Postgraduate N.A. Parshina¹
PhD, Associate Professor S.N. Gorshenina¹
PhD A.R. Mamayev^1
1Mordovian State Pedagogical Institute named after M.E. Evseviev, Saransk

 

Keywords: technological competency, bachelor of education, technological competency test rates, test toolkit, technological competency test criteria.

 

Background. Modern requirements to education specialists are designed to improve efficiency of their professional educational service by a variety of competency building methods including technological competency ones [1, 2, 4].

Objective of the study was to analyze the test toolkit for the technological competency rating in the future physical education specialists.

Methods and structure of the study. The tests were run at the Practical Research Center for Physical Education and Healthy Lifestyle of the Mordovian Base Pedagogical Education Center [3]. Subject to the tests were the second-year bachelors (n=119) majoring in Physical Education under 44.03.01 Pedagogical Education discipline, with their technological competency rated by the following criteria: values-driven motivational; cognitive; operational; and reflexive-assessment ones.

The values-driven motivational criterion refers to the motivational competency of future teachers for the educational process design and management on a sound technological basis, with the design driven by the basic values including the technological competency component to secure high-quality professional educational service.

The cognitive criterion implies the determination to acquire due competency in the technological fundamentals of the modern educational process; theoretical basics of the educational technologies; frame structure and content of the modern didactic, physical education, sporting and health technologies; integration of the relevant educational technologies in the physical education, sport and health services; and modern didactic technologies implementation requirements.

The operational criterion refers to the design skills and competences (in the educational process modeling and design on the relevant technological grounds) and operational capacities that imply the ability to use the most efficient physical education, sport and health technologies and customize them to age groups and individual requirements of trainees.

The reflexive assessment criterion is applied to analyze how good a future education specialist is in his own professional competency and progress self-rating in the professional educational service process versus the trainees’ progress, with contribution of the relevant educational technologies.

Technological competency of a future education specialist was rated by the above set of criteria with competency levels being indentified – i.e. threshold, basic and high levels.

The education specialists’ technological competency was rated with application of the above set of criteria by the following components: values-driven motivational component rated by the T.I. Ilyina’s Academic Progress Motivations Test and S.Y. Stepanov’s Test of Motivations for Application of Educational Technologies in Future Professional Service (updated version); cognitive component was rated by the Educational Technologies for Teaching Service Survey Form of our own design; operational component was rated by the Competency and Educational Process Design Skills Test (N.A. Aminov, N.V. Kuzmina); Professional Teaching Skills Test (I.V. Nikishina, I.A. Sazonov); and the Operational Technological Competency Rating Test; and the reflexive assessment component was rated by the Reflexivity Rating Test (A.V. Karpov, V.V. Ponomareva, updated version); and the Reflexive Assessment Ability Self-rating Test.

Study findings and discussion. The values-driven motivations test rated 44.6% of the sample with the basic level of values-driven motivations for the educational process design and management on a sound technological basis. Most of the sample (72.3%) was tested to appreciate the modern educational technologies as the key professional service success factor and individual competitiveness securing factor. At the same time most of the sample (63.9%) was tested to give a higher priority to the financial motivations for the modern educational technology application rather than the vocational self-fulfillment motivations.

Furthermore, the sample was tested with mostly (60.7%) the threshold level of the cognitive component since the students were found little aware of the following: modern educational technologies and their applications in the educational process; theoretical basics for general education, physical education, sporting and health technologies and their classification basics; content of the modern educational technologies and their implementation options and procedures (5.4 %).

The operational component tests (using the N.A. Aminov and N.V. Kuzmina’s Competency and Educational Process Design Skills Test) showed domination (62.2%) of the threshold level of the operational and process design competency in the sample. Furthermore, the sample was found largely (60%) unprepared for the individual and collective self-reliant education design and educational progress tests with application of the relevant modern progress test technologies; incompetent in selection and prudent combination of the relevant educational models, methods and tools; and unprepared for progress forecasts and actual progress ratings. The sample was tested mostly (67.2%) unprepared for the competency-testing educational process modeling exercises using the modern educational technologies; and mostly (53.8%) incompetent in selection of the educational technologies and their customizing for age groups and individual requirements of trainees. In addition, the sample was tested mostly (71.4%) incompetent in the educational process adjustment and mostly (76.5%) unprepared for creative solutions in the professional teaching process. Having summarized the experimental data, we rated the sample mostly (56.7%) with the threshold-level operational competency component.

Having tested the reflexive assessment component of the technological competency, we found the sample mostly (54.4%) competent for reflection of own experience and mostly (63.7%) competent for self-analysis of own performance and progress. However, the sample was found to still face problems in the attempts to analyze some specific educational process design models; rate progress in some educational technologies; and not always capable of analyzing the trainees’ performance and progress. On the whole, half of the sample (49.1%) was rated with the threshold-level reflexive assessment competency component.

Conclusion. As demonstrated by the experimental test data, most of the future physical education specialists are tested with the threshold technological competency rates; followed by an insignificant group tested with the basic technological competency rates; and only a small group tested with the high technological competency rate. The study data and analyses may be applied to set milestones for the technological competency building in the future physical education specialists by the academic educational tools.

 

References

1. Vlasova V.P., Neyasova I.A., Karabanova O.N. Fizkulturno-ozdorovitelnaya deyatelnost kak sredstvo razvitiya sotsialno znachimykh kachestv u buduschikh uchiteley fizicheskoy kultury [Academic physical education and health service to develop socially important qualities in future physical education teachers]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2017, no. 11, pp. 18–20.

2. Gorshenina S.N., Marinkina N.A. Soderzhatelnye osnovy formirovaniya tekhnologicheskoy kompetentnosti u buduschikh uchiteley fizicheskoy kultury [Substantive foundations of technological competency building in future physical education teachers]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2017, no. 1, pp. 12-14.

3. Kokurin A.V., Shukshina T.I., Zamkin P.V., Miroshkin V.V. Rol regionalnogo nauchno-prakticheskogo tsentra fizicheskoy kultury i zdorovogo obraza zhizni v obrazovatelnoy deyatelnosti vuza [Role of regional research and practical physical culture and healthy lifestyle center in academic educational activity]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2016, no. 8, pp. 5–7.

4. Litvinenko S.N., Lubysheva L.I. Konversiya sorevnovatelnykh tekhnologiy v sportizirovannom fizicheskom vospitanii i sporte dlya vsekh [Competitive technology conversion in sportizated physical education and mass sports]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2017, no. 1, pp. 5–7.

 

Corresponding author: natasha_marinkina@mail.ru

 

Abstract

The national educational system reform implies the educational process being designed to develop the education specialist’s personality with a high priority to the individual competency in the technological basics of an educational process design for success and productivity of the professional service. Modern educational process studies underline the need for due technological competency as a key component of professional background of a future teacher. The technological competency building process shall be supported by the relevant progress rating tools. Objective of the study was to analyze the test toolkit for the technological competency rating in the future physical education specialists. As demonstrated by the experimental test data, most of the future physical education specialists are tested with the threshold technological competency rates; followed by an insignificant group tested with the basic technological competency rates; and only a small group tested with the high technological competency rate. The study data and analyses may be applied to set milestones for the technological competency building in the future physical education specialists by the academic education tools.