Digital transformation in education is not a new phenomenon, although it became a central topic due to experiences in COVID-19 related school closures. The sudden change to online education prompted a number of research in different education systems (Russia: Koroleva, Naushirvanov, 2021; Hungary: Czirfusz et al, 2020; Horváth et al, 2021). Previous research focused on teachers’ digital competence, technology readiness, technology acceptance or generally on the processes of the emergence and diffusion of educational innovations (Badri et al, 2014; El Alfy et al, 2017; Halász, 2018; Horváth, 2017; Horváth et al, 2020). 

Despite the global trend and the commonality of the task of digitalization, the policy of different countries is based on different strategies for transforming national educational systems, referred to a cultural context (Voogt J. et al., 2017; Klievink B. et al., 2017). Cultural and state-level characteristics determine readiness to embrace and integrate modern technologies, as well as set the direction of the modernization process in education. Digital technologies in turn lead to changes in the culture of communication, policy implementation, and daily routine practices (Selwyn, 2012). Investigation of the impact cultural patterns have on digitalization of education, and how new technologies change cultural attitudes and practices in different countries can be seen as one of the explanatory models. 

Few studies take into consideration the cultural patterns that could influence successful digital transformation in education systems. The main aim of our paper is to provide a comparative perspective by examining factors related to successful digital transformation in Russian and Hungarian education systems. By conducting a joint study on teachers’ technology readiness, attitudes towards educational technologies and cultural values in both countries we provide a deeper understanding of the underlying cultural patterns that could influence processes of digital transformation. 

Digital transformation of the educational systems and implementation of digital technologies in the educational process can be still considered as an innovation for many teachers. Taking into account the socio-cultural specifics of these processes, on the one hand, expands the understanding of individual factors stimulating or blocking the course of transformation for each teacher individually. In order to facilitate transformational processes here we can talk about targeted support strategies for teachers with different attitude profiles regarding the use of technology. On the other hand, differences or similarities among socio-cultural patterns at the country level can form the basis that may inform national and supranational digitalization strategies. Here the discussion on possibilities for globalized solutions in a diverse cultural contexts of Europe.

A comparative perspective of two countries (Russia and Hungary) allows a deeper understanding of digitalisation processes. Those two cases can be seen as two different frames with which it is convenient to compare. The selection of specific cultural characteristics from a known model (Hofstede’s cultural dimensions model) as well as individual characteristics measured by known instruments (Technology readiness index, Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology) makes it possible to define an approach that is easily replicable in other countries.

In this study, the cultural specificity of the use of technology in education is analyzed in three main directions. At the macro level, the interpretation of practices and attitudes is guided by country differences in cultural dimensions. At the individual level, the relationship between practices, individual attitudes and values is analyzed. Meso level analysis is conducted by including organizational factors (contextual characteristics, as well as an innovative climate, openness and dynamism of the organizational environment of schools) At the individual level, socio-cultural factors are measured using an online survey in Russian and Hungarian schools. The data collection methodology implies receiving answers from at least 70% of school employees, which in turn allows supplementing the analysis with the organizational characteristics of educational organizations. The TRI (Parasuraman, Colby, 2015) and UTAUT (Venkatesh, Davis, & Davis, 2003) models are used as measuring tools, which make it possible to obtain both deep beliefs about technologies in a broad sense (propensity to use technology), and the point attitudes towards direct educational technologies and services. Cultural dimensions at the individual level are measured using CVSCALE (Yoo, Donthu, & Lenartowicz, 2011). This methodology has been adapted and validated specifically to work with Hofstede's Five Dimensions of Cultural Values at the Individual Level. The main organizational characteristics included in the analysis at the meso level are the innovative climate, openness and dynamism of the educational institution. To measure them, the Innova methodology (Halász, 2018) is used. Data collection is carried out by synchronized survey tools. Data for the Russian sample was collected at the end of 2021 and includes responses from teachers from 55 schools (n=2200). Data collection in Hungary is scheduled for early 2022 using the same methodological considerations and relevant sample size.

In terms of preliminary results, we predict significant differences in socio-cultural patterns of technology use for educational purposes at both individual and organizational levels. Mainly, this hypothesis comes from the large differences in the Hofstede’s country cultural dimensions scores (Power distance RU/HU: 93/46, Individualism: 80/39, Masculinity: 36/88, Uncertainty avoidance: 95/82, Long-Term Orientation: 81/58), which in fact puts Russia and Hungary on the opposite sides of the continuum. At the same time, there are normative and contextual differences that are growing out of different approaches to adopting a digitalization strategy in Russia and Hungary (Koroleva, Naushirvanov, 2021). While the Hungarian reform approach relies more on bottom-up logic than the Russian top-down policy structure, the agenda for comprehensive digitalization of the education system is still more focused on infrastructural issues than on teachers’ human capital development. The expected contribution of the results will allow developing a discussion about the need for a human-centered targeted approach to the digitalization of education both in Europe and in Russia. Preliminary results of the analysis make it possible to identify 5 profiles of teachers' attitudes based on their technology readiness (from the most progressive "explorers" to the most skeptical towards technology "avoiders"). An analysis of the relationship between attitudes and real practices in the use of technology will open up the possibility of formulating targeted recommendations for developing the potential of different types of teachers. At the meso-level, the combination of tools will make it possible to build a classification of schools, taking into account their climate and collective attitudes, which will also make it possible to inform the regional education authorities. Finally, a comparison of typologies and relationships based on the two countries will show the importance of socio-cultural characteristics in shaping the diversity of real educational practices.

Badri M., Al Rashedi A., Yang G., Mohaidat J., Al Hammadi A. (2014). Technology Readiness of School Teachers: An Empirical Study of Measurement and Segmentation. Journal of Information Technology Education, 13, 257–275. Czirfusz, D., Misley, H., & Horváth, L. (2020). A digitális munkarend tapasztalatai a magyar közoktatásban. Opus et Educatio, 7(3), 220-229. DOI: 10.3311/ope.394 El Alfy S., Gómez J. M., Ivanov D. (2017). Exploring instructors’ technology readiness, attitudes and behavioral intentions towards e-learning technologies in Egypt and United Arab Emirates // Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2605–2627. Halász, G. (2018). Measuring innovation in education: The outcomes of a national education sector innovation survey. European Journal of Education, 53(4), 557-573. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12299 Horváth, L., Czirfusz, D., Misley, H. & N. Tóth, Á. (2021). Alkalmazkodási stratégiák a távolléti oktatás során hallgatói, oktatói és intézményi szinten. Neveléstudomány, 3. 23-42. DOI: 10.21549/NTNY.34.2021.3.2 Horváth, L., Misley, H., Hülber, L., Papp-Danka, A., M. Pintér, T., & Dringó-Horváth, I. (2020). Tanárképzők digitális kompetenciájának mérése – a DigCompEdu adaptálása a hazai felsőoktatási környezetre. Neveléstudomány, 2. 5-25. DOI: 10.21549/NTNY.29.2020.2.1 Horváth, L. (2017). A szervezeti tanulás és az innováció összefüggései a magyar oktatási rendszer alrendszereiben. Neveléstudomány, 4. 44-66. DOI: 10.21549/NTNY.20.2017.4.3 Klievink, B., Neuroni, A., Fraefel, M., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2017). Digital strategies in action: A comparative analysis of national data infrastructure development. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 129-138). Королева Д. О., Науширванов Т. О. Digital countries: особенности цифровизации образования в России, Венгрии и Германии. Образовательная политика. 2021. Т. 87. № 3. С. 106-118. Parasuraman A. Colby C. (2015). An Updated and Streamlined Technology Readiness Index: TRI 2.0. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 59–74. Selwyn, N. (2012). Education in a digital world: Global perspectives on technology and education. Routledge. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), p. 425-478. Voogt, J., & McKenney, S. (2017). TPACK in teacher education: Are we preparing teachers to use technology for early literacy?. Technology, pedagogy and education, 26(1), 69-83. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's Five Dimensions of Cultural Values at the Individual Level: Development and Validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3-4), 193-210, DOI: 10.1080/08961530.2011.578059