целоживотно образовање. Дигиталне платформе, ресурси и алати омогућавају флексибилност, доступност и персонализацију учења, чиме доприносе развоју појединаца и њиховој професионалној адаптабилности. С друге стране, рад се бави изазовима, попут дигиталне (не)писмености, коришћења дигиталних технологија и креирањем окружења за дигитално целоживотно учење. У теоријском оквиру разматрају се теорија конективизма у учењу одраслих и колаборативног учења, уз нагласак на нужност холистичког приступа који интегрише техничке, педагошке и друштвене димензије учења у дигиталном окружењу. На осно-
ву теоријске анализе предлажу се препоруке за будуће концептуализације образовања у дигиталном окружењу са нагласком на развоју интерактивних виртуелних окружења за учење конципираних на принципима педагогије друштвеног знања и колаборативне интелигенције, али и на креирању простора за учење кроз дијалошки процес, те превазилажењу дихотомије између класичног и дигиталног окружења за учење. Закључује се да дигитално окружење, упркос изазовима, представља кључну платформу за оснаживање појединаца и заједница у контексту глобалних промена и друштвеног напретка.

Кључне речи: целоживотно учење, хибридно образовање, нове технологије, дигитално окружење за учење, промена парадигме

Summary: As much as learning changes under the influence of new technologies, learning itself changes the digital environment in which it takes place, making it adapt to our needs. The paper analyses different perspectives and options that digital environment provides for lifelong learning. Digital platforms, resources, and tools enable flexibility, availability, and personalisation of learning, contributing to personal development and professional adaptability of individuals. On the other hand, the paper looks at the challenges, such as digital (il)literacy, the use of digital technologies, and the creation of the environment for digital lifelong learning. The theoretical part of the paper investigates the theory of connectivism in adult learning and collaborative learning, with an emphasis on the necessity of a hollistic approach which integrates technical, pedagogical, and social dimensions of learning in digital environment. Based on the theoretical analysis, the authors offer recommendations for future conceptualisations of educaction in digital environment, with an emphasis on the development of interactive virtual learning environments based on the principles of the pedagogy of social knowledge and collaborative intelligence, as well as on the creation of space for learning through the process of dialogue, and overcoming the dichotomy between traditional and digital learning environment. Our conclusion is that digital environment, despite the challenges, represents the key platform for the empowerment of individuals and the community in the context of global changes and social progress.

Keywords: lifelong learning, hybrid education, new technologies, digital learning environment, paradigm shift

Литература:

• Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Bower, G. A. (1974). Recent advances in learning and motivation. Working memory, 8, 647–667.
• Barnett, R. (2017). Researching supercomplexity: Planes, possibilities, poetry. In Methods and paradigms in education research (pp. 291–308). IGI Global.
• Bengtsen, S. S. E. (2017). Supercomplexity and the university: Ronald Barnett and the social philosophy of Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(1), 65–74. https://doi:10.1111/hequ.12153.
• Brom, C., Starkova, T., & D’Mello, S. K. (2018). How effective is emotional design? A meta-analysis on facial anthropomorphisms and pleasant colors during multimedia learning. Educational research review, 25, 100–119.
• Bulajić, A., Nikolić, T., & Vieira, C. C. (2020). Introduction: Contemporary World and Adult Learning and Education. In Bulajić, A., Nikolić, T., &. Vieira, C. C. (Eds.) Navigating through Contemporary World with Adult Education Research and Practice (pp. 9–30). Institute for Pedagogy and Andragogy, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, ESREA – European Society for Research on the Education of Adults, Adult Education Society.
• Cotton, K., & Ricker, T. J. (2022). Examining the relationship between working memory consolidation and long-term consolidation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(5), 1625–1648. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02084-2
• Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), 671–684.
• Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247−259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390701281751
• Delnoij, E. C. L., Dirkx, H. J. K., Janssen, P. W. J., & Martens, L. R. (2020). Predicting and resolving noncompletion in higher (online) education – A literature review. Educational Research Review, 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100313.
• Deuze, M. (2006). Participation, Remediation, Bricolage: Considering Principal Components of a Digital Culture. The Information Society, 22, 63–75.
• Downes, S. (2007, February 3). What Connectivism Is. Online Connectivism. University of Manitoba. http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=12
• Downes, S. (2010). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. In H. Hao Yang, & S. Chi-Yin Yuen (Eds.). Collective Intelligence and E-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-Based Communities and Networking (pp. 1–27). https://doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-729-4.ch001
• Fleming, T. (2010). Neoliberalism: The implications for lifelong learning and adult education. Position Paper for EdD Module NUI Maynooth. https://www.tedfleming.net/doc/Fleming_Note_on_Neoliberalism.pdf
• Giroux, H. A. (2011). Teachers as Transformative Intellectuals. In E. Blair Hilty (Ed.). Thinking About Schools. A Foundations of Education Reader (pp. 183–191). Taylor & Francis.
• Gourlay, L. (2015). Open education as a ‘heterotopia of desire’. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 310–327, https://doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.1029941.
• Henriksen, D., Creely, E., Henderson, M., & Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: a literature review of the uneasy space of implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z
• Holzman, L. (2018). The Overweight Brain: How Our Obsession with Knowing Keeps Us from Getting Smart Enough to Make a Better World. East Side Institute Press.
• Holzman, L., Salit, C., Lives, P. O., & Down, U. (2020). Why be Half-Human? How Play, Performance and Practical Philosophy Make Us Whole. Social Construction in Action, 145.
• Hrastinski, S. (2019). What Do We Mean by Blended Learning? TechTrends, 63, 564–569.
• Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. The MIT Press.
• Jones, C. (2019). Capital, neoliberalism and educational technology. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 288–292.
• Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2020). After the COVID-19 Crisis: Why Higher Education May (and Perhaps Should) Never be the Same. https://cgscholar.com/community/community_profiles/new-learning/community_updates/114650?utm_medium=email&utm_source=other&utm_campaign=opencourse.tYVJebfMEeSCo-
  CIACwYbhg.announcements~opencourse.tYVJebfMEeSCoCIACwYbhg.ZQA7zGLLTH-y-xINJgpv1A.
• Kalyuga, S., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2012). Educational implications of expertise reversal effects in learning and performance of complex cognitive and sensorimotor skills. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9195-x
• Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and instruction, 26(3), 379-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
• Koruga, N. (2022). Mejkers pokret kao zajednice koje uče tokom pandemije kovid-19 u kontekstu visokog obrazovanja. Nastava i vaspitanje, 71(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.5937/nasvas2203329K
• Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82. https//doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004
• Li, D. (2024). An interactive teaching evaluation system for preschool education in universities based on machine learning algorithm. Computers in Human Behavior, 157, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108211
• Li, D., Dai, X., Wang, J., Xu, Q., Wang, Y., Fu, T., Hafez, A., & Grant, J. (2022). Evaluation of college students’ classroom learning effect based on the neural network algorithm. Mobile Information Systems, 2022, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7772620
• Martinez, J. E. (2012). A performatory approach to teaching, learning and technology. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). 12 principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 279–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Mehta, R., Creely, E., & Henriksen, D. (2020). A profitable education: Countering neoliberalism in 21st century skills discourses. In Handbook of Research on Literacy and Digital Technology Integration in Teacher Education (pp. 359–381). IGI Global.
• Mutlu-Bayraktar, D., Cosgun, V., & Altan, T. (2019). Cognitive load in multimedia learning environments: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 141, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103618
• Nikolić, T. (2022). Vreme za sebe – usklađivanje onlajn studiranja i slobodnog vremena. Andragoške studije, 2, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.5937/AndStud2202047N
• Nikolić Maksić, T. (2013). Andragog/pedagog između konvencionalne i alternativne teorije/prakse. U Ž. Krnjaja, D. Pavlović Breneselović, i K. Popović, (ur.). Nacionalni naučni skup Januarski susreti pedagoga „Pedagog između teorije i prakse” (str. 205-210). Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta: Institut za pedagogiju i andragogiju.
• O’Byrne, W. I., & Pytash, K. E. (2015). Hybrid and Blended Learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 137–140. https://doi:10.1002/jaal.463
• Pernecky, T., & Holzman, L. (2019). Knowledge as play: centering on what matters. In: Pernecky, T. (Ed.). Postdisciplinary Knowledge (pp. 115–134). Routledge.
• Phillips, W. A. (1974). On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(2), 283–290.
• Pureta, I. (2015). Lifelong learning process using digital technology. Interdisciplinary Management Research, 11, 39–48.
• Santhosh, J., Dengel, A., & Ishimaru, S. (2024). Gaze-Driven Adaptive Learning System with ChatGPT-Generated Summaries. IEEE Access, 12, 173714–173733.
• Skulmowski, A., & Xu, K. M. (2022). Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. Educational psychology review, 34(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7
• Slater, G. B., & Seawright, G. (2018). Putting Homo Economicus to the Test: How Neoliberalism Measures the Value of Educational Life. The Wiley Handbook of Global Educational Reform, 371–388.
• Sweller, J. (2011). Chapter two: Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
• Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational psychology review, 31, 261–292.
• Toquero, C. M. D., Calago, R. A., & Pormento, S. B. (2021). Neoliberalism Crisis and the Pitfalls and Glories in Emergency Remote Education. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 90–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4672777
• Walker, S., Jameson, J., & Ryan, M. (2010). Skills and strategies for e-learning in a participatory culture. In: Sharpe, R., Beetham, H., & De Freitas, S. (Eds.). Rethinking learning for a digital age: How learners are shaping their own experiences (pp. 212–224). Routledge.
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press.

Copyright © 2024 by the publisher Faculty of Education, University of Belgrade, SERBIA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original paper is accurately cited.