Труды IV Республиканской научно-практической online-конференции «Образование XXI века: проблемы, тенденции и перспективы». Николай Сергеевич Лустов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of correlation between student engagement and teacher personality. The amount of time students allocate to learning activities was the first definition of student engagement in its infant stage (Brophy, 1983; Fisher et al., 1980; McIntyre et al.,1983). Although student engagement has long been solely associated with students; involvement in educational processes, the new perspective on the term’s definition also includes cognitive and affective components. Astin (1984) referred to student engagement as «the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience», and highlighted that for an effort to be considered as engagement along with investing time, students must actively invest in intellectual capacities and their attention. In general, researchers (Kuh, 2003; Handelsman et al., 2005; Chapman, 2003) seem to concur on three major components in defining student engagement, which are cognitive, affective and behavioral efforts put by the students. Talking separately about each of these aspects, according to Chapman (2003) cognitive criteria indicates the focus devoted and the mental involvement when doing the tasks, second behavioral criteria indicates contributed responses to the offered tasks, third, affective criteria indicates the students’ investment level in the task and their emotional reactions to those tasks.

      There are visible behavior patterns that assess student engagement possible. Franklin (2005) described some of these patterns as students’ «tendency to listen, respond to questions, collaborate with peers, and actively participate in class.» Mentioned behavior models are likely to indicate student engagement in the classroom when monitoring. Not surprisingly, a high level of engagement is linked to high-quality learning outcomes (Krause & Coates, 2008).

      The research conducted by Kiefer and Pennington (2017) intended to find out if there is a correlation between teachers perceived as supporters of autonomous learning and the engagement level that students show. The researchers concluded that not only teachers influence but «directly shapes» student engagement, and is crucial when examining the perspectives of school students. Cinches et al., (2017) highlighted the impossibility of accurate student engagement studies without counting the teacher’s impact.

      Another study on teacher support and students’ well-being, conducted by Suldo et al. (2009), intended to explore the relationship between teacher support and student success, revealing that supportive teacher-student interaction is likely to result in students’ academic engagement. Apart from studies on the significance of teacher-student relationships, there is more research on factors that influence these relationships. Aiming to get a deeper understanding of the factors that matter in teacher-learner interactions, Split et al., (2012) surveyed 657 students. They revealed that a lack of good relationship between educators and their learners causes student anxiety and insecurity which intervenes their social and educational growth. In a Zepke et al., (2010) survey, where 1200 students took part, it was identified that 4 of the 10 factors that enhance student engagement were directly connected to teacher-learner relationships, and in fact, supportive teacher behavior plays a crucial role in building positive teacher-student relationships.

      Federici and Skaalvik (2014) described that emotional support from teachers is manifested when they show their warmth, respect, love, and level of trust to their students. According to Tennant et al. (2015), when learners receive positive emotional support from their teachers they tend to score higher on standardized tests. Strati et al. (2017) state that when students face emotional obstruction such as, teacher’s disrespect, sarcasm, or negative attitude towards specific students, the level of student engagement declines. Suldo et al. (2009) emphasized the overwhelming impact of negative teacher behaviors by claiming that negative emotional obstruction is «easily recalled» compared to emotional support. Moreover, Mayer and Turner (2002) argued that a lack of support in an academic setting might lead to loss of motivation and decreased engagement. They suggested that the behavior displayed by the teacher might influence not only students’ behavior but also their educational and emotional success.

      According to Sandlin’s (2019) case study, students believed that teachers’ personalities have a significant impact on their engagement. Most students identified agreeableness and extraversion as important traits for building classroom engagement. Tennent et al. (2015) also emphasized the importance of positive relationships between teachers and students in achieving desirable outcomes.

      Conclusion. This paper highlights the importance of teacher personality and student engagement in academic performance. Positive teacher traits, such as friendliness, openness, agreeableness, competence, and responsibility, can lead to better engagement and academic outcomes. Negative traits, such as neuroticism and introversion, can have the opposite effect. Supportive attitudes and emotional support from teachers can improve engagement, while negativity can harm it. Further research should observe teachers and students in authentic environments to provide empirical evidence.

      Reference

      1. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 2000, Vol. 126. No. 1, P. 3—25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3

      2. Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. Sociogenomic personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 2008, Vol. 76, No. 6, P. 1523—1544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00530.x

      3. Funder, D. C. The personality puzzle (3rd ed.). New York: Norton, 2004.

      20. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2005

      4. McAdams, D. P. The person: A new introduction to personality psychology (4th ed.). New York: Wiley, 2006.

      5. Pervin, L.A., Cervone, D. & John, O.P. Personality: theory and research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2005.

      6. Mayer, J. D. Personality Function and Personality Change. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioner’s guide. Psychology Press, 2007, P. 125—143.

      7. Hogan, R. Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1991, Vol. 2, P. 873—919.

      8. Burger J. M. Personality (9. ed.). Cengage Learning, 2015.

      9. Guthrie, J.P., Coate, C.J., & Schwoerer, C.E. Career management strategies: the role of personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 1998. No. 13, P. 371—386.

      10. Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (3rd edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. 2008.

      11. Buss, A. H. Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 1989, Vol. 44, No. 11, P. 1378—1388. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.11.1378

      12. Snow, R.E and Stemberg. Education and Intelligence. Handbook of human intelligence, New York Cambridge University Press. 1984.

      13. Gregoire, C.Seven habits of natural leaders. 2014. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/20/traits‐that‐make‐a-leader_n_5959298.html

      14. Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. Achievement tests and the role of character in American life. In J. J. Heckman, J. E. Humphries, & T. Kautz (Eds.), The myth of achievement tests: The GED and the role of character in American life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2014. P.23—54

      15. Jackson, J. J., Hill, P. L., Payne, B. R., Roberts, B. W., & Stine‐Morrow, E. A. L. Can an old dog learn (and want to experience) new tricks? СКАЧАТЬ