Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 61–74
UDC: 
159.9.072+378.14

Individualized instruction techniques for undergraduate psychology students

Vasileva I. V. 1 (Tyumen , Russian Federation), Chumakov M. V. 2 (Kurgan , Russian Federation)
1 Tyumen State University
2 Kurgan State University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article compares psychological characteristics of education based on individual instruction techniques and on whole-class instruction techniques. Implementation of new educational technologies should be complemented by an analysis of their effectiveness within various areas of training. Psychological characteristics including professional motivation, professional identity, and choosing various forms of professional activities are important prerequisites for the effectiveness of professional training. The purpose of the article is to conduct an empirical analysis of psychological characteristics of whole-class instruction and individualized techniques for students pursuing undergraduate psychology degrees.
Materials and Methods. The authors have employed the following research methods: Vaysman’s cognitive and professional motives questionnaire (modified by N. A. Bakshaeva, A. A. Verbitsky); N. A. Bakshaeva and A. A. Verbitsky’s self-assessment inventory of educational, cognitive and professional motives; U. S. Rodygina’s Student Professional Identity Questionnaire; Questionnaire of professional activities attractiveness for psychology students. Mathematical and statistical methods included descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U-test.
Results. The authors summarized empirical data and revealed the characteristics of professional motivation and professional identity of psychology students, taking into account various educational technologies. The authors analyzed students’ preferences for various types of professional activities, as well as relevant types of activities which support professional activities of psychology students. As a result, the authors compared psychological characteristics of training psychology students within the whole-class system and using individualized educational technologies.
Conclusions. Within the framework of educational reforms, universities build different models for the organization of educational process. Based on empirical data, it is shown that individualized instruction technologies enhance students’ psychological direction of professional motivation and professional identity.

Keywords: 

Higher education; Individual educational trajectories; Whole-class instruction; Professional motivation; Identity.

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85092281209&origin=...

Individualized instruction techniques for undergraduate psychology students

For citation:
Vasileva I. V., Chumakov M. V. Individualized instruction techniques for undergraduate psychology students. Science for Education Today, 2020, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 61–74. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2004.04
References: 
  1. Van der Kleij F. M., Adie L. E., Cumming J. J. A meta-review of the student role in feedback. International Journal of Educational Research, 2019, vol. 98, pp. 303–323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.09.005 
  2. Heath S. B. Risks, rules, and roles. Schwerpunkt: Wandel pädagogischer Institutionen, 2000, vol. 3, pp. 61–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-000-0005-8
  3. Crebert G., Bates M., Bell B., Patrick C. J., Cragnolini V. “Developing generic skills at university, during work placement and in employment: graduates’ perceptions”. Higher Education Research & Development, 2004, vol. 23 (2), pp. 147–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000206636
  4. Assunção H., Lin S-W., Sit P.-S., Cheung K.-C., Harju-Luukkainen H., Smith T., Maloa B., Campos J. Á. D. B., Ilic I. S., Esposito G., Francesca F. M., Marôco J. University student engagement inventory (USEI): transcultural validity evidence across four continents. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020, vol. 10, pp. 2796. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02796
  5. Schaufeli W. B., Salanova M., González-Romá V., Bakker A. B. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 2002, vol. 3 (1), pp. 71–92. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326 
  6. Salanova M., Schaufeli W., Martínez I., Bresó E. How obstacles and facilitators predict academic performance: The mediating role of study burnout and engagement. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 2010, vol. 23 (1), pp. 53–70. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615800802609965
  7. Murphy L., Eduljee N. B., Croteau K., Parkman S. Relationship between personality type and preferred teaching methods for undergraduate college students. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2020, vol. 6 (1), pp. 100–109. URL: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1229010
  8. Rodriguez-Menendez G., Dempsey J. P., Albizu T., Power S., Campbell Wilkerson M. Faculty and student perceptions of clinical training experiences in professional psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 2017, vol. 11 (1), pp. 1–9. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2017-02082-001
  9. Gebauer M. M., McElvany N., Bos W., Köller O., Schöber C. Determinants of academic self-efficacy in different socialization contexts: investigating the relationship between students’ academic self-efficacy and its sources in different contexts. Social Psychology of Education, 2019, vol. 23, pp. 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09535-0
  10. Viskovich S., De George-Walker L. An investigation of self-care related constructs in undergraduate psychology students: Self-compassion, mindfulness, self-awareness, and integrated self-knowledge. International Journal of Educational Research, 2019, vol. 95, pp. 109–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.02.005
  11. Bednyi B. I., Chuprunov E. V. Modern doctoral education in Russia: Current directions of development. Higher Education in Russia, 2019, vol. 28 (3), pp. 9–20. (In Russian) DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-3-9-20 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=37184520
  12. Alrashidi O., Phan H. P., Ngu B. H. Academic engagement: An overview of its definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualisations. International Education Studies, 2016, vol. 9 (12), pp. 41–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n12p41
  13. Andreeva O. S., Selivanova O. A., Vasilieva I. V. Comprehensive diagnosis of components of pedagogical students’ research competency. The Education and Science Journal, 2019, vol. 21 (1), pp. 37–58. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2019-1-37-58 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=37057168
  14. Darnon C., Buchs C., Butera F. Buts de performance et de maîtrise et interactions sociales entre étudiants: la situation particulière du désaccord avec autrui. Revue Française de Pédagogie. Recherches en Education, 2006, vol. 155, pp. 35–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rfp.84
  15. Darnon C., Butera F., Harackiewicz J. M. Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning with mastery vs. performance goals. Motivation and Emotion, 2007, vol. 31 (1), pp. 61–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9049-2
  16. Cronan T. A., Van Liew C., Stal J., Marr N., Patrus A., Mansoor M., Cronan S. B. In the eye of the beholder: Students’ views of mentors in psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 2020, vol. 47 (1), pp. 15–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628319888067
  17. Akulov A. V. Peculiarities of dynamics of the inclusion of students-psychologists in educational-professional activity. Humanitarian and Pedagogical Education, 2018, vol. 4 (4), pp. 5–11. (In Russian) URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36508194
  18. Peseta T., Bell A. Seeing institutionally: a rationale for ‘teach the University’ in student and staff partnerships. Higher Education Research & Development, 2020, vol. 39 (1), pp. 99–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1676200
  19. Gillies R. M. Promoting academically productive student dialogue during collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 2019, vol. 97, pp. 200–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.014
  20. Wilson K. F., Wilson K. ‘Collaborate to graduate’: what works and why? Higher Education Research & Development, 2019, vol. 38 (7), pp. 1504–1518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1660311
  21. Lawner E. K., Quinn D. M., Camacho G., Johnson B. T., Pan-Weisz B. Ingroup role models and underrepresented students’ performance and interest in STEM: A meta-analysis of lab and field studies. Social Psychology of Education, 2019, vol. 22 (5), pp. 1169–1195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09518-1
  22. Belyakova E. G., Zakharova I. G. Professional self-determination and professional identity of students-teachers in the conditions of individualisation of education. The Education and Science Journal, 2020, vol. 22 (1), pp. 84–112. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2020-1-84-112 URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42461508
Date of the publication 31.08.2020