COGNITIVE STYLES AND PERSONALIZATION OF EDUCATION OF STUDENTS-PSYCHOLOGISTS

Introduction. The relevance of studies of cognitive style of teaching in the aspect of effective personalization of education is extremely high. It is obvious that the problem of inefficiency of modern education is important, it requires research and solutions. One of the possible solutions to this problem can be personalized learning, while taking into account cognitive characteristics of students in the context of personalization of learning is a factor of increasing the productivity of the personalized approach. Researches of these features and development of recommendations for personalization taking into account the cognitive style of a student definitely expand the possibilities of modern education. The aim of the study was to determine the parameters of cognitive style of students of psychological and psychological-pedagogical specialties and possible personalized approaches to education of such students.

Materials and methods. The study was carried out on a sample of 86 masters aged 22 to 32, enrolled in master's programs in the areas of "Psychology" and "Psychological and pedagogical education" with the use of five psychodiagnostic tests. The tests used included: "The Gottschaldt figures", The Honey-Mumford learning styles questionnaire (LSQ), The G. Eysenck personality inventory (EPI), The Melbourne questionnaire of decision making (IDLO), The A. Karpov questionnaire of reflexivity.

Results: it was found that characteristic features of cognitive style of students of psychological areas are: field independence, reflective learning style, the tendency to clarify the objectives and goals when making decisions in an uncertain situation, consideration of alternatives, additional information search, evaluation of information in the implementation of the choice, the average level of reflexivity.

Discussion and Conclusions. The study showed a wide variety of cognitive and personal characteristics of students on potentially significant in the aspect of learning indicators, which confirms the need for a personalized approach to learning. The revealed features of cognitive teaching styles of students-psychologists were analyzed and generalized, recommendations were formulated for the personalization of learning taking into account the cognitive style. Generalizing conclusions were made about: the need to take into account and control the parameters of  cognitive style in the personalization of learning, the need to personalize the training of students with specific cognitive features, the possibility of dividing the student group into subgroups according to cognitive specificity, followed by training in such subgroups taking into account the specific cognitive characteristics of students.  

1. Anufriev A.F., CHmel' V.I., Elshanskij S.P. The main difficulties and barriers in creating automated educational psychodiagnostic cases of search type. Psihologiya obucheniya, 2019, no. 2, pp. 85-97. (In Russ.)

2. Bajborodova L.V. Means of developing a child’s individuality. Individualizaciya obucheniya i vospitaniya: chteniya K.D. Ushinskogo (2009 g., YAroslavl'). Yaroslavl, YAHPU Publ., 2009. Part 1, pp. 131-137. (In Russ.)

3. Baranova E.M. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the use of active teaching methods. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 20. Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie, 2016, no. 4, pp. 73-84. (In Russ.)

4. Berulava G.A. Personality Style: Theory and Practice. Moscow, Pedagogicheskoe obshchestvo Rossii Publ., 2001. 120 p. (In Russ.)

5. Burnyashov B.A. Personalization as a global trend in e-learning in higher education institutions. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya, 2017, no. 1, p. 378. (In Russ.)

6. Vasil'eva L.L. Improving the effectiveness of the learning process through a transformative way of learning. Pedagogicheskie i sociologicheskie aspekty obrazovaniya: materialy Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii (CHeboksary, 24 apr. 2018 g.) / redkollegiya: L.A. Abramova [i dr.]. Cheboksary, Sreda Publ., 2018. Pp. 179-181. (In Russ.)

7. Voronina M.F., Karpova E.A. Models for assessing the effectiveness of training in the context of a competency-based approach. Sociologiya i parvo, 2016, no. 1(31), pp. 27-37. (In Russ.)

8. Geniatulina I.A. Active teaching methods as a way to increase the effectiveness of the educational process. Sovremennye metodiki uchebnoj i nauchno-issledovatel'skoj raboty: sbornik statej po materialam Vserossijskoj (nacional'noj) uchebno-metodicheskoj konferencii / pod obshchej redakciej S.F. Suhanovoj. Lesnikovo, 2018. Pp. 30-34. (In Russ.)

9. Gromyko YU.V. Personalization in education: initiating education, raising consciousness and personal growth. Antropologicheskie matricy HKH veka. L.S. Vygotskij – P.A. Florenskij: nesostoyavshijsya dialog. – Priglashenie k dialogu / A.A. Andryushkov [i dr.]. Moscow, 2007. Pp. 52-98. (In Russ.)

10. Elshanskij S.P. Some cognitive factors of learning effectiveness. Psihologiya obucheniya, 2018, no. 3, pp. 56-64. (In Russ.)

11. Elshanskij S.P. On the psychological criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of education in a university and the need for their development. Psihologiya obucheniya, 2017, no. 10, pp. 86-91. (In Russ.)

12. Elshanskij S.P. On the assessment of the effectiveness of education in a university. Problemy sovremennogo obrazovaniya, 2017, no. 5, pp. 99-108. (In Russ.)

13. Egorova P.A., Suvorova O.V., Hrulev A.E., Sorokoumova S.N., Guseva L.V. Personified experience as a factor in predicting professionally-communicative qualities of students - future teachers. YAzyk i kul'tura, 2019, no. 46, pp. 299-318. DOI: 10.17223/19996195/46/17. (In Russ.)

14. Elshanskij S.P. Semantics of internal perception in addictions to psychoactive substances (on the model of opium addiction). Moscow, 2004.348 p. (In Russ.)

15. Elshanskij S.P., Anufriev A.F., CHmel' V.I. Search technologies for training in psychological education. Innovacii v obrazovanii, 2019, no. 1, pp. 79-91. (In Russ.)

16. Elshanskij S.P., Anufriev A.F., CHmel' V.I. The use of automated educational psychodiagnostic cases for the assessment and formation of diagnostic competence of psychologists. Psihologiya obucheniya, 2019, no. 1, pp. 65-75. (In Russ.)

17. Zueva S.O. Psychological features of the effectiveness of e-learning. Innovacionnye tekhnologii v sovershenstvovanii kachestva obrazovaniya: materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoprakticheskoj konferencii (Blagoveshchensk, 15 maya 2017 goda): v 2-h chastyah. CHast' 2. Blagoveshchensk, Publishing House of the Far Eastern GAU, 2017. Pp. 103-106. (In Russ.)

18. Karpov A.V. Reflexivity as a mental property and methods for its diagnosis. Psihologicheskij zhurnal, 2003, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 45-57. (In Russ.)

19. Klarin M.V. Innovation in learning: Metaphors and models. Analysis of foreign experience. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1997. 304 p. (In Russ.)

20. Klarin M.V. Pedagogical technology in the educational process. (Analysis of foreign experience). Moscow, Znanie Publ., 1989. 250 p. (In Russ.)

21. Kondratenko A. Automated system of personalization of education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2007, no. 8. (In Russ.)

22. Kornilova T.V. Melbourne decision-making questionnaire: Russian-language adaptation. Psihologicheskie issledovaniya, 2013, vol. 6, no. 31. Available at: http://www.psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2013v6n31/883-kornilova31.html (accessed: 04.06.2019). (In Russ.)

23. Krupnov YU.V. The practice of personal education. Available at: http://www.kroupnov.ru/pubs/2007/04/09/10543 (accessed: 15.03.2019). (In Russ.)

24. The personal questionnaire G. Eysenck. (Test for temperament EPI. Diagnosis of self-esteem according to Eisenck. Methods for determining temperament). Available at: https://psycabi.net/testy/369-lichnostnyj-oprosnik-g-ajzenka-test-na-temperament-epidiagnostika-samootsenki-po-ajzenku-metodika-opredeleniya-temperamenta (accessed: 04.06.2019). (In Russ.)

25. Lyuhanova S.V. To the question of evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of education. Innovacionnye tekhnologii v sovremennom obrazovanii: sbornik trudov po materialam III Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj internet-konferencii (18 dekabrya 2015 goda). Moscow, Nauchnyj konsul'tant Publ., 2016. Pp. 457-460. (In Russ.)

26. Mushenok N.I. Analysis of methods for assessing the effectiveness of training in a university. Nauka XXI veka: aktual'nye napravleniya razvitiya, 2016, no. 1-2, pp. 83-88. (In Russ.)

27. Nebesskij V.D., Popova S.V. Methods for improving the effectiveness of training in higher education: experience and problems. Ekonomicheskie, social'nye i informacionnye aspekty ustojchivogo razvitiya regiona: mezhdunarodnaya nauchno-prakticheskaya konferenciya. Stavropol, 2016. Pp. 218-221. (In Russ.)

28. Ol'hovskaya I.V. Active teaching methods as a way to increase the effectiveness of the educational process. Nauka i obrazovanie: otechestvennyj i zarubezhnyj opyt: desyataya mezhdunarodnaya nauchno-prakticheskaya konferenciya»: sbornik trudov. Belgorod, 2018. Pp. 16-18. (In Russ.)

29. Pomyan S.V., Stolyarenko YU.A. Assessment of the effectiveness of the learning process in various forms of organization of the educational process. Vestnik Pridnestrovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki, 2018, no. 1(58), pp. 79-82. (In Russ.)

30. Smirnov D.A. Psychological and pedagogical conditions for the effectiveness of training in higher education. Nauka i obshchestvo v epohu tekhnologij i kommunikacij: materialy mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii. Moscow, 2016. Pp. 526-529. (In Russ.)

31. The test of Honey and Mumford. Definition of learning style. Available at: https://hrportal.ru/tool/test-honi-i-mamforda-opredelenie-stilya-obucheniya (accessed: 04.06.2019). (In Russ.)

32. Holodnaya M. A. Cognitive styles. About the nature of the individual mind. 2nd edition. St. Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2004. 384 p. (In Russ.)

33. Holodnaya M. A. Psychology of intelligence: the paradoxes of research. 2nd edition, revised and supplemented. St. Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2002. 350 p. (In Russ.)

34. Allison С W., Hayes J. The Learning Style Questionnaire: An alternative to Kolb's inventory? Journal of Management Studies, 1988, vol. 25, pp. 269-281.

35. Allison С W., Hayes J. Validity of the Learning Styles Questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 1990, vol. 67, pp. 859-866.

36. Allison J., Hayes С. The cognitive style index, a measure of intuition-analysis for organization research. Journal of Management Studies, 1996, vol. 33(1), pp. 119-135.

37. Canino C., Cicchelli T. Cognitive styles, computerized treatments on mathematics achievement and reaction to treatments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1988, vol. 4, pp. 253-264.

38. Fleming Brian. Adaptive Learning: The Real Revolution in Online Learning. Eduventures, Mar. 2015. Available at: https://declara.com/content/q5Pylq0a (accessed: 20.03.2019).

39. Online Lexikon für Psychologie und Pädagogik. Available at: http://lexikon.stangl.eu/982/adaptivitaet (accessed: 20.03.2019).

40. Witkin H.A., Moore C.A., Goodenough D.R., Cox P.W. Field dependent and field independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 1977, no. 1(47), pp. 1-64.