Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 45–64
© Rylskaya E. A., Moshkina L. D., 2020
UDC: 
159.922.27

Integral individuality of students: Gender characteristics of the structure

Rylskaya E. A. 1 (Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation), Moshkina L. D. 1 (Chelyabinsk, Russian Federation)
1 South Ural State University (National Research University)
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 904
Abstract: 

Introduction. Effective implementation of individual student-centered approach to higher education involves taking into account students’ gender characteristics. The article deals with the structure of students' individuality as a system which is determined by their biological gender. The purpose of the research is to identify gender characteristics within the structure of integral individuality of university students.
Materials and Methods. The study follows V. S. Merlin’s theory of integral individuality.
The research methods include the Strelau Temperament Inventory, Eysenck Personality Inventory, V. M. Rusalov’s personality traits inventory, R. B. Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Freiburg Personality Inventory, K. Leonhard’s questionnaire, Self-Actualization Test (SAT), I. V. Ladanov’s questionnaire, T. Leary’s Interpersonal Circle Model of Personality, Subjective control level questionnaire, and Short selection test (SST). The study sample consists of 147 students (89 female, 58 male) aged between 18 and 22 years.
Results. The study identifies gender characteristics of students’ integral individuality and proves that gender determines the uniqueness of the integral personality of young people.
The obtained data revealed the following characteristics of male-students: emotionally stable, introverted, logical, irritable, aggressive, impulsive, commanding, independent, domineering and self-confident. Female-students were characterized as sociable, outgoing, extraverted, emotionally vulnerable, sensitive, anxious, active, impulsive, pragmatic, shrewd and cautious.
The authors emphasize that significant differences were identified in a limited number of indicators (34 per cent). Moreover, the research revealed both similarities and differences within the structure of the integral individuality of male and female students. The similarities were found at the neuro-psychodynamic level of individuality. The differences took place at the personality and socio- psychological levels.
Conclusions. The authors conclude that biological sex is a mediating link in the structure of the integral individuality, determining the gender identity. At the same time, the study found more similarities than differences in psychological characteristics of male and female students. This fact supports the idea of gender equality as the basis for successful professional development.

Keywords: 

The theory of integral individuality; The structure of integral individuality; Biological sex; Gender identity; Neuro-dynamic; Psychodynamic; Personal and Socio-psychological properties; The concept of gender equality.

URL WoS/RSCI: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/rsci/full-record/RSCI:43091309

Prominence Percentile SciVal: 90.699 Masculinity | Working Class | Coeducation

http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=RSCI&search_mode=G...

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85092654674&origin=...

Integral individuality of students: Gender characteristics of the structure

For citation:
Rylskaya E. A., Moshkina L. D. Integral individuality of students: Gender characteristics of the structure. Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 45–64. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2003.03
References: 
  1. Vyatkin B. A., Dorfman L. Ya. Theory of integral individuality of V. S. Merlin: history and modernity. Education and Science, 2017, vol. 19 (2), pp. 145–160. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=28908711 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2017-2-145-160
  2. Mischenko L. V. The conception of sex and gender development of personal identity in the ontogenesis in the educational space. Society: Sociology, Psychology, Pedagogy, 2015, no. 2, pp.  17–22. (In Russian) URL:  https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23298463
  3. Stolyarchuk L. I. Methodology of integrity in understanding and implementation of gender approach in education // Ivzestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2017, no. 3, pp.  23–27. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=28998253
  4. Alfarhan U. F., Dauletova V. Revisiting the gender academic achievement gap: evidence from a unique environment. Gender and Education, 2019, vol. 31 (7), pp. 827–848. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1324129  
  5. Aronson B., Laughter J. The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: expanding the conversation to include gender and sexuality equity. Gender and Education, 2020, vol. 32 (2), pp.  262–279. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1496231
  6. Bethune J., Gonick M. Schooling the mean girl: a critical discourse analysis of teacher resource materials. Gender and Education, 2017, vol. 29 (3), pp. 389-404. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1156654
  7. Bristol T. J. Teaching boys: towards a theory of gender-relevant pedagogy. Gender and Education, 2015, vol. 27 (1), pp. 53–68. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2014.986067
  8. Brower R. L., Schwartz R. A., Jones T. B. ‘Is it because I’m a woman?’ Gender-based attributional ambiguity in higher education administration. Gender and Education, 2019, vol. 31 (1), pp. 117–135. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1324131
  9. Katz I. In the Eye of the Beholder: Motivational Effects of Gender Differences in Perceptions of Teachers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 2017, vol. 85 (1), pp. 73–86. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1101533
  10. Larrondo A., Rivero D. A case study on the incorporation of gender-awareness into the university journalism curriculum in Spain. Gender and Education, 2019, vol. 31 (1), pp. 1–14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1270420
  11. Manion C. Educating adolescent girls around the globe: challenges and opportunities. Gender and Education, 2018, vol. 30 (2), pp. 273–275. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1343015
  12. McCullough S. Girls, and gender and power relationships in an urban middle school. Gender and Education, 2017, vol. 29 (4), pp. 495–507. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1318205
  13. McDowell J., Klattenberg R. Does gender matter? A cross-national investigation of primary class-room discipline. Gender and Education, 2019, vol. 31 (8), pp. 947–965. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1458078
  14. Moore A. Gender(ed) identities: Critical rereadings of gender in children’s and young adult literature. Gender and Education, 2018, vol. 30 (4), pp. 550–552. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/0.1080/09540253.2018.1445681
  15. Naskali P., Keskitalo-Foley S. Mainstream university pedagogy in feminist perspective. Gender and Education, 2019, vol. 31 (1), pp. 100–116. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1315057
  16. Webb R. ‘Being yourself’: everyday ways of doing and being gender in a ‘rights-respecting’ primary school. Gender and Education, 2019, vol. 31 (2), pp. 258–273. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1309010
  17. Whitelaw S., Milosevic L., Daniels S. Gender, Behaviour and Achievement: A preliminary study of pupil perceptions and attitudes. Gender and Education, 2000, vol. 12 (1), pp. 87–113. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540250020427
  18. Wingrave M. Perceptions of gender in early years. Gender and Education, 2018, vol. 30 (5), pp.  587–606. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1258457
  19. Woodfield R. The gendered landscape of UK higher education: do men feel disadvantage. Gender and Education, 2019, vol. 31 (1), pp. 15–32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1288859
Date of the publication 30.06.2020