Keywords
configured digital environment
cognitive strategies
three-level autonomy model
longitudinal experiment
students' autonomy
How to Cite
Abstract
The aim of the study is to determine the effectiveness of using personalized digital ecosystems to develop research autonomy of Doctors of Philosophy (PhD) students. The study employed the following methods: longitudinal observations, calculation of indices of reflective activity and coefficients of strategic flexibility, and convergent parallel design. The study found that the development of students’ autonomy is possible due to the transition from structured to configured digital environments. Personalized digital tools (Zotero, Obsidian, ATLAS.ti, Voyant Tools, NVivo, Overleaf, Open Science Framework, etc.) were used to train three independent cohorts (2021–2025). The proposed digital ecosystems statistically significantly contributed to the development of key components of autonomy: the level of cognitive independence increased from 2.8 to 4.1 points (d=1.61), and the strategic flexibility indicator from 1.5 to 3.7 (d=3.22). Analysis of behavioural logs confirmed the formation of individual work processes, where the experimentation coefficient reached 0.8 in an open environment. Systematicians (31 people) demonstrated a stable growth of autonomy to 4.0 points, and Adaptive Researcher (13 people) reached a maximum index of 4.6, which indicates the effectiveness of free choice of tools. The final comparison of the 2021–2023 cohorts did not reveal statistical differences (F(2,65)=0.45, p=0.64), which confirms the stability of autonomy development at the level of 4.0±0.8 points regardless of the year of the start of the study. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the empirical comparison of open configurable versus structured digital environments using objective behavioural log-data, the identification of three distinct developmental trajectories, and the confirmation of effect stability across three independent cohorts.The practical significance of the research is identifying effective digital architectures that contribute to the professional development of the researchers at the third level of higher education.
References
[1] S. Panta and S. Thapaliya, "The future of doctoral education: The role of professional doctorates in bridging academia and industry," Journal of Integrative Education Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 18–28, 2025. doi: 10.64229/2f967e95. (in English).
[2] L. Mantai and M. Marrone, "Identifying skills, qualifications, and attributes expected to do a PhD," Studies in Higher Education, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 2273–2286, 2022. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2022.2061444. (in English).
[3] E. Germain-Alamartine and S. Moghadam-Saman, "Aligning doctoral education with local industrial employers’ needs: a comparative case study," European Planning Studies, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 234–254, 2020. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1637401. (in English).
[4] C. Succi and M. Canovi, "Soft skills to enhance graduate employability: comparing students and employers’ perceptions," Studies in Higher Education, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1834–1847, 2020. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1585420. (in English).
[5] Y. Ishchenko, O. Vdovenko, T. Nych, L. Moroz-Rekotova, and L. Arystova, "Effectiveness of distance learning in higher educational institutions under martial law," ApuntesUniversitarios, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 348–364, 2022. doi: 10.17162/au.v13i1.1332. (in English).
[6] S. Chovriy, D. Marieiev, S. Tsymbal-Slatvinska, O. Vytrykhovska, and A. Tsybulko, "Impact of digital technologies on the quality of higher education," RevistaEduweb, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 265–285, 2024. doi: 10.46502/issn.1856-7576/2024.18.04.18. (in English).
[7] S. S. Ramachandra, S. Arora, and V. Kumar, "Effective strategies for international PhD applications," Health Professions Education, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 3, 2024. doi: 10.55890/2452-3011.1314. (in English).
[8] O. Hernon, E. McSharry, A. Simpkin, I. MacLaren, and P. J. Carr, "Effectiveness of structured self-evaluation of video recorded performance on peripheral intravenous catheter insertion: a randomised control trial study protocol," Trials, vol. 24, no. 1, p. 182, 2023. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07200-8. (in English).
[9] E. K. Niemczyk and Z. Rónay, "Roles, requirements and autonomy of academic researchers," Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 327–341, 2023. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12403. (in English).
[10] E. P. Arruda, "Digital skills shortages and curricula options in Brazilian PhD programs in education," Environment and Social Psychology, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://hdl.handle.net/1843/77615. (in English).
[11] S. Khanal and S. R. Pokhrel, "Analysis, modeling and design of personalized digital learning environment," arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10476, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.10476. (in English).
[12] R. González-Fernández, A. Ruiz-Cabezas, M. C. M. Domínguez, A. B. Subía-Álava, and J. L. D. Salazar, "Teachers’ teaching and professional competences assessment," Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 103, p. 102396, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102396. (in English).
[13] M. Ben-Amram and N. Davidovitch, "Novice teachers and mentor teachers: From a traditional model to a holistic mentoring model in the postmodern era," Education Sciences, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 143, 2024. doi: 10.3390/educsci14020143. (in English).
[14] S. Neubauer, "How to be a good mentor," Cardiovascular Research, vol. 120, no. 9, pp. e36–e38, 2024. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvae113. (in English).
[15] X. Xu, Z. Li, and W. Hin Hong et al., "Effects and side effects of personal learning environments and personalized learning in formal education," Education and Information Technologies, vol. 29, pp. 20729–20756, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-12685-0. (in English).
[16] J. A. Peter and O. O. Ogunlade, "Connectivism theory in education and its applications to curriculum and instruction," ASEAN Journal of Educational Research and Technology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 215–222, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.ejournal.bumipublikasinusantara.id/index.php/ajert/article/view/476. (in English).
[17] T. Newfield, "Heutagogy in education: Fostering self-directed learning for the 21st-century," Journal of Career and Technical Education, vol. 40, no. 1, 2025. doi: 10.21061/jcte.500. (in English).
[18] J. Holvikivi, "A risk evaluation framework for digitalization of education with an emphasis on Africa," Journal of Information Processing, vol. 32, pp. 77–83, 2024. doi: 10.2197/ipsjjip.32.77. (in English).
[19] P. Armila, A. Sivenius, B. Stanković, and L. Juutilainen, "Digitalization of education: Commodification hidden in terms of empowerment?," Postdigital Science and Education, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 556–571, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s42438-022-00347-8. (in English).
[20] D. Tinjić and A. Nordén, "Crisis-driven digitalization and academic success across disciplines," PLOS ONE, vol. 19, no. 2, p. e0293588, 2024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293588. (in English).
[21] N. Bobro, "Social effects and risks of education digitalization in the context of a digital university," Academic Visions, no. 39, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://academy-vision.org/index.php/av/article/view/1668. (in English).
[22] A. Raes, "Exploring student and teacher experiences in hybrid learning environments: Does presence matter?," Postdigital Science and Education, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 138–159, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s42438-021-00274-0. (in English).
[23] K. Mettis and T. Väljataga, "Designing learning experiences for outdoor hybrid learning spaces," British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 498–513, 2021. doi: 10.1111/bjet.13034.
(in English).
[24] U. Balaman, "Design, feedback, and reflection for video-mediated L2 interactions," in Conversation Analytic Language Teacher Education in Digital Spaces, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2023, pp. 171–217. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-19127-5_5. (in English).
[25] S. Ekin and U. Balaman, "Video-mediated collaborative lesson planning in virtual exchange among transnational teams of pre-service language teachers," ReCALL, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 270–286, 2024. doi: 10.1017/S0958344024000090. (in English).
[26] S. Chovriy et al., "Peer learning and peer assessment in institutions of higher education," RevistaEduweb, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 119–133, 2024. doi: 10.46502/issn.1856-7576/2024.18.03.10. (in English).
[27] I. D. A. Bravo, Ò. Flores-Alarcia, J. González-Rubio, D. S. Araneda, and C. L. Olivos, "Workloads and emotional factors derived from the transition towards online and/or hybrid teaching among postgraduate professors: Review of the lessons learned," Education Sciences, vol. 12, no. 10, p. 666, 2022. doi: 10.3390/educsci12100666. (in English).
[28] K. C. Li, B. T. Wong, R. Kwan, H. T. Chan, M. M. Wu, and S. K. Cheung, "Evaluation of hybrid learning and teaching practices: The perspective of academics," Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 8, p. 6780, 2023. doi: 10.3390/su15086780. (in English).
[29] J. J. Van Merriënboer, P. A. Kirschner, and J. Frèrejean, Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A Systematic Approach to Four-Component Instructional Design. Routledge, 2024. doi: 10.4324/9781003322481. (in English).
[30] J. Xia, S. Sun, and X. Gao, "The other side of PhD education: A systematic review of research on PhD students' development as university teachers," Review of Education, vol. 13, no. 1, p. e70024, 2025. doi: 10.1002/rev3.70024. (in English).
[31] C. J. Johnson et al., "The impact of training on human–autonomy team communications and trust calibration," Human Factors, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 1554–1570, 2023. doi: 10.1177/00187208211047323.
(in English).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Iryna Оliinyk , Andrii Bondarenko , Nataliia Volkova , Olha Lebid , Oleh Lavnikov