Didactic conditions for the effective use of digital technologies in the training of students of humanities specialties
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28925/2312-5829/2026.1.3Keywords:
humanitarian specialties, blended learning, digital competence, digital technologies, formative assessment; artificial intelligenceAbstract
The article substantiates the didactic conditions for the effective use of digital technologies in the training of students of humanities specialties at a Ukrainian university. The relevance of the study is due to the institutional transition to mixed and distance formats, uneven access to resources, and the need to ensure quality and academic integrity in the digital environment, in particular in conditions of military risks. The goal is to scientifically and methodologically substantiate the system of didactic conditions that transform the use of digital tools from technical support of the course into a pedagogically guided tool for the development of humanitarian learning outcomes (critical reading, argumentation, academic writing, working with sources and data). The methodology is of a theoretical and methodological nature and includes a documentary analysis of normative and contextual materials, a scoping review of scientific publications, qualitative content analysis, and pedagogical modelling with subsequent operationalization of the results in the form of a methodological matrix. Five interrelated didactic conditions were obtained: (1) constructive coordination of learning outcomes, educational activities, and assessment; (2) activity-based and scenario-based design of activities in a digital environment with phased support; (3) organizational and infrastructural sustainability and accessibility (a minimally sufficient set of tools, asynchronous alternatives, clear course structure); (4) formative assessment, feedback, and academic integrity, including rules for responsible use of AI; (5) digital pedagogical competence of the teacher and systemic support of students. The practical significance lies in the proposed matrix “condition – indicators – digital-methodological solutions – expected results – evidence/assessment”, which can be used to design disciplines of the humanitarian cycle, develop tasks and rubrics, organize feedback, and increase the sustainability of learning in the Ukrainian context.
Downloads
References
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
European Commission. (2020). Digital Education Action Plan 2021–2027: Resetting education and training for the digital age (COM/2020/624 final). EUR-Lex.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Georgopoulou, M. S., Troussas, C., Triperina, E., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2025). Approaches to digital humanities pedagogy: A systematic literature review within educational practice. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 40(1), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqae054
Holmes, W., Mouta, A., Hillman, V., Schiff, D., Laak, K. J., Atenas, J., Bardone, E., Lochead, K., Gonsales, P., Havemann, L., Seon, J., Go, B., Schreurs, B., Zhgenti, S., Lee, K., Bali, M., Bialik, M., Medina-Gual, L., Knight, S., & Yeo, B. (2025). Critical studies of artificial intelligence and education: Putting a stake in the ground (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 5391793). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5391793
Kharchenko, A., Nalyvaiko, O., Kreydun, N., Sheiko, A., Ptushka, A., Khatuntseva, S., & Zotova, L. (2024). Digital technologies as a factor of transformation of learning in university education. Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 16(4), 97–126. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/16.4/909
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
Londar, L., & Pietsch, M. (2023). Providing distance education during the war: The experience of Ukraine. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 98(6), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v98i6.5454
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, & Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. (2025, April 24). Recommendations on responsible implementation and use of artificial intelligence technologies in higher education institutions. https://lib.iitta.gov.ua/id/eprint/745301/1/shi-v-zakladakh-vyshchoi-osvity-24-04-2025.pdf. [in Ukrainian]
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Must, Ü., & Shapoval, S. (2024). E-learning practices of Ukrainian universities in wartime. Education and Youth Board (Harno).
Nalyvaiko, O. O. (2023). Perspektyvy vykorystannia neironnykh merezh u vyshchii osviti Ukrainy [Prospects of using neural networks in higher education of Ukraine]. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 97(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v97i5.5322 (ukr)
Nalyvaiko, O. O., Prokopenko, A. I., Kabus, N. D., Khatuntseva, S. N., Zhukova, O. A., & Nalyvaiko, N. A. (2022). Proiektno-tsyfrova diialnist yak zasib formuvannia tsyfrovoi kompetentnosti studentiv humanitarnykh spetsialnostei [Project-digital activity as a means of forming digital competence of humanities specialties’ students]. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 87(1), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v87i1.4748 (ukr)
OECD. (2023). OECD digital education outlook 2023: Towards an effective digital education ecosystem. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en
Opaliuk, T. L. (2018). Taksonomichna yednist dydaktychnykh umov formuvannia sotsialnoi refleksii maibutnoho vchytelia v protsesi vyvchennia humanitarnykh dystsyplin [Taxonomic unity of didactical conditions for the formation of social reflection of a future teacher in the process of studying humanitarian disciplines]. Ukrainian Educational Journal, 3, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.32405/2411-1317-2018-3-118-125 (ukr)
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Skvortsova, S., Symonenko, T., Britskan, T., Onopriienko, O., & Romanyshyn, R. (2024). Shtuchnyi intelekt u profesiinii diialnosti vykladacha universytetu v Ukraini: realii ta perspektyvy [Artificial intelligence in professional activities of a university lecturer in Ukraine: realities and prospects]. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence Systems in Education co-located with 23rd International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AIxIA 2024). CEUR Workshop Proceedings. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3879/AIxEDU2024_paper_14.pdf (ukr)Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., ... Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
UNESCO. (2023a). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2023b). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. https://cdn.table.media/assets/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/386693eng.pdf
Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The digital competence framework for citizens—With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes (EUR 31006 EN). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/115376
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2026-07-01 (2)
- 2026-06-30 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Educological discourse
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Автори зберігають за собою всі авторські права та одночасно надають журналу право першої публікації на умовах лізенції Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, що дозволяє розповсюджувати даний матеріал із зазначенням авторства та первинної публікації в даному журналі.
