CC BY
92
Секция 8. Педагогика
4. Ignatieva, I. F. The Problem of Artifact: Ontology, Epistomology, Axiology, Veliky Novgorod, 2002
5. Kagan, M, Philosophical Theory of Values, M. S. Kagan, St. Petersburg, TOO TK, Petropolis, 1997
6. Kazakova, V. I., Technical Artifact in the Living Space, 2011, electronic access http://www.dissercat. com/content/tekhnicheskii-artefakt-v-gorizonte-zhiznennogo-prostranstva.
7. Krasnoglazov, A.B, Functioning of Artifact in the Cultural-Semantic Space: PhD Thesis — M. 1995
8. Ontologies and Ontological Systems, web source www.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/Members/marian/411430437438 .../at.../file.
9. Orlova, E.A, Artifact as a Unit of Socio-Cultural Microdynamics, Cultural Observatory, 2010
10. Rozov, N.S, Multi-Paradigmal Ontology and Ritual-institutional conception ofbeing and historical development of artifacts. Artifact Ontology: interaction between “natural” and “artificial” components of the living space, Moscow, Delo 2012;
11. Suhina, I. G. Values and Cultural Picture of the World: on the Question of Cultural Axiology; lectures, Taurida National V. I. Vernadsky University
12. Psychological Dictionary, source: http://psychology.net.ru/dictionaries/psy.html?word=66
13. Filer, A. Y. Culturology for Cultural Experts, Moscow, Academic Project, 2000
14. quotation of Kanke, V. A. Philosophy and Methodology of Technology and Informatics, web source http://uchebniki.ws/121705014891/filosofiya/ontologiya_priroda_tehnicheskih_artefaktov.
15. Heidegger, M, Things and Creations, Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Language Philosophy, M. 1993 (1954);
16. Asima M. Turekhanova, Gulnar D. Aitzhanova. Representation of Value and Estimation Meanings in the Terminology of Railroad Sublanguage. European Researcher, 2014, Vol (70), № 3-1.
17. Collins English Dictionary-Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. William Collins Sons & ltd. 2009.
18. Smith, B. (2003) Ontology, in Floridi L. (Ed) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
19. The American Heritage Science Dictionary. Published by Houghton Miffin.2002.
20. http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki.Артефакт.
Georgi Todorov Klinkov, University of Plovdiv “Paisii Hilendarski”, Bulgaria Senior Assistant Professor PhD, The Faculty of Pedagogy
E-mail: starcom2@abv.bg
Sociometry and the behavioural axiom
Abstract: Sociometry means the theoretical and practical orientation of sociology, which deals with the social and psychological interrelations and connections among people in small groups. The most important tools of analysis are sociometric tests, as well as various social matrices and sociograms, which in many ways draw upon the sociometric method.
Key words: sociometry, behavioural axiom, microsociology, tests.
The widespread use of psychoanalysis and Gestalt theory in psychological tradition in the 1930s resulted in the formation of a new branch of sociological knowledge, called sociometry or microsociology. Sociometry means the theoretical and practical orientation of sociology, which deals with the social and psychological interrelations and connections among people in small groups.
Sociometry (deriving from the Latin “societas” — society and metrics) is separated as a branch of social psychology, which deals with interpersonal relationships, diagnostic attention being paid to its quantitative indicators [13].
The creator of this theory is a disciple of Sigmund Freud, who emigrated from Romania to the United States, a psychiatrist and sociologist Jacob Levy Moreno (1892-1974).
J. Moreno defined the discipline he created as: “A mathematical study of the psychological characteristics of the population, experimental techniques and results obtained during the application of quantitative and qualitative methods.” He put forward three basic concepts as being the most important to sociometry, called sotsius — “colleague”; metrum — “measurement”, drama — “action.” “Instead of doing an analysis
67
Section 8. Pedagogy
of social classes, which involves millions of people, we are committed to a thorough analysis of small groups. This is a departure from the social universe towards its atomic structure “ — this is how Moreno formulated his programme concept.
“Sociometrics,” claimed J. Moreno, “studies physical individuals at the moment when they calmly enter into interpersonal relationships, which leads to the formation of a group.” An important part of Moreno‘s theory is related to the position that by revealing the social and psychological mechanisms of psychological structures in communities, sociometry is able to establish social control over the behaviour of individuals and social groups.
The most important tools of analysis are sociometric tests, as well as various social matrices and sociograms, which in many ways draw upon the sociometric method.
The organisational effectiveness of the sociometry-oriented functioning system depends primarily on three main factors:
• the individuals that make up the organisation, along with other resources;
• the inner condition of the organisation (internal environment);
• the environment in which the organisation exists and functions (external environment).
In terms of content, the actual organisation can be viewed in four aspects:
First. School organisation as a structure and structured social system. It unites the human resource and all other resources needed to achieve the goal set to the system. Organisational structured systems have distinct characteristics.
Second. Organisation based on systematic work relations as a set of specific management functions.
They are used to create order and links between the elements of the system, as well as monitoring and prompt regulation in case of occurrence of deviations from predetermined parameters.
At this point, some summaries, empirical in nature, can be made:
— Sociometry is used within very broad limits (medical, social-deterministic, psychological-sociological, prognostic, therapeutic).
— The traditions in the usage of sociometric technology, viewed as standards and norm-setting patterns of behaviour in and out of school, are clearly associated with diagnosing the relationships formed within a small, conditional work team, which is identified with a small social group.
— Russian authors like N. S. Pavlov, T. S. Lukin,
K. N. Devyaterov wrote about the importance of school monitoring over the relations of the socially presented patterns ofbehaviour, which, in the process of academic, productive and industrial labour, can change significantly the statistic data, imposing the verification of a model that corresponds to such changes and actions.
— The majority of developments in the field of sociometric diagnostication on the part of French writers such as S. Laval and N. Santred indicate that the measurement of the relationships within a group of individuals: social, school, extra-curricular, institutional, shows a complex set of relationships, which the educational space can justify only within the limits of standard norms — everyday relations, sympathy, antipathy, determination of the Self, disclosure of the dominants in a relationship on the plane of leadership, hidden or overt opposition, coalition.
— Labour, as a particular relation of the dealings within a team of students, contributes to the formation of a future professional image (professiogram) depending on the relationships and preferences shown.
R. Bales defines the following types of interaction, formulated in four areas:
1. The area of positive emotions: solidarity, harmony, relief from stress.
2. Solving problems: suggestions, statement of opinion and orientation.
3. Formulation of a problem and its area.
4. The area of negative emotions: disagreement, generation of tension, demonstration, antagonism [2, 364].
The kinds and types of formed interactions reflect the nature and characteristics of interpersonal relationships. Accordingly, in interpersonal interactions, some emotionally sensitive, cognitive and behavioural components occur — superficial interpersonal relationships. There is a combination of emotion and reason, by determining their depth, diversity and complexity of the phenomenon in the research process. I. Ilyin wrote that sociometric studies are of great importance to the typology of the main groups of social characters (personages), on the basis of which the main sociometric paradigm is built [4, p.67].
Some researchers place interpersonal relationships on an equal level with social relationships [8, p.44].
When discussing interpersonal relationships in the field of interpersonal communication, the following diagnostic points are taken into consideration [6, p.74].
1. Analysis of interpersonal relationships — it is due
68
Секция 8. Педагогика
to the fact that occasional transient situational contacts between people are not questioned, as well as a relatively stable long-term relationship Vym (for an analysis, in general, the mutual presence of partners in a given situation does not matter).
2. Long-term personal relationships affect and depend on factors in the course of interpretation of their main characteristics. The dynamics of a relationship is demonstrated in movements towards each other, accompanied by a dramatic change of feelings and emotions, uncertainty, negotiations, etc. These are the basic questions in the theory of interpersonal relationships.
3. The unit of analysis in interpersonal relationships is the sense of a stable emotional relationship of one person with another. The constancy of expression of the content of emotions and feelings is possible precisely in the study of interpersonal relationships.
4. At the core of a relationship, partners make significant efforts to reach acceptable patterns of behaviour in the area of mutual trust and consent.
G. S. Abramova defined interpersonal relationships as spatial and temporal education, which extends into the past, while heading for the future at the same time. Its contents is based on interpersonal relationships between people who know each other well, on the grounds of common activities and motives they share [Abramova, G. S. General Psychology: A Textbook for Universities. M. Academic Project, 2002. 496 p. 1].
To date, there is no generally accepted classification of interpersonal relationships in the field of psychology, shared by all scientists (theorists and practitioners). This problem is due to the lack of united, universal (especially in academia) criteria for classification.
As V N. Myasishtev (2003) wrote, interpersonal relationships go through the stages of manifestation of “emotional", “evaluative” (cognitive), “cotagtive” (behavioural) [11, 56-57].
As a basis for classification of relationships, A. F. La-zurskiy and C. L. Frank systematise the objects of reality in the field of the following classified relationships. Concerning:
1) things
2) nature and animals;
3) separate individuals;
4) sexual love;
5) social groups;
6) family;
7) the state;
8) work;
9) the financial security of the rights to property;
10) the external standards of living;
11) morality;
12) worldview and religion;
13) knowledge and science;
14) the arts (appearing as an aesthetic interest)
15) oneself.
In his work, V. N. Myasishtev wrote about the importance of the dyad relation liking-antipathy, as a basis for the manifestation of some more integrated relations of friendship and enmity. [11, p.32].
Y. Gozman emphasises the relations of sympathy and love, including respect as a component of the structure of the attitude of compassion. [3, p.187].
V. V. Stolin empirically identified three bipolar scale relationships: sympathy-antipathy, respect-disrespect, closeness-distancing [16, p.86].
A. A. Kronik and E. A. Kronik also referred to this scale, using the terms “valence”, “position” and “air”. The authors also emphasised the positive and negative attitudes in the rotation: narrow- distant relation, as well as the bottom-up attitude [5, pp.78-79].
N. N. Obozov classified friendly relationships, communication, friendship and love. Such criteria as: depth of involvement of the individual in a relationship (this is the main criterion); selectivity in the choice of a partner. As additional criteria, N. N. Obozov emphasised the distance between partners, the duration and frequency of contacts, the participation in role-playing games; norms of attitude [12, p.151].
V. N. Kunitsiyna devised the following scale of sociometric relations:
• mental attitude, formed on the basis of the choice of interaction;
• psychological relations — viewed as an integrated system of the individual; the motives, needs and interests, associated with personal, behavioural and professional fulfilment and development;
• social and psychological relations — this includes various forms of connection between people as a result of their collaboration and communication, which occur in the group with the manifestation of cooperation, competition, rapprochement, compatibility, friendship, mutual help.
One of the most common classifications of relations, used in experimental studies, is the typology of interpersonal styles of relations, devised by T. Leary [14, 82].
This classification divides the styles into eight types of interpersonal expression and dominance:
1) arrogant-leading;
2) independent-dominating;
69
Section 8. Pedagogy
3) forthright-aggressive;
4) suspicious-sceptical;
5) submissive-shy;
6) balanced-unbalanced;
7) ready to cooperate-opposing;
8) magnanimous;
This typology gives rise to two subgroups, based on the dyad relations formed:
a) aggressive and dominant styles in interpersonal relations. These include the following types: arrogant-leading, independent, dominant, submissively shy.
b) friendly-subordinate (slave);
E. I. Sereda (2006), just like T. Leary, added to the possible interpersonal relations, on the basis of the differentiation between the most common pairs: dominance-submission; kindness-hostility [15, p.224].
This classification is widespread and used in the majority of todays experimental studies.
The basis for classification in such mass experimental models (sociometric monitoring) are four variables: extroversion, introversion, rationality-irrationality, logic-sensory intuition. According to the analysis of these characteristics, sixteen types of relationships, divided into four groups, are included: [15, 34]
1. Demonstration of partnership with varying degrees of depth and reliability (harmonic relationships).
2. Identical relationships — they occur on the basis of the relationship of similarity, the degree of which may vary. The relationship is of the “superego” type, in which partners are similar in value orientations, but communication is difficult, and they cannot rely on each other, which leads to frequent conflicts. A relationship of the “quasi” type, when partners realise together a community of interests, although everyone thinks they give something very important of themselves.
3. Relationships that are based on complete opposites. One of the two partners focuses on the outer side of the problem, whereas the other, unlike him/her, is oriented to inner experiences.
4. Mixed relationships. This usually includes the relations most constant in character — working and partner relationships, as well as the relationship between artists.
Systematising relations in the context ofinterpersonal communication, V. A Labunskaya (1999) notes that the totality ofhuman relations, as a subj ect ofcommunication, can be represented as a ratio of three coordinates, which in some cases can have a positive relationship status, while in other cases may be completely negative. On this basis, the author highlights the presence of three
groups of relations:
• according to the degree of security (attraction, love and rejection, hatred);
• according to the dynamics of manifestation — dominance-submission;
• at the manifestation of the indicator — lack of commitment [7, 203].
Sociometric indices
Labour training at various school levels in Bulgaria determines some possibilities for sociometric diagnostication in both the field of personal expression, and in terms of social-group manifestation.
In this regard, two types of sociometric indices may be formulated: (PSI) — personal sociometric indices; (GSI) — group sociometric indices. The first group characterises individual socio-psychological and sociooccupational characteristics and qualities of the person who receives the status of a member of the group (in the context of a small socio-occupational group). The second indices are oriented to a full analysis of the properties of group structures of communication (occupational) and the behavioural style of domination related to this action.
The main (PSI) variables, considered in the field of input and final diagnostication, can be classified as: index of the sociometric status of the i-member; manifestation of the emotional expansiveness of the j-member, volume, intensity and concentration of possible interactions of the ij-member. The symbols i and j are used to personify one and the same person, but seen (from the point of view of activity) and manifested in different roles: i — chosen, j — in the position of a chooser; ij — means that the individual can unite both roles at a certain moment.
B. F. Lomov rationalises the Index of sociometric status of the i-member group, suggesting that the correlation relations be expressed by using the following formula:
t(Ri ++ Ri -)
Ci = ------------
N -1
where Ci — sociometric status of the i-member, R+ and R — the i-member choices obtained, Z — a sign reflecting the summation, algebraic in nature, of the numbers that reflect the choices of the i-member, N — a number denoting the members of a socio-occupational group [Lomov, B. F. Methods of Psychological Diagnostics. M.1993.p.78-79].
The inclusion of students within the bounds of a socio-occupational group (viewed as an organisational part of the student work team) is characterised by relative
70
Секция 8. Педагогика
localisation and constancy, due to the fact that they perceive their temporary status clearly and consciously, by striving to find their permanent environment of expression. The sociometric status, in terms of classic interpretation, is perceived as a personal property occupying a particular spaced-time position (locus), whose expression is characterised by unevenness, and put in the position of a comparative indicator, can successfully be measured by a number (the index of sociometric status).
The elements of sociometric structure are always oriented to separate individuals (as part ofthe inidividuum being socialised) or to the classification — members of a group. A person (as an active part ofthe socio-occupational group) may influence differently the manifestation of the measure for sociometric status. In one aspect, it has a positive influence, while in another aspect it has a negative effect. With such dynamics, we can speak of the manifestation of a positive or negative status.
The correlation relationships can be formulated, using the sociomatrix data.
Then the quantitative relationships that are obtained on the basis of an indexed C-positive and C-negative status in a socio-occupational group (characterised by a small number (N), become possible.
The index of emotional expansiveness of the j-member of the group is calculated by the formula:
t(Rj ++ Rj -)
Ej
j=i________
N -1
where Ej — emotional expansiveness of the j-member, Rj — the choices made by members in the location (+, —).
In the specific field of socio-occupational interaction between students, this index reflects a person’s necessity to communicate.
Of the group indices (GSI), occuring as regards the chosen research thesis, the most important seem to be (on the basis of the relevance principle): the index of manifestation of the emotional expansiveness of a group and the index of psychological reciprocity.
The index of emotional expansiveness can be calculated plausibly and precisely by the formula:
N f N
XI XRj+
j=i у j=i
N
where Ag — expansiveness of the group, N — a number reflecting the members of the group, Rj (+^ — the final choices made by the j -member. This index is used to show the average activity of the group in the process of solving tasks of sociometric character (sociometric tests) in field of manifestation of each member taken individually.
The index of psychological reciprocity (“uniteness of the group”) and the possibilities provided by the following formula:
Gg =
XIX Aij H
ij=1 \ ij=1
N(N -1)
where Gg — manifestation of reciprocity in the group on the basis of the results obtained from the positive choices made, Aj — a number that reflects the positive interrelations in the indexed group, N — a number that reflects the number of members in a group [10].
References:
1. Abramova G. S. General Psychology: A Textbook for Universities. M.: Academy chAcademic Project, 2002.
2. Andreeva G. M. Social Psychology: A Textbook for universities. M.: Aspect Press, 2002.
3. Gozman Y. L. Psychology of Emotional Relationships. M., 1987. 187.
4. Ilyin I. A. The Religious Meaning of Philosophy. M.: ACT, 2003.
5. Kolominskiy Y. L. Psychology of Relationships in Small Groups (general and age characteristics): Textbook. Mn.: TetraSystems, 2000.
6. Kunitsyna V N., Kazarinova N. V., Pogolysha V. M. Interpersonal Communication: Textbook for universities. SPB.: Peter, 2001
7. Labunskaya V. A. Human Expression. Rostov-na-Don, 1999.
8. Lomov B. F. Methodological and Theoretical Problems of Psychology. M, 1984.
9. Lomov B. F. Methodological and Theoretical Problems of Psychology. M., 1999.
10. Method of Sociometry. Concepts and Procedures. Electronic resource http://biofile.ru/psy/1659.html.
11. Myasishtev V. N. Psychology of Relationships//Edit.. A. A. Bodaleva. M: From the Moscow Psychological and Social Institute; Voronezh: MODEK, 2003.
71
Section 8. Pedagogy
12. Obozov N. N. Interpersonal Relations. LGU. L. Press, 1979.
13. Olshanskiy, V. B. Yandeks Dictionaries. BSE. http://slovari.yandex.ru.
14. Sobchik L. N. Psychology of Personality. Theory and Practice of Psycho-Diagnostics. SPB.: Rech, 2003.
15. Sereda E. I. Workshop on Interpersonal Relationships: Help and Personal Growth.CPb.: Rech, 2006.
16. Stolin V. V. Consciousness of the Person. M. MGU Press, 1983.
17. Yalov I. Existential Psychotherapy. M., 1999.
Kubanov Ruslan Anatolievich, candidate of Pedagogic Sciences, associate professor, Corresponding Member of the International Academy of Teacher Education Science, doctoral student in pedagogy of Luhansk National Taras Shevchenko University E-mail: kubanov12@rambler.ru
Quality of higher education through the eyes of the employer
Abstract: The article analyzes the views of potential employers on the issue of quality in higher education in order to assess the characteristics of the process of harmonization of competency graduates with the requirements of enterprises (employers). Defined set of theoretical knowledge and practical skills, the skills required of graduates for success in today’s economic development.
Keywords: students, higher education institution, the quality of higher education, employers, the economy.
Кубанов Руслан Анатольевич, кандидат педагогических наук, доцент, член-корреспондент Международной академии наук педагогического образования, докторант кафедры педагогики Луганского национального университета имени Тараса Шевченко,
E-mail: kubanov12@rambler.ru
Качество высшего образования глазами работодателя
Аннотация: У статье анализируются взгляды потенциальных работодателей на проблему качества высшего образования с целью оценки процесса согласования компетентностных характеристик выпускников с требованиями предприятий (работодателей). Определен набор теоретических знаний и практическихумений, навыков, необходимых выпускнику высшего учебного заведения для успешной деятельности в условиях современного развития экономики.
Ключевые слова: студенты, высшее учебное заведение, качество высшего образования, работодатели,
экономика.
Развитие всех сфер современного общества требует роста и приумножения высококвалифицированного кадрового, интеллектуального потенциала, что призваны делать системы образования, и в частности вузы. Вместе с тем в условиях непрерывного роста потока информации, темпа жизни, все увеличивающегося дефицита времени и быстро меняющихся технологий изменяются требования к качеству специалистов, и следовательно, к системе их подготовки в школе, средних и высших учебных заведениях. Для этого необходимо создать концепции повышения качества обучения и качества подготовки специалистов в вузе, которые явились бы основой для разработки технологий, методов и форм обучения, обеспечивающих качество подготовки специалистов и развитие их
творческого потенциала в образовательном процессе.
Цель статьи — высветить взгляды потенциальных работодателей на проблему качества высшего образования с целью оценки процесса согласования компе-тентностных характеристик выпускников и требований предприятий-работодателей.
В современных рыночных условиях определяющим для получения конкурентного преимущества образовательной организации становится соотношение «цена-качество», в связи с чем качество образования становится важнейшим показателем, характеризующим деятельность ВУЗа.
Что же представляет собой качество образования? В литературе [1; 2] существует множество подходов к этому понятию, некоторые представлены в таблице 1.
72
