CC BY
10UDC 159.9.072
Dr. Hab., Professor V.N. Irkhin1
PhD, Associate Professor S.A. Korneeva1
PhD, Associate Professor Y.N. Gut1
Postgraduate D.A. Khodeev1
1Belgorod State National Research University, Belgorod
Gto trainings and tests in academic physical education service: student group psychology, motivations and priorities survey
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
Objective of the study was to rate and analyze the students' psychological types, motivations for and priorities in academic physical education and sports with GTO trainings and tests.
Methods and structure of the study. The study was run in 2019-2020 at the Belgorod State National Research University's (BSNU) Pedagogical Institute under the BSNU Contest for Grants for Social and Humanitarian Research Project No. 826-OD of 14.08, 2020. We used the following methods: reference literature analysis; semiformal interviews formatted as recommended by S.A. Korneeva and Y.N. Gut; A.K. Osnitsky Self-control Qualities and Skills Survey; and the Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. We sampled for the study 197 students.
Results and discussion. Based on the reference literature analysis and popular personality traits tests, we grouped the sample into typological groups with different multilevel self-control skills in the physical education and sports domain. We found that the adaptive, active and personality levels require different physical education and sports motivation tools in the GTO trainings and tests. Thus the sports-driven group with the high social self-assertion agenda was tested higher on the goal-setting and pursue, situation analyzing and modeling and progress rating and adjustment scales. The players and formalists groups were tested more impulsive, anxious, closed, whilst the sports driven group was found more dynamic, adequate and effective in communication domain. The survey data and analyses confirmed our prior assumption that that students may be motivated for habitual physical education and sports by the GTO training and test tools by focused motivational efforts with a high emphasis on their physical activation and self-controlling experiences both in the intellectual and emotional activity aspects and, what may be most beneficial for these initiatives, the self-controls tests and improvement service.
Keywords: motivated individual activity, student types, key motivation, GTO toolkit, physical education and sports, intellectual and emotional activity.
Background. University initiatives to motivate students for academic physical education and sports using the GTO tools [3] need to be based on modern psychological and pedagogical theory and technology with a special priority to the individual student types and their multilevel self-control, values and priorities in the physical education and sports domain. We proceeded from the assumption that students may be motivated for habitual physical education and sports by the GTO training and test tools by focused motivational efforts with a high emphasis on their physical activation and self-controlling experi-
ww.teoriya.ru
ences both in the intellectual and emotional activity aspects and, what may be most beneficial for these initiatives, the self-control tests and improvement service.
Objective of the study was to rate and analyze the students' psychological types, motivations for and priorities in the academic physical education and sports with GTO trainings and tests.
Methods and structure of the study. The study was run in 2019-2020 at the Belgorod State National Research University's Pedagogical Institute under the Belgorod State National Research University
Contest for Grants for Social and Humanitarian Research Project No. 826-OD of 14.08, 2020. We used the following methods: reference literature analysis; semiformal interviews formatted as recommended by S.A. Korneeva and YN. Gut; A.K. Osnitsky Self-control Qualities and Skills Survey; and the Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. We sampled for the study 197 students.
Results and discussion. Based on the semiformal interviews, the sample was grouped into the following typological groups: (1) sports-driven group tested with high genuine physical education and sports motivations dominated by the social assertion agenda; (2) players group tested with high success motivations dominated by the competitive ones; (3) nihilists group tested with high intrinsic physical education and sports motivations dominated by the personal assertion needs in physical education and sports domain; and (4) formalists group tested with high failure avoidance motivations dominated by the need for recognition, appreciation and academic progress on the whole.
We used the A.K. Osnitsky Self-control Qualities and Skills Survey to rate the students' self-control and motivations for the GTO trainings and tests [1, 2]. The self-rated self-control of the above groups was found significantly different. The self-control skill set tests found significant intergroup differences on many test scales. Thus, the sports-driven group significantly less often reported shortages of these skills versus the formalists group: 14 versus 25, respectively (p <0.05). The sports-driven group was also tested higher on the goal-setting and pursue, situation analyzing and modeling and progress rating and adjustment (when necessary) scales. The groups were also tested significantly different in the self-control skills component self-rates and analyses.
On the latter scale the groups were tested with largely the same trends, i.e. the sports-driven group was tested higher on the self-control skills functions rating scales versus the players and formalists groups: 68 versus 60 points, respectively, and significantly lower in physical education and sports absenteeism rates: 9 versus 29 points, respectively. These data means that the sports-driven group is highly intrinsically motivated for physical education and sports with a special priority to the social progress agenda and, hence, higher self-control on the whole including good self-management, orderliness, accuracy, practical realization of intentions and optimal operational control and management skills. It should be mentioned in this context that the players and formalists groups were tested significantly higher on the self-rated errors scale.
Individual self-control skills styles in the context of the personal motivations for the GTO trainings
and tests were also found group-specific. Thus the sports-driven and nihilists groups were tested higher on the caution, confidence, flexibility, practicality and stability scales than the players and formalists groups: 51 versus 42 and 10 versus 17 points on the positive (skills reported) and negative (no skills) scales, respectively. Furthermore, the sports-driven group was tested higher on the individual self-control skills styles scales than the players, nihilists and formalists groups: 64 versus 50 points, respectively.
We used Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire to further rate and compare the group motivations for and priorities in the GTO trainings and tests. On the group A factor scale (kindness, cordiality, concern, openness) the players group was rated more impulsive, anxious and reserved versus the sports-driven group tested more dynamic, adequate and effective in social communications. On the factor E scale (dominance, persistence/ conformity, dependence) the above groups were also significantly (p<0.05) different. On the factor H scale (courage, confidence/ shyness, restraint), the formalists group was ranked lowest due to the poor activity, more restrained and timid behaviors, low self-confidence and hesitant decision making.
Furthermore, the sports-driven group was tested with more flexible behavior and good stress situation management skills. The groups were also found different on the factors Q3/ Q4 scales, with the sports-driven individuals ranked highest on the self-control and management subscales. The M factor rating exercise found significant intergroup differences in the intellectual development domain. Thus the sports-driven nihilists groups were ranked highest on the intelligence, mental versatility and creativity subscales. It may be concluded, therefore, that the Cattell 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire data analysis found certain intergroup correlations of the group personality traits with the conscious behavioral self-controls, motivations for and priorities in the GTO trainings and tests under the academic physical education and sports curriculum.
Conclusion. Student groups tested with different motivations and key incentives for the GTO trainings and tests under the academic physical education and sports curriculum were also tested different on the following scales: self-rated self-controls in the practical physical education and sports domain; communicative and interpersonal relations building skills; emotional, volitional and intellectual qualities and skills; and the self-management and stress tolerance skills rating scale. The sports-driven group with its high intrinsic physical education and sports motivations dominated by the social assertion agenda was ranked highest on the feel/ action spontaneity
24
Theory and Practice of Physical Culture I teoriya.ru I March № 3 2021
scale - that may be interpreted as indicative of the 2. group's decision making and acting versatility and unpredictability; whilst the players group was ranked highest on the creativity scale indicative of the good individual creative resources and priorities. 3.
References
1. Osnitskiy A.K., Korneeva S.A. New aspects of study of conscious self-regulation and functional asymmetry of brain. Psikhologiya obu-cheniya. 2014. No. 9. pp. 37-48.
Osnitskiy A.K., Korneeva S.A. Neuropsychological phenomenology of self-regulation processes. Scientific result. Ser. «Pedagogika i psikhologiya obrazovaniya». 2017. V. 3. No. 4. pp. 64-73. Yakimov A.I. Return of GTO standards as a way to improve. Actual problems and approaches to implementation of Russian physical culture and sports complex "Ready for work and defence". Proceedings national research-practical conference. Ural state pedagogical university. Yekaterinburg, 2014. pp. 131-134.
ww.teoriya.ru
