DISTANCE LEARNING OF RUSSIAN AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: ITALIAN STUDENTS' ASSESSMENT

Abstract

In this research we aim at shaping a profile of an Italian-speaking student willing to study Russian as a foreign language (RFL) in the university of Parma, in Northern Italy. We focus on extracurricular study, self-assessment of performance, weaknesses and learning method. In addition, this article sheds light on a portion of Italian students affected by the pandemic's impact on education. Our focus lies on first-and second-year undergraduate students who experienced only distance learning, and third-year undergraduate students who spent their first year in regular classes. Similarities and differences are considered and compared to give a further insight to assess whether the distance teaching method influences students' approach to RFL. In the field of foreign language teaching the ongoing pandemic raises questions about the effectiveness of online or blended teaching methods, at a university level, exhibiting more drawbacks than advantages compared to the traditional method with onsite classes. Lack of interpersonal communication, limited speaking opportunity in a virtual classroom and restrictions to international mobility hinder students from achieving their language target at the university.

Full text

DISTANCE LEARNING OF RUSSIAN AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE:
ITALIAN STUDENTS’ ASSESSMENT
Antonio Carluccio1, Nicoletta Cabassi2
1Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University) (RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
2University of Parma (ITALY)
Abstract
In this research we aim at shaping a profile of an Italian-speaking student willing to study Russian as a
foreign language (RFL) in the university of Parma, in Northern Italy. We focus on extracurricular study,
self-assessment of performance, weaknesses and learning method. In addition, this article sheds light
on a portion of Italian students affected by the pandemic's impact on education. Our focus lies on first-
and second-year undergraduate students who experienced only distance learning, and third-year
undergraduate students who spent their first year in regular classes. Similarities and differences are
considered and compared to give a further insight to assess whether the distance teaching method
influences students’ approach to RFL. In the field of foreign language teaching the ongoing pandemic
raises questions about the effectiveness of online or blended teaching methods, at a university level,
exhibiting more drawbacks than advantages compared to the traditional method with onsite classes.
Lack of interpersonal communication, limited speaking opportunity in a virtual classroom and restrictions
to international mobility hinder students from achieving their language target at the university.
Keywords: Russian language, Italian language, Distance learning, foreign language teaching.
1 INTRODUCTION
The ongoing pandemic raises question on whether and how to implement distance learning in higher
education. In a reality where the institutions are forced to take measures to stop or at least slow the
spread of epidemic, higher education and universities had to adapt their programs and their teaching
method to a new reality where health stands as a priority. Practitioners and lecturers had to acquire new
skills to catch up with the latest available technologies to provide students with quality teaching not
leaving their home. Universities and students had to procure new equipment and software to implement
the teaching process without any discomfort for the students required not to leave their city, region, or
country. In terms of foreign language learning, it implies many more issues than adapting to a new
learning and teaching method. In this paper we make an analysis of students of Russian language at
the university of Parma, in Northern Italy, to share some relevant facts about their experience of distance
learning. Students from the first, second and third year took part at the research disclosing their
approach to Russian as a foreign language in the distance learning format. Before discussing the
research method and the students’ assessment of online teaching of Russian as a foreign language
(RFL) compared to onsite, let us point out some relevant steps in the history of remote learning, which
can be useful for a quick understanding of the matter.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is not an innovation in second language acquisition (SLA),
although it has never been adopted as a teaching method as widely as it is today. Since this process is
still in progress, it is not meaningful to draw ultimate conclusions on this issue at this stage. However, we
can try to briefly review the existing literature of CMC as a language teaching method to understand which
were the early stages of e-learning and finally remote learning. Pioneer scholars call it the historical
development of CALL (Computer Assisted/Aided Language Learning). As a device that teaching
practitioners must consider, computers were described as a three-stage process in 1996 [1]: behavioristic,
communicative, and integrative. According to Taylor [2], the first use of computers as a tutor for students
took place in the 1970s and 1980s. When some scholars noticed that there was no interaction with
learners, it became necessary to adopt a new PC method as a means of second language acquisition. In
this regard, the “Premises for communicative CALL" [3] criticized the use of computers at the time. The
computer as a tool [4] constitutes the following steps of computer mediated communication. In this regard,
the program helps learners use or understand the language. Examples of computer as a tool include word
processors, spelling and grammar checkers and others. The following stage, called Integrative approach
to CALL are based on two important technological developments of the 90s: multimedia computers and
the Internet. CD-ROM first allowed access to various media (text, graphics, sound, animation, and video)
Proceedings of ICERI2021 Conference
8th-9th November 2021
ISBN: 978-84-09-34549-6
8147

on a single device. All multimedia resources are linked together, and the mouse makes it easy to use and
allows personal choice in the learning path. This model combines reading, writing, speaking, and listening
in one activity, just like in the real world [1]. The further development of CALL is related to the dawn of the
Internet, along with the usage of the network on device of different type, from PC to smartphones. All the
above-mentioned stages refer to human-computer interaction, where learners use special software or
online resources to learn a second language (L2). In this research we talk about a particular type of human-
computer-human communication, mostly synchronous, though an intensive use of mails and chat is also
in place. Some authors make differences between distance education, which is due to a particular teaching
or marketing strategy, with “emergency remote teaching” [5] (ERT) which is not the result of a conscious
decision, but the only available measure for keeping the transfer of knowledge compatible with limitations
of movement due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In this paper we focused on this latter type of remote learning,
analysing benefits and drawback according to those who are more involved in this process but keeping a
critical view of students’ assessment of RFL online classes.
2 METHODOLOGY
This research was carried out among students of Russian as a foreign language (RFL) attending first,
second and third grade of bachelor’s degree in Foreign language studies at the University of Parma, in
Northern Italy. A questionnaire of 29 questions was administered to all the attendees at the RFL courses.
The total number of respondents was 51, of which 11 first-year students, 11 second-year students, 21
third-year students. The remaining 8 respondents are out of course students, repeating the third year.
The questionnaire was anonymous and accessible through the university account of Microsoft Office
365. All the questions were filled online through Microsoft forms, and the results were available
immediately after the student completed the survey. The most relevant questions for our research were
mandatory, while opinions and comments were not, however the response ratio was still high, showing
the students’ interest in the topic of the inquiry. The first part of the questionnaire aimed at exploring the
students’ prior knowledge of Russian linguoculture before university. The second part of the survey was
elaborated to explore students’ self-assessment of their language skills, their approach to RFL and their
future goals related to education. The third and last part, on which we focus in this paper, was developed
to gather the relevant information about distance learning of RFL, the means used for remote
attendance, the students’ opinion regarding implementation of lessons, enhancement or worsening of
their language skills, and future expectations about the teaching method. Considering this last concern,
we divided the whole sample into two comparable subgroups. The subgroup of students who attended
both onsite classes, at their first course, and online classes, and the subgroup of students who attended
online classes only. We would like to remind that last academic year lessons were held both online and
onsite, according to the suggestions of the Italian government, however RFL classes were only taught
online, and many second-year students attended onsite lessons during the first semester of their first
year. However, since they did not complete an academic year onsite, we included them in the same
macro group with first-year students, who experienced only online teaching. This allows us to gather
first- and second- grade data into the same group, being data comparable. On the other hand, third-
year students and students out of course had the opportunity to attend an entire academic year onsite
prior to 2019/2020, hence have been put together in another group.
3 RESULTS
Before starting with the discussion of the main topic of the research, we would like to give some key
information about the students who took part in the survey. The first interesting fact we noted was the
overwhelming presence of female students in RFL courses. Though we did not consider for further
discussion the gender of our simple, it is advisable for those interested in the research to know that our
courses are predominantly a female field of study in Italy. Table 1 reports the relevant data about gender.
Table 1. Students by gender
N
Female
Male
First-year students
11
8
3
Second-year students
11
10
1
Third-year students
21
19
2
Students out of course
8
6
2
8148

As stated above, we focused on the results concerning the distance learning of RFL. We analysed the
use of apps for studying Russian in extracurricular time, device used to access Microsoft Teams,
preferred method of teaching, self-assessment of performance between online and onsite lessons,
advantages and disadvantages of both teaching methods. In this regard we aim at providing new insight
on distance learning of Russian as a foreign language for Italian students, making, where possible,
comparison in behaviour and trends.
3.1 Use of apps and software
Let us analyse the use of smartphone applications or virtual resources to learn Russian language in
extracurricular time. According to our research, these resources are not so popular among the first-year
students, in fact only a minor percentage (36%) make use of internet to study Russian language besides
the academic hours. Among first-year students, popular resources are YouTube, used mainly for
grammar support, and tv series in Russian. Most of these resources are suggested during online classes
by the teaching practitioners. In this regard, data show little self-initiative from the students’ side, no
applications for smartphone were disclosed in the comments.
Second-year students seem more aware of the resources available to study Russian language online.
A more consistent percentage (64%) is involved in extracurricular practice. Besides tv series and
YouTube tutorials and tv series, some students make use of Wiktionary in Russian to check gender and
declination of substantives, Yandex, a Russian competitor of Google, is used to make research and
read news. Among the applications used we find Duolingo, to practice grammar, Tandem, to find
Russian native speakers willing to practice Italian, and Spotify to listen to podcasts in Russian. We notice
more self- initiative, also due to a deeper knowledge of Russian language. These students are more
aware of their skills and more wisely allocate their spare time to achieve language goals.
Third-year students disclosed the same resources of second-year students, however their percentage is
less relevant (43%). This may be due to the higher number of respondents in this group which reduces
the percentage of users. It is still remarkable to report a comment of a male student: “I follow various pages
on social networks, where I read and learn a little something new and which I then try to write down, and
then sometimes interact with them too”. Hence, we can state that, in the third year of studies, students
interact with Russian native speakers not only on language learning platforms, but also on social networks,
making a tighter contact with foreign people. In this context, it is notable to add data for the students out
of course, who did not finish studies within three academic years, the percentage of users of virtual
resources here is high (88%), still this percentage is less relevant than the third-year students because the
simple size is smaller. We report a more widespread use of Tandem, Duolingo and Busuu, along with Torfl
go. One reason may be the willingness to acquire faster those skills necessary to pass the RFL exams or
to train those skills already acquired during the entire study path. A possible answer may also be that they
have few lessons to attend and a wiser allocation of their free time.
Figure 1. Use of applications or software to study Russian in extracurricular time
The University of Parma, as well as RUDN University, implemented the use of Microsoft Teams to hold
online lessons during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. This instrument, though already available in the
Microsoft 365 pack, started to be used on a regular basis to move online all the workload of the university
8149

personnel and students. According to our experience of teaching to Chinese students [6], smartphones
are widely used among students as a device of attendance. Though this is an advantage for students,
it causes discomfort for the teacher, often because students are not in their home as they are supposed
to be and are engaged in other activities while attending lessons. We tried to do the same research
among Italian students, where it turned out that 90% of the first- and second- year students use a PC to
connect to the lessons. The remaining percentage uses a tablet, but nobody mentioned the smartphone.
A slightly different situation is found in the third-year group, where a consistent part (57%) still uses the
PC to attend RFL lessons, a non-negligible part declares not to attend all lessons or to attend not every
lesson (33%), while the remaining part (10%) uses a smartphone. For out of course student we have
similar indicators, with even less students attending lessons because they have much less scheduled
classes than their in-course colleagues. Many just need to write their bachelor’s thesis, for this reason
these indicators are in line with our expectations.
3.2 Students’ preferences
Not all students experienced both online and onsite teaching. During our research we should keep in
mind the difference between the group made of first- and second-year students, though second-year
students may have experienced onsite lessons during their first semester, and the group of third-year
students and students out of course, who experienced at least one academic year fully onsite. First-year
students, who never studied at the university onsite, declare that they would prefer onsite teaching (54%)
over online teaching method (46%). However, someone states that they have no real idea of how onsite
teaching looks like, preferring online teaching as it is more suitable for those who work or live far from
the university. Second-year students show almost the same indicators, those who prefer onsite teaching
are the majority (54%) over those who prefer online (36%), we should add those (10%) who do not really
know what teaching format is better. Hence, the online group would prefer onsite teaching at the
university, though many recognize not to have a real benchmark to consider advantages and
disadvantages of both.
As regards third-year students and students out of course, the preferences look completely different
from those we saw for students who experienced only, or almost only, online teaching. This group
experienced already onsite teaching format and was forced, due to the pandemic of Covid-19, to move
online not for a choice but for the implementation of so-called emergency remote teaching (ERT). In the
case of third-year students, the relatively wider sample confirms a strong preference for onsite lesson
(71%). Students out of course also prefer onsite teaching (50%). Difference between the two macro
groups may be due to differences in experiencing online teaching format, for the first group (first and
second year) it was the only possible way of studying, for the others (third year or out of course) online
teaching represents an effort to keep studying at the university during the lockdown.
We asked first-year students how they would like to continue their studies, onsite or online, and
consequently how they would like to defend their thesis. In this regard the onsite option (45%) is less
relevant than it was for the previous question, a student commented: “I would prefer onsite, if it were
online it wouldn't even seem like I went to university”. This statement confirms a strong relation between
university as a higher education institution and onsite lessons. The same percentage (45%) support
online lessons even for the next year, some students helped us understand the motivations of this
choice. A student’s comment caught our attention: “I would answer onsite but the fact that I must wear
the mask all the time, which causes me respiratory problems, leads me to prefer online classes”.
Restrictions are still an issue that students have to deal with during onsite lessons, as stated, online
lessons would be preferred over onsite lessons with social distance and facemasks. Other motives
regard savings for travel (train or bus ticket) and having more time to schedule workload. Only 10% of
first-year students prefer blended teaching, however, nobody gave further specifications on which
lessons should be online or onsite.
A stronger preference for onsite classes was found among second-year students (73%), let us quote a
comment: “Onsite, because it makes me feel less alone and the university is not only made up of lessons
and exams but also of other factors, such as getting to know other people, managing lessons and direct
contact with the professor, not only by email”. After two academic years, student do want to meet their
classmates and professors in person. They are aware that university is not only a bulk of lessons and
exams, but also an opportunity to make new acquaintances and to acquire life experience [7].
Supporters of online lessons in this group are a minority (27%), but their arguments are not negligible:
“I would prefer to complete my studies online for the only reason that university access is now literally
denied to students without a green pass, like me”. In fact, according to the current measures taken by
the Italian government, students cannot attend onsite lessons without the European digital Covid
8150

certificate
1
, attesting the vaccination against Covid-19. The mandatory certification may be a positive
incentive to attend onsite lessons more safely, however the relative discrimination for those who do not
want to be vaccinated leads students to prefer online lessons.
The same strong preference to continue their studies onsite was expressed by third-year students
(76%), being the sample size wider than the second year, these data seem to confirm a strong tendency
to come back to a pre-pandemic situation, considering remote teaching just a temporary solution and
not the future of university. A student’s opinion may clarify their concerns: “I would like to meet onsite
the end of the path. This has been an important path, the basis for the future of all of us, therefore it
would be reductive and would diminish the relevance of this phase of our career to end online, without
thanking for everything that has been done for us”. This comment may catch the disappointment and
hope of last-year students who do not want to defend their thesis online but want to meet the exam
commission in person. Respondents out of course were not included in this analysis because they have
no full schedule of lessons, hence, their opinion may be misleading.
Figure 2. Preference of future studies
3.3 Advantages and disadvantages of onsite and online learning
First-year students did not attend any online classes, however someone still wanted to disclose
advantages and disadvantages of both teaching methods. Online teaching is regarded as having more
disadvantages than advantages, many students did not find any advantage at all, some others consider
attendance from home as an advantage itself, this is the only benefit disclosed by this group. The
disadvantages identified are mainly relational and linguistic. The first ones regard the lack of interaction
with professors and classmates during and after the online classroom, the latter regard difficulties in the
use of language. Two main linguistic problems arise, the difficulty to catch the right pronunciation of
Russian words, leading to problems in listening skills, and the lack of handwriting, since online there is
almost no opportunity to use the Russian cursive. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of
onsite teaching it is notable to remark that advantages are far more relevant than disadvantages. The
students think that they will benefit more from communication in person with the professors, also native
speakers, and with colleagues. They can get immediate feedback about speaking skills and immerse
themselves in the language environment. The only noteworthy drawbacks according to first-year
students are a less efficient schedule and difficulty to interact with the professor for those less self-
confident.
Second-year students see more benefits than drawbacks in teaching RFL online. The disadvantages
regard mainly lack of personal contact with classmates and the teaching personnel, not negligible are
also concentration issues and stressful online schedule, as states one student: “Onsite it is much more
difficult to lose concentration. Personally, it is stressful to spend hours and hours in front of the computer
and go from one lesson to another without breaks, always remaining alone in the same room”.
Interesting opinions were found in favor of online teaching, students remark the ease to use, send and
receive electronic files employed during classes without wasting paper, it constitutes a more ecological
1
https://www.adnkronos.com/green-pass-universita-messa-prof-puo-controllare-studenti-senza-rischiano-
multa_1OBymA2BHfYIPXqddwBPBw
8151

choice from this point of view. Some students state that thanks to the small number of participants the
work atmosphere is pleasant, and they can practice oral skills with their colleagues, which is the opposite
of what we reported above form other students, meaning that the subjectivity of opinion can lead to
biased results. The last benefit is from students who had to take the train to come to Parma, they see a
great benefit not to spend time and money for transportation. Onsite lessons seem to be more inclusive
from some second-year students’ point of view, however we should take these comments with a grain
of salt. Anxiety [8] [9] is seen a main drawback of onsite lessons along with the possible overlap of
lessons.
Third-year students, even preferring the onsite format see many advantages in remote teaching. First,
they make use of recorded lessons to train pronunciation and understanding of grammatical rules. The
teacher shows pictures and take notes on the virtual whiteboard which are easily recordable for
students. A noticeable advantage is studying at their home, without the necessity to rent a room in
Parma or to take the train. The disadvantages are often related to poor connection and difficulty to catch
the pronunciation, but this is compensated by recording lessons. Checking exercises and homework in
a virtual class is still less efficient and more time consuming than in a real classroom. According to one
student: “The quality of the lesson becomes flatter, there is less interaction and less contact, this means
that the notions are not fixed correctly and enough in the mind, this can create more anxiety and lower
interest, especially the decrease in interest is one of the biggest problems, already in learning any
subject, more in learning a language”. Lack of motivation may lead to self-taught learning, since students
do not feel that they study at the university. Onsite teaching is mainly supported because of a major
interaction among colleagues and the teacher, it was noted that it is simpler to raise your hand and ask
for explanations. It is also relevant to say that onsite the teacher can control who is working and who is
not, additionally she can check the exercises individually coming close to each student. The
disadvantages mainly relate to anxiety, as a student stated: “I am primarily concerned with the emotional
aspect. If a student is shy, if he is afraid of making a mistake and he feels uncomfortable if he is then
corrected in class, publicly. In onsite classes it is crucial to work to emotionally unlock a student”. Another
disadvantage is no opportunity to watch recorded lessons, however recording audio would still be viable
an option.
3.4 Students’ assessment of distance learning
We asked the students whether they noticed positive or negative changes in their Russian language
skills during the pandemic, switching form onsite to remote learning. For this analysis we leave aside
first-year students because they did not experience onsite learning. The results for second-year students
are not straightforward, we must consider that not all students could make a consistent self-evaluation
of their skills [10]. In fact, a consistent percentage (45%) did not notice relevant changes in their
language skills. Unfortunately, no further disclosure was added, making difficult to detect the reasons of
such answer. Positive opinions (36%) outnumbered the negative ones (19%). Among the positive
comments, students declare that they had more time to devote to individual study of Russian language
others see general improvement due to a deeper knowledge of the language compared to their first year
not considering the online factor, which was the most relevant for this research. One of the students
who see changes in a negative sense states: “I had lost interest even in the Russian language when it
is one of my favourite things to study”. Some others think that they would have more benefits from onsite
learning.
The case of second-year students constitutes an exception if we look at the data gathered from third-
year students. One third (33%) of the respondents did not notice any change during the switch from
onsite to online, however the majority (53%) reports a decline in their language skills. Students felt lack
of motivation to study Russian language, which was the favourite subject for many, as declared by one
student: “I don't feel completely 100% myself. I believe I can give more while online I only give 20%”.
Someone found more difficult to study in this format with respect to 2019, noticing a decline in their skills
along with a harder study environment. From students out of course we may notice that half of the
respondents (50%) did not notice any relevant change. In this group the negative (37%) comments
exceed the positive (13%) as it is for third-year students, the main reasons of weakening of language
skills is attributed to the lack of personal contact with the professor and a heavier workload.
8152

These data, above all for the second-year students may be biased by the fact that a portion of students
attended onsite classes before the pandemic, while others attended only online classes. For many there
was no real benchmark to assess their skills before and after the switch to Emergency remote learning
(ERL) and, according to what we caught from comments the positive change may be due to a deeper
knowledge of RFL and not because of the switch of format per se.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The relevance of this research paper lies in the peculiarity of the students involved, Italian native
speakers, who study Russian as a foreign language during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some key points of
this research may be applicable to other foreign language studies, where the sample consist of people
who experienced different teaching, and hence learning formats. For this analysis we considered just
one part of our survey to focus on the students’ assessment of distance learning of this subject. At the
best of our knowledge no similar research was made in the field of RFL in Italy.
Russian scholars pay great attention to the ethnolinguistic approach when teaching RFL classes, since
knowing the ethno-culture of a country helps to form a language identity of a foreign student and increase
the interest in the Russian language and culture [11]. However, few studies were carried out among
Italian students of Russian language at a university level. This study shade light on the profile of Italian
students, who faced, along with the inherent difficulties of Russian language, also the switch to
emergency remote learning. For further insight on the latest resources to teach Russian we suggest
reading some specific works on the matter [12]. The results could be improved increasing the number
of volunteers-respondents, perhaps through special classes where the reasons of such questionnaire
are well explained and shared with students. At the end of the survey almost all thanked for the
opportunity to make a kind of self-assessment of their approach to RFL classes and Russian culture in
general. Many found the survey useful and proposed to do such survey more often, but perhaps they
did not manage to convince their classmates to take part in the research.
Among the most relevant findings we observe a poor use of electronic devices to study Russian
language among the first-year student, compensated by an increasing tendency to efficiently allocate
extracurricular time to practice Russian through different smartphone application of software by second-
and third-year students. We found that the students’ preference changes with respect to the year of
attendance. In first- and second-year group students slightly prefer onsite teaching method, even though
they have no or little experience of that. This preference is strong among third-year students who were
de facto forced to continue studying online for emergency reasons.
First-year students have the same preference for both type of teaching format in the long term, having
no previous experience of onsite university lessons, they just speculate on how they will be. Second-
and third-year students do prefer to finish their studies onsite, because it gives them the perception to
study at the university and defending their thesis in front of a real commission confer prestige to their
study path.
The main advantages of online classes are no expenditure for transportation and rent in Parma, but also
registration and ease of speaking for less self-confident students. However, the preferred end of studies
remains onsite because contact with classmates and professor is an essential component of the
8153

university experience. No contact often means a decline in motivation and leads to self-teaching and
poor attendance, however it is an advantage for those who suffer from anxiety in class and have little
opportunity to ask for explanation or support.
With respect to students’ assessment of skill changes, the only relevant data are those from the third
course. First-year students cannot make comparisons before and after the pandemic, as well as second-
year students, who found positive improvements in their language skills mainly because of a deeper
knowledge of the matter due to the reasonable upgrade to the further course. Third-year students gave
us the most relevant information about the change of their language skills and motivation before and
after the pandemic, detecting a strong fall of motivation, interest, and language itself. However, we
remark the subjectivity of their self-assessment, noticeable in the divergence of opinion, even in this last
group.
The last drawback of the pandemic is the restriction to international mobility. Students do not see any
advantage in studying online at a foreign university, they do not experience all the benefits connected
with studying abroad. As stated by one third-year student: “Restriction to travel has a tremendous effect,
because we could end up studying languages almost as something separated from its environment, so
we would lose effectiveness, interest and participation. Interacting with people who speak the languages
we study, as well as seeing places, is one of those aspects that help a lot. Therefore, removing travels
is a bit like curbing the enthusiasm that a student may feel for one or more languages”.
For further research we suggest increasing the sample size of second-and third-year students, paying
particular attention to those students who had experienced at least one full academic year attending
onsite lessons. This research may be replicated for students of other foreign languages in Italy and
abroad.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper has been supported by the RUDN University Strategic Academic Leadership Program.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Warschauer, “Computer Assisted Language Learning: An introduction” in Multimedia language
teaching (S. Fotos ed.), pp. 3-20, Tokyo: Logos International, 1996.
[2] R. Taylor, The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press, 1980.
[3] J. Underwood, Linguistics, computers and the language teacher: a communicative approach.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1984.
[4] B. Brierley, & I. Kemble, Computers as a tool in language teaching. New York: Ellis Horwood, 1991.
[5] A. Bozkurt, & R.C. Sharma, “Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to
Coronavirus pandemic”, Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), i-vi., (2020).
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3778083
[6] A.Carluccio, & I. Rubakova, “Chinese-oriented Russian language online classes: what we learned
from the pandemic”. Proceedings - 2021 5th International Conference on Communication and
Information Systems, ICCIS 2021 (in press).
[7] A. Сarluccio, “E-Learning of Russian as a foreign language from student's side”, EpSBS, vol.115,
RLMSEE 2020, pp. 53-6, 2021. doi:10.15405/epsbs.2021.09.7
[8] T. Scovel, “The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research”
Language Learning, vol. 28, 129-142, 1978.
[9] E. K. Horwitz, M.B. Horwitz, & J. Cope, “Foreign language classroom anxiety”, The Modern
Language Journal, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 125-132, 1986.
[10] L. Uziel, & B. Cohen, “Self-deception and discrepancies in self-evaluation”, Journal of Research in
Personality, vol. 88, art. 104008, 2020.
[11] V. Shaklein, I. Mitrofanova, S. Deryabina, S. Mikova, M. Karelova, “Ethnoculture Concept In Modern
Language Education Within The Ethnic Studies Paradigm”, EpSBS, vol. 92, SCTMG 2020, pp. 745-
49, 2020.
8154

[12] M. Ndyay, N. W. H. Ti, E. O. Grunina, “Innovative technologies in teaching Russian as a foreign
language”, Russian Language Studies, vol.18, No. 1, pp. 7- 38, doi:10.22363/2618-8163-2020-18-
1-7-38.
8155