A.E. Zubkov
Perm state humanitarian-pedagogical university, Perm

Key words: individual style, teaching activity, structure, determination, personality, integration.

Introduction. Due to the transition of Russian school to the personality developing paradigm of training and education a teacher faces new tasks which are impossible to complete without continuous professional growth. Achievement of the high professional skill level by a physical education teacher requires correlating teaching techniques with teacher’s individual characteristics, which makes it necessary to form an individual style of activity (ISA). As shown in the research of V.S. Merlin [4], E.A. Klimov [2] et al, the development of ISA is based on the use of psychological mechanisms of adaptation, compensation and system formation that facilitates the fullest realization of teacher’s abilities. The aim of our experimental study was to examine the structure of the working style of a physical education teacher as an entire formation, determined by the system of multi-level personality characteristics: neurodynamic, psychodynamic and personal.

  The purpose of the research was to identify the relations of style characteristics of teaching with the system of multi-level personality characteristics, with work experience, with the teaching skill level of physical education teachers and with the gender factor.

Materials and methods. 85 physical education teachers from the Perm region were involved in the experiment. We used A.I. Schebetenko’s questionnaires to study teachers’ neurodynamic and psychodynamic features and R. Cattell’s 16 Personality Factor questionnaire, questionnaires of S.R. Panteleev, V.V. Stolin and J. Rotter’s Locus of Control questionnaire to study personality traits. The teaching style characteristics were studied using the method of A.K. Markova [3], O.I. Motkov, J.S. Shvedchikova and the conflict resolution style – using the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode questionnaire. The obtained empirical data was processed using the methods of correlation and factor analysis.

The results of the study indicate the statistically significant relations of teaching style (TS) characteristics with a set of multi-level personality characteristics of physical education teachers. The data of the correlation analysis indicate the relations of the authoritarian style with such personal characteristics of teachers as emotionality (0,23), impulsivity (0,20) and tension (0,20). The characteristics of the empathic cooperation style involve mobility of nervous processes (0,21), low psychodynamic anxiety (-0,22), high plasticity (-0.28) and such personality traits as sociability (0,32), softness (0,21), optimism (0,28), trust (-0,22), immediacy (-0,22) and calmness (-0,20). Authoritarian teachers are more prone to frustration in a stressful situation compared with teachers who prefer the empathic cooperation style (0,20, -0,20 respectively).

The analysis of the correlation of teaching styles by A.K. Markova with personality characteristics revealed the presence of specific sets of symptoms of individual factors. The indicators of the discourse methodical style are associated with low mobility of nervous system (-0,28), low indices of reactivity (-0,22), psychodynamic sociability (-0,20), reticence (-0,20), depression (0,31) and rigidity (-0,24). The teachers cultivating improvisational styles have no connection with the authoritarian leadership style (-0,22, -0,36) and have relations with indicators of positive attitude to themselves (0,20). A positive relation was revealed between teaching experience and characteristics of creative (0,27) and problem (0,31) education. We found the negative relations of experience with indicators of the discourse methodical style (-0,35) and the positive ones with indicators of the discourse improvisational (0,21) and the emotional improvisational (0,43) styles.

Thanks to using the factor analysis the allocated sets of symptoms were interpreted as kinds of ISA. The first factor, along with the negative indicator of the inclination for compromise strategy (-0,58) included: weak inhibitory process (-0,49), reactivity (0,43) and high tension (0,57). This factor can be roughly described as a factor of "uncompromising" behavior. The second factor included indicators of the discourse methodical style (0,43) and evaluating actions (0,43) in conjunction with the personality traits such as suspiciousness (0,59), authoritarianism (0,45) and independence from the group (-0,54). Based on the contents of components of this factor, it can be interpreted as a manifestation of the "methodical-evaluating" teaching style. The third factor includes the lack of the inclination to blame (-0,68) in conjunction with the personality traits such as sensitivity (0,44), sociability (0.49), accessibility (0,54) and dreaminess (0,52). This combination of features can be described as a manifestation of the "gentle" teaching style. The fourth factor includes the lack of the inclination to blame (-0,68), along with such personality traits as sociability (0,41), self-restraint (0,57), responsibility (0,43), social boldness (0,57) and creativity (0,47). We designated this complex as the "positive approving" teaching style. The fifth factor included indicators of the inclination for adaptation strategy in conflict situations (0,40) in conjunction with the characteristics of concrete thinking (-0,54), low self-esteem (-0,59) and low level of subjective control (-0,39). Since according to K. Thomas, "adaptation" is a sacrifice of personal interests for the sake of somebody else, we interpreted this factor as the "inferior" style.

The factorization of studied variables according to the results of empirical studies of master teachers resulted in the allocation of three teaching styles. The first factor included: ability to establish cooperative relations (0,53), effect of excitation process (0,80), effect of inhibitory process (0,78), low anxiety (-0,66), high activity (0,49) and resistance (0,67), emotional stability (0,46), dominance (0,42), low tension (-0,73) and high creativity (0,60). We interpreted this factor as the "creative collaboration" style. The second factor included: tendency for detailed preparation before classes (0,56), the inclination for evaluating actions (0,79) in conjunction with activity (0,40), mental tempo (0,42), plasticity (-0,64) and suspicion (0,56). We interpreted this factor as a manifestation of the "evaluating" style. The third factor included indicators of the inclination for the discourse methodical style (0,76), psychodynamic activity (0,48) and mental tempo (0,48), practicality (-0,59), self-confidence (0,49), authoritarianism (0,61), low empathy (-0,41). This TS was designated as the "constructive business" style.

The comparison of the correlation analysis data by groups of physical education teachers, distinguished by gender, indicates that male and female style specifics can be caused by different, sometimes contradictory, personality characteristics. Thus, men’s tendency to authoritarian teaching methods is caused by the predominance of the 2nd signal system, while women tend to use the 1st signal system. However, other style features involve both male and female physical education teachers with the same personality characteristics. Such ambivalent gender feature is detected in correlations with personality characteristics with gender nuances: factor I (softness, femininity - toughness, masculinity) correlates with the inclination for communicative actions, and factor H (shyness - courage) correlates with the inclination for creative training methods. This fact indicates that male teachers, along with the inclination for communicative actions, exhibit the properties of softness, femininity, and female teachers, who tend to use creative methods, exhibit social courage, the quality more common for men. This aspect can be attributed to the concept of androgyny, which is flexible coupling of male and female character traits. Using factor analysis, carried out on samples which were determined by gender, we detected a range of TS varieties: three female and three male ones. The comparison of their structural components shows that "male" TSs are focused on mutual actions and problem-solving, while "female" - on mutual actions and themselves. The studies resulted in the following conclusions:

1. The style of work of physical education teachers is multicomponent formation characterized by specific features of activity and determined by the system of integral personality characteristics.

2. There were experimentally identified the varieties of teachers’ TS such as "uncompromising", "methodical-evaluating", "gentle", "positive approving" and "inferior", associated with different combinations of personality characteristics of physical education teachers.

3. The distinctive feature of TS of master teachers is the dependence of their working styles on the predominance of personality characteristics such as balance, activity, mental tempo and self-confidence. We allocated the following teaching styles: "creative collaboration", "estimating" and "constructive business", determined by the systems of multi-level personality characteristics.

4. The comparison of the results of the factor analysis carried out on samples determined by gender shows that "male" teaching styles are focused on mutual actions and problem-solving, while "female" - on mutual actions and themselves.

5. The inclination of physical education teachers to use creative and improvisational teaching techniques is associated with school teaching experience.

References

1. Vyatkin, B.A. Psychology of human styles: study guide / B.A. Vyatkin, M.R. Shchukin. - Moscow – Perm: Knizhny mir. – 2013. –128 P. (In Russian)
2. Klimov, E.A. Individual style of activity depending on the typological properties of the nervous system / E.A. Klimov. - Kazan: Publ. hp-se of Kazan un-ty, 1969. – 378 P. (In Russian)
3. Markova, A.K. Psychology of teacher’s work / A.K. Markova. – Moscow: Prosveschenie, 1993. – 192 P. (In Russian)
4. Merlin, V.S. Essay of the integral study of individuality / V.S. Merlin. – Moscow: Pedagogika, 1986. – 256 P. (In Russian)

Corresponding author: tap29@mail.ru