Postgraduate E.E. Afonina¹
Dr.Hab., Professor T.I. Shukshina¹
PhD, Associate Professor V.V. Akamov¹

¹Mordovian State Pedagogical Institute named after M.E. Evseviev, Saransk

 Keywords: values, priority values, physical education, life safety, attitude, physical education department.

 

Background. The ongoing reforms in the national educational system have set high requirements to the professional backgrounds of the pedagogical university students. A high-quality teaching service is needed to train a competent and skilled specialist demonstrating a wide range of practical skills and abilities including those in the life safety domain.

Objective of the study was to rate attitudes of the physical education department students to the life safety related values.

Methods and structure of the study. For the purposes of the study, we rated and analyzed attitudes of the Physical Education Department (PRD) students to the life safety related values at Mordovian State Pedagogical Institute (MSPI) named after M.E. Evseviev, with the students (n=47) majoring in Physical Education under the academic Teacher Education discipline sampled for the study. Applied for the study purposes was the following test toolkit: the A.M. Schubert Risk Propensity Test; B. Bass’s Orientation Inventory (Smekalo-Kucher’s Questionnaire); and the Schwartz Value Survey.

Study findings and discussion. At the first stage of the study, we analyzed the available theoretical and practical literature on the subject and the relevant regulatory provisions (including the FSHES [3]; Professional Educator Standard [2]; valid curriculum; work program etc.) for the Physical Education specialty under 44.03.01 Pedagogical Education discipline. The reference literature analysis showed the issue being still largely underexplored; plus the valid curriculum was found short of the content to help build up due values and values-driven priorities in the students.

At the second stage of the study, we applied the above test toolkit to rate the PED sample attitudes to the life safety related values. Thus, the A.M. Schubert Risk Propensity Test generated the data on how the PED sample is prepared to take risks and whether or not these risks are necessary and reasonable. The tests rated 61.5% of the sample low on the risk propensity scale i.e. excessively cautious; 21.2% of the sample was rated moderate on this scale i.e. reasonably ready for risks and prepared for caution in some cases; and 17.3% of the sample were tested with highly-risky attitudes i.e. prone to risk.

Furthermore, we applied the B. Bass’s Orientation Inventory (Smekalo-Kucher’s Questionnaire) to find the sample priority goals, with the test data providing grounds with the following findings:

(1) 32.7% of the sample was tested with the Self-centered (SC) priorities including direct remuneration and satisfaction regardless of the job and team; aggressiveness on the way to the desired status; imperiousness; proneness to competition; irritability; anxiety and introversion;

(2) 38.5% of the sample was tested with the communication-centered (CC) priorities including proneness to good relations; openness to cooperation albeit often at sacrifice of specific goals or sincere help to people; focus on social appreciation; dependence on group opinion; need for affection and emotional contacts with people;

(3) 28.8% of the sample was tested with the businesslike (B) priorities including focus on business issues; proneness to doing their best in the job; openness to business cooperation; and ability to defend own opinion for the sake of business and joint goals.

The Schwartz Value Survey gave us the means to analyze the values-driven motivations of the sample and make the following findings: within the individual ideals domain, hedonism (54%); and power (50%) were the most expressed in the sample; and tradition (8%); and universalism (6%) were the least expressed. Within the individual priorities domain, hedonism (52%); and power (50%) were the most expressed in the sample versus tradition (8%); and universalism (6%) being the least expressed.

Therefore, the study data and analyses showed domination of such values as hedonism (54%), health (52%), power (50%), love (46%) and wealth (42%). The above test data were verified by a written questionnaire survey with such questions as “What does a value mean?”; “What do the life safety related values mean?”; “Please mention the life safety related values” etc. The survey data showed the sample’s attitudes to the life safety related values being largely neutral, with the individual values maturity and values-driven priority rates being tested low or moderate.

The study data shows the need for special efforts to activate both the advanced educational system and the relevant research at the Physical Education Department with a special emphasis on the practice-prioritizing teaching elements to effectively build up the graduates’ competences in the relevant fields including life safety [1]. A special priority in the educational process shall be given to the values-and-semantics domain of the future physical education specialist, for the reason that only a well-developed value system provides a basis for efficient self-identification, individual progress and success in a professional career.

Conclusion. The life safety related values of the Physical Education Department (PED) students shall be considered among the key elements and indispensable parts of an education specialist’s progress and professional success. The high priority given to the life safety related values system formation in the academic period is due to the fact that this age group is the most sensitive to the values cultivation efforts, and the conscientiously accepted values may be critical for success of the specialist professional service and social role on the whole.

This is the reason why the life safety related values development missions shall be ranked high on the list of priorities by both the physical education departments and the national educational system on the whole to support the social progress.

 

References                                                     

1. Kadakin V.V., Fedotova G.G., Kokurin A.V., et al. Deyatelnost fakulteta fizicheskoy kultury v novykh usloviyakh razvitiya pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya [Physical education department service in developing teacher education system]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2017, no. 11, pp. 9-11.

2. Professionalny standart Pedagog (pedagogicheskaya deyatelnost v doshkolnom, nachalnom obshchem, osnovnom obshchem, srednem obshchem obrazovanii) (vospitatel, uchitel) [Professional standard ‘Teacher (pedagogical activity in preschool, primary general, basic general, secondary general education) (educator, teacher)’ [Electronic resource]. Available at: http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=law;n=203805#0 (date of access: 23.09.18).

3. Federalny gosudarstvenny obrazovatelny standart Vysshego obrazovaniya po napravleniyu podgotovki 44.03.01 – ‘Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie’ (uroven bakalavriata) [Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Education in 44.03.01 – ‘Pedagogical Education" (Bachelor level) December 4, 2015 No. 1426 [Electronic resource]. Available at: http://fgosvo.ru/uploadfiles/fgosvob/440301.pdf (date of access 28.02.18).

 

Corresponding author: t_i_shukshina@mordgpi.ru

 

Presently the Russian government gives a special priority to the policies to encourage safe personality behaviour and lifestyles in the young population. These policies are geared to counter the latest negative trends, support the relevant initiatives and develop the values-driven healthy and safe attitudes in the young people to their own lives and communities.

One of the solutions to support the above policies implies the relevant training of the future education specialists to build up their safe behavioural culture with a special emphasis on the students’ life safety and health in the professional academic training course; and with the relevant life safety values viewed among the indispensable and critical elements of their professional service.