PhD F.N. Soldatenkov
Surgut State Pedagogical University, Surgut

Keywords: Olympic education, students, role playing method, value system, academic motivation.

Background. Importance and benefits of Olympic education for the priority values and professional interests of the future physical education teachers and coaches have been proved by many study reports (V.S. Rodnichenko, G.M. Polikarpova, K.N. Efremenkov, V.N. Sergeyev, D.A. Kruzhkov). However, the key tenets of the Olympic education are still virtually unemployed in building the priority ethics and values in students majoring in other that physical education or pedagogical disciplines – albeit the universal impacts of the Olympic education and movement are acknowledged by most of the modern researchers [1].

Objective of the study was to rate benefits of the Olympic education for the priority values and motivations building in the students majoring in non-pedagogic academic disciplines of a pedagogical university.

Methods and structure of the study. The Surgut State Pedagogical University (SSPU) management has established an Olympic Education Promotion Centre under the existing students’ Application Research Team that offers a systemic Olympic education in different models. To rate benefits of the Olympic education process for the students majoring in other that physical education or pedagogical disciplines, we tested a few groups of the Personnel Management Department of SSPU involved (Study Groups) versus the non-involved (Reference Groups) in the Olympic education courses; with the other academic curricula being the same for both of the groups.

Subject to the two-stage two-years-long educational experiment were 68 first-year students majoring in Economics and Personnel Management and split up into four equal groups (n-17 each) including two Study Groups and two Reference Groups.

The Olympic education effects were classified and rated by the following 3 key components of the academic education progress: knowledge (rated by the Olympic movement knowledge test) component; axiological component (rated by the M. Rokeach Value System Survey); and motivational component (rated by the A.A. Rean and V.A. Yakunin’s Educational Motivation Test).

At the first stage of the new education model in the academic year of 2014-15, the SG were subject to 5 sessions of Olympic education including traditional lectures and workshops while the RG were not involved in the course. At the second stage, in the academic year of 2015-16, the SG were subject to an educational experiment geared to rate benefits of the role playing model versus the traditional education models. The stage included 5 role playing game sessions to explore and analyse different aspects of the Olympic Games history. The SG progress data were rated versus that of the RG that were trained under the same curriculum a year before [2].

Study results and discussion. In the entry knowledge tests, the SG and RG were tested virtually the same in the proportions of the right answers (38.25% versus 42.5%, respectively) to the relatively simple questions on the Olympic movement i.e. the Olympic traditions and history. These test data were indicative of the primary equality of both groups and their poor knowledge of the Olympic Games.

The M. Rokeach Value System Survey was used as one more instrumental comparative entry test. The Terminal Values entry tests showed the “Health” value being ranked number one both by the SG and RG, with the SG and RG ranking this value by 5.6 and 4.9 points, respectively. In the Instrumental Values domain, the SG and RG ranked highest the “Culture” (3.5 and 4.2 points, respectively) and “Education” (6.2 and 7.7 points, respectively) values, the test ranks being fairly close (p>0.05).

The post-experimental tests found the intergroup test rate differences being quite serious. Thus, in the more comprehensive Olympic Movement Knowledge Test, the SG showed a great progress with the proportion of the right answers tested to grow to 70.2% (φ*emp = 2.449, p<0.01). It should be noted that the RG were not subject to the post-experimental tests viewed as unreasonable. Instead we tested students of the Physical Education and Sports Departments right after the academic Physical Culture History course. The group gave 62% of the right answers, and the result may be indicative of the still insufficient focus of the valid first-year Physical Education curriculum on the Olympic movement topics. On the other hand, the traditional Olympic education model showed its benefits developing the Olympic knowledge in students majoring in non-physical education disciplines.

The post-experimental Values System Test also showed significant intergroup test differences. The SG showed the highest progress in the “Development” value rank that moved up by 8 points – from the 15 to 7 rank (р<0.01); versus the RG ranking that changed insignificantly from 14 to 12. The test data may be interpreted as indicative of benefits of the Olympic education used to form an ideal image of an Olympic athlete as a role model – based, first of all, on the all-round education and development. The average rank of the “Health” value was tested to grow from 5.6 to 3.2 points (φ*emp = 2.108, p<0.05) versus the RG average rank of 5.1 points.

We also applied the Education Motivation rating A.A. Rean and V.A. Yakunin’s Educational Motivation Test) as the third test instrument. The tests showed a significant albeit still meaningless progress of the SG in educational/ cognitive motivations (from 2.9 to 3.5 points on a 5-point scale); creative self-fulfilment motivations (from 3.5 to 3.9 points); and professional motivations (from 4.1 to 4.5 points); versus the RG that showed virtually no changes in these motivations, save for some shift only in professional motivations (from 3.8 to 4.3 points).

The role playing education model piloting experiment showed knowledge progress in the SG from 41% to 79.1% in the post-experimental tests (φ*emp = 2.927, p<0.01); versus the RG progress as a result of the traditional education course tested to grow from 30.5% to 63% (φ*emp = 2.108, p<0.05). Therefore, we have grounds to state that the role playing education model is more effective than traditional interactive lectures, with the finding being supported by some other study reports [3].

The post-experimental Values System Test also showed progress in the “Cognition” value in both of the groups; albeit the SG progress was higher versus that in the RG (17% rise in the rank versus 11.3%, р<0.01). This finding may be interpreted as indicative of the Olympic education based on the role playing education model (as well as the traditional Olympic education) being quite natural and beneficial for the valid education system as it may improve it and increase the students’ motivations for studies.

The above finding was further supported by tests of a few other values including “Self-control” (drop in rating by 14.7% (р<0.01) and 8 points) and “Discipline/ Efficiency” (growth in rating by 5.6% (р<0.05) and 6 points). It should be noted that the role playing education generally helped the students relax and mobilise better their creative abilities in the independence- and open-mindedness-facilitating formats; plus the students showed notable progress in the discipline/ efficiency domain. These reports are indicative of the progress in the group education climate that helped overcome learning and education-specific psychological barriers [2].

Our analysis of the Instrumental Values Test data showed the SG giving a high priority to “Culture” value both in the entry and post-experimental tests. Furthermore, the “Responsibility” value was tested to move up from 7.5 to 6.4 rank; and the same applies to the “Courage in defending own views” value that moved up from 11.3 to 8.6 rank (p<0.05). Furthermore, the “Optimism” value was tested to improve its position from 9.2 to 6.5 rank (p<0.05). These data clearly demonstrated the role playing teamwork benefits since this education model helps develop due responsibility for own decisions for the team success, plus creates facilitating conditions for own position being defended [4].

The post-experimental Olympic education effects on the students’ motivations for education tests (the A.A. Rean and V.A. Yakunin’s Educational Motivation Test) showed progress of the groups in the same rates as the year before. The SG students were tested with a significant progress in the education/ cognitive motivations (from 3.1 to 4.0 points on a 5-point scale, р<0.01); versus only 0.4 point progress in the RG. The creative self-fulfilment motivation was tested to equally grow in both of the groups (from 3.2 to 3.6 points); whilst the professional motivations were tested higher in the RG, with the progress estimated at 0.3 points versus 0.2 points in the SG.

Conclusion. The educational process experiment demonstrated benefits of the Olympic education model as verified by the progress in the health agenda, cognitive activity, self-development activity and extra motivations in cognitive, professional and creative domains tested in the students majoring in non-pedagogical disciplines.

The role playing education model showed its benefits within the frame of the Olympic education model as verified by the subjects’ progress in the cognitive rates and learning motivations, plus progress in the overall relaxation that effectively helped them scale down the academic process adaptation difficulties natural for first-year students.

References

1. Efremenkov K.N., Lazarev V.F., Selivanov A.S, Zakharova N.A. Olimpiyskoe obrazovanie v aspekte reformirovaniya vysshego fizkulturnogo obrazovaniya Rossii v kontekste idey evropeyskoy integratsii [Olympic education in Russian higher physical education reforming in context of ideas of European integration]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2010, no. 12, pp. 43-48.
2. Kazakova E.F., Soldatenkov F.N. Igrovoy metod kak osnovnoe sredstvo formirovaniya sistemy olimpiyskogo obrazovaniya [Game like method as core means of Olympic education system formation]. Sb. statey i mater. Vseros. nauch.-prakt. konf. v ramkakh XXVIII Vseuralskoy olimpiyskoy nauchnoy sessii molodykh uchenykh i studentov "Olimpizm, olimpiyskoe dvizhenie, Olimpiyskie igry (istoriya i sovremennost)" [Book of abstr. and proc. All-Rus. res.-prac. conf. within XXVIII All-Ural Olympic scientific session of young scientists and students "Olympism, Olympic Movement, Olympic Games: history and modernity"]. Surgut, 2016, pp. 34-37.
3. Kizaev O.N., Gerega N.N., Sinyavskiy N.I., Beznosko N.N. Issledovanie otnosheniya studentok po napravleniyu podgotovki pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie k zanyatiyam fizicheskoy kulturoy [Research of attitude of female students majoring in pedagogical education to physical education]. Uchenye zapiski un-ta im. P.F. Lesgafta, 2016, no. 1, pp. 102-106.
4. Koreneva M.V., Martynenko N.M., Kruzhkov D.A. Olimpiyskoe obrazovanie v sisteme podgotovki volonterskogo korpusa [Olympic education in volunteer corps training system]. Olimpiyskiy byulleten. Moscow, 2016, no. 16, pp. 35-40.
5. Polikarpova G.M. Olimpiyskoe obrazovanie i vospitanie kak predmet pedagogicheskogo issledovaniya. Avtoref. dis. dokt. ped. nauk [Olympic education and training as a subject of pedagogical research. Doct. diss. abstract (Hab.)]. Velikiy Novgorod. 2003, 45 p.
6. Rodichenko V.S. Tvoy olimpiyskiy uchebnik. Ucheb. posobie dlya olimpiyskogo obrazovaniya. Olimpiyskiy kom. Rossii: 24-e izd., pererab. i dop. [Your Olympic textbook: Study guide for Olympic education. Rus. Olympic com.: 24th ed., rev. and sup.]. Moscow: Sovetskiy sport publ., 2012, 149 p.
7. Sergeev V.N. Olimpiyskoe obrazovanie: opredelenie sushchnosti i perspektivnye napravleniya nauchnykh issledovaniy [Olympic education: definition of essence and perspective directions of scientific research]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2001, no. 7, pp. 48–49.
8. Shanz E.A. Professionalnaya podgotovka studentov vuza kak tselostnaya pedagogicheskaya sistema [Academic vocational training as integral pedagogical system]. Mater. Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. "Teoriya i praktika obrazovaniya v sovremennom mire" [Proc. Intern. Sci. Conf. "Theory and practice of education in the modern world" (St. Petersburg, February 2012). St. Petersburg: Renome publ., 2012, pp. 383-386.

Corresponding author: mate@surgpu.ru

Abstract

Objective of the study was to rate benefits of the Olympic education for the priority values and motivations building in the students majoring in non-pedagogic academic disciplines of a pedagogical university. Subject to the two-stage two-years-long educational experiment were 68 first-year students majoring in Economics and Personnel Management and split up into four equal groups including two Study Groups and two Reference Groups. The Olympic education effects were classified and rated by the following 3 key components of the academic education progress: knowledge (rated by the Olympic movement knowledge test) component; axiological component (rated by the M. Rokeach Value System Survey); and motivational component (rated by the A.A. Rean and V.A. Yakunin’s Educational Motivation Test).

The test data rating the effects of the Olympic education on the students majoring in non-pedagogical disciplines proved its benefits as verified by the subjects’ progress in the individual health protection and improvement agenda, cognitive motivations, self-development determinations and educational motivations building aspects.

Role playing education method was found particularly efficient in the Olympic education process as it was tested to contribute to the quality of the students’ cognitive activity; improve the educational motivations; make them feel at ease and, hence, better and faster adapt to the academic education environment.