Dr.Hab., Professor L.V. Vedernikova¹
PhD, Associate Professor S.A. Elantseva¹
PhD, Associate Professor O.A. Povoroznyuk^1
1Tyumen State University, Ishim

Keywords: practice-prioritizing training model for teachers, responsible top professional teacher (RTPT), bachelors, Physical Education and Life Safety training course, Professional Didactic Tasks module, model piloting experiment.

Background. Issues of new practice-prioritizing training methods to train modern Physical Education specialists have long been ranked among the key priorities by the academic teacher education system –  since, as provided by L.I. Lubysheva, the modern education methods can no longer consider the modern teacher’s competency as an extensive knowledgebase only. The practice prioritizing concept has become one of the pillars of a modern Physical Education teacher training system designed to develop a determined, self-reliant and progress-centered multisided personality [1-6]; with the academic education expected to lay a motivational basis for a successful and productive professional career and life [8].

Objective of the study was to test benefits of a new practice-prioritizing training model for Physical Education teachers in the Professional Didactic Tasks module by the model piloting experiment in the Bachelor of Physical Education and Life Safety training course.

Methods and structure of the study. The practice-prioritizing training model was developed and tested by an experiment within the Professional Didactic Tasks module of the Bachelor Physical Education and Life Safety training course since the psychological and pedagogical Professional Didactic Tasks service format offers the widest opportunities for the cooperative, co-cognitive, compassionate and harmonized teacher-trainee interaction in the Physical Education teacher training process. Benefits of the new practice-prioritizing training model were tested using the teacher didactic competence rating criteria offered by V.D. Shadrikov [7] and regrouped and complemented as dictated by our interpretation of the responsible top professional teacher personality. The co-cognitive competence of the trainees was rated by the following criteria: competence in the service-specific informational toolkit including the didactic methods, subjects and subjective educational provisions. The cooperative competence of the trainees was rated as including the teaching process goals and missions setting competence; motivations for the teaching service; teaching service programming and decision-making competence; and education process management competence. The compassion domain of the teacher competency was rated by the relevant personality testing criteria including empathy; service-specific reflectivity; self-control qualities; all-round culture; and individual creativity.

The trainees’ progress in the responsible top professional teacher personality formation model testing experiment was rated by experts using the V.D. Shadrikov and I.V. Kuznetsova Test and Self-test Method; V.I. Andreev Personality Creativity Test; and O.V. Kalashnikova Teacher’s Reflectivity Test; with all the tests including expert valuations, questionnaire surveys and self-tests.

Results and discussion. The pre-experimental tests of the trainees’ fitness for professional Physical Education teaching service yielded the following data: 25% (5)/ 0%; 60% (12)/ 35% (7); and 15% (3)/ 65%(13) of the RG/ EG, respectively self-rated their competency in the service-specific informational background (including the didactic methods, subjects and subjective educational provisions) as high, normal and low, respectively. This means that in the co-cognitive domain the RG was self-ranked higher than the EG, with the self-test data largely confirmed by the expert valuations.

In the cooperative domain of the responsible top professional teacher personality competence tests the RG was also self-rated higher competent than the EG. The teaching service goals and missions setting competence was tested high, normal and low in 10% (2)/ 30% (6); 25% (5)/ 55% (11); and 65% (13)/ 15% (3) of the EG/RG, respectively. Motivations for the teaching service were tested mostly normal and low in 5 (25%)/ 13 (65%) and 15 (75%)/ 7 (35%) of the ER/ RG, respectively (no one rated it high in the both groups).

The teaching service programming and decision-making competence was self-rated normal and low in 11 (55%)/ 0% and 20 (100%)/ 9 (45%) of the EG/ RG, respectively (no one rated it high in both groups). The educational process management competence was rated high, normal and low in 9 (45%)/ 0%; 11 (55%)/ 7 (35%) and 0%/ 13 (65%) of the RG/ EG, respectively. It should be noted that the experts rated the cooperative domain of this responsible top professional teacher personality competence even lower in the both groups.

The compassion domain of the of the responsible top professional teacher personality competence was self-rated higher than the other domains by both groups, with the only exclusion for the teaching reflectivity aspect that was self-rated lower than the others. Thus empathy was self-rated high and normal by 10 (50%) and 10 (50%) of the RG and EG, respectively (no one rated it low in the both groups). The teaching reflectivity was self-rated low and normal by 15 (75%)/ 10 (50%) and 5 (25%)/ 10 (50%) of the EG/ RG, respectively (no one rated it high in both of the groups). The self-control competence was rated high and normal by 9 (45%)/ 12 (60%) and 11 (55%)/ 8 (40%) of the EG/ RG respectively (no one rated it low in both groups). All-round culture was self-rated normal by 90% and 100% of the EG and RG, respectively. And the creativity was self-rated high and normal by 13 (65%)/ 17 (85%) and 7 (35%)/ 3 (15%) of the RG/ EG, respectively (no one rated it low in the both groups). Experts tested only the teaching reflectivity aspect of the compassion competence, and the expert valuations confirmed the low self-rates.

It may be summarized that more than a half of the sample was tested unprepared for a fair and multisided analysis of their own professional background, knowledge, skills, behavioral models, mental traits and competences of the other contributors to the educational process; and not ready to take responsibility for their own professional failures; with the teaching reflectivity dominated by rather emotional than cognitive and analytical aspects.

The post-experimental tests of the full-time and correspondence-course subsamples (upon the practice-prioritizing training model piloting experiment) found significant (р≤0.05) improvements in every aspect of the co-cognitive and cooperative competences in the EG versus RG. The compassion competence tests found significant (р≤0.05) EG vs. RG progress only in the teaching reflectivity aspect. And the RG was tested with some non-random progress only in the co-cognition domain.

Conclusion. The practice-prioritizing training model testing experiment within the Professional Didactic Tasks module of the Bachelor Physical Education and Life Safety training course was found beneficial for the responsible top professional teacher personality competence building process in every aspect – co-cognitive, emotional (empathy) and behavioral (cooperation) ones – with the EG tested with a meaningful progress in cultural standards, world outlooks, service responsibility and the professional service motivations and personality qualities.

The study was sponsored by a grant financing under RFFI Project # 18-013-00071 Theoretical and Practical Basics for Academic Practice-Prioritizing Teacher Training.

References

1. Vazina K.Ya. Prirodno-refleksivnaya tekhnologiya samorazvitiya pedagogov, studentov [Natural-reflective teacher, student self-development technology]. Nauka i shkola. 2010. no.  5. pp. 20-24.
2. Vedernikova L.V. Razvitie professionalno-lichnostnogo potentsiala buduschego pedagoga v usloviyah modernizatsii pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya [Future teacher professional and personal potential development in context of teacher education modernization]. Sibirskiy pedagogicheskiy zhurnal. 2015. no. 5. pp. 75-78.
3. Vedernikova L.V., Povoroznyuk O.A., Elantseva S.A. Podgotovka sovremennogo uchitelya fizicheskoy kultury k rabote s detmi s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostyami zdorovya [Modern physical education teacher training for work with children with impairments]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2016, no. 4, pp.54-56.
4. Vedernikova L.V., Povoroznyuk O.A., Elantseva S.A. Razvitie issledovatelskoy deyatelnosti pedagogov selskikh shkol [Development of research activities of rural school teachers]. Chelovek i obrazovanie. 2018. no. 1 (54). pp.  129-134.
5. Elantseva S.A. Psikhologicheskie aspekty professionalnoy podgotovki budushchego uchitelya v vuze [Psychological aspects of university teacher training]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2013, no. 11, pp.125-130.
6. Lubysheva L.I. Integratsiya sportivnoy nauki i obrazovaniya – strategicheskiy resurs razvitiya obshchestva [Integration of sports science and education - strategic resource for social development]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2019. no. 3. P. 95.
7. Shadrikov V.D., Kuznetsova I.V. [ed.] Metodika otsenki urovnya kvalifikatsii pedagogicheskikh rabotnikov [Teacher qualification evaluation methods]. Moscow, 2010. Available at https://portal.ivedu.ru/dep/mouofurmn/commondocs/metodicheskaya_slujba/m... ocenki_(Shadrikova).pdf (data obrascheniya: 10.12.2018)
8. Myasishchev V.N. Psikhologiya otnosheniy [Relationship Psychology]. Moscow: MPSI, MODEK, 2011. 400 p.
9. Krylova N.B., Zhilina M.Yu. [ed.]. Sobytiynost v obrazovatelnoy i pedagogicheskoy deyatelnosti [Eventfulness in educational and pedagogical activities]. no. 1 (43).  2010.  157 p.
10. Vedernikova L.V., Povoroznyuk O.A., Elantseva S.A. Professional inclusive educational competency building in future physical education teachers. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture.  2017.no. 6, pp.12-14.
11. Karaseva T.V. Turbachkina O.V., Loshchakov A.M. Future teacher’s health values and motivations building physical education model. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture. 2019. no. 3. pp. 25-27.

Corresponding author: wedernikowa@mail.ru

Abstract

The study was designed to test benefits of a new practice-prioritizing training model for sport trainers in the Professional Didactic Tasks module by the model piloting experiment in the Bachelor of Physical Education and Life Safety training course. The practice-prioritizing training model was designed to form a responsible top professional teacher by the following elements: practice-prioritizing training designed as the assisted and self-reliant progress in efficient cooperation with the teacher, with the interrelated professional responsibilities of the both; the teacher shall design and manage the practice-prioritizing training process in the following three domains: values-governed cognitive; creative; and the values-governed reflective ones, with the relevant eventual structure; the values-governed cognitive domain shall facilitate the bachelor’s consciousness development process viewed as a combination of perceptions and assessments of the professional educational environment and the own personal and professional contribution to the latter; application of the ‘being in event’ tools dictated by the core constituents of the professional responsible personality: ‘consciousness’ with meditation – concentration – analyzing –measuring – comparing – doubting; ‘compassion’ with sympathy- condolence; ‘support’ with creation, cooperation, resistance, rivalry; and the teacher’s responsibility to build up the following educational domains with the relevant eventual structure: design, communication, understanding and reflection.