Психологические предикторы профессиональной активности преподавателей вузов

Abstract

Background. Currently, in connection with the reform in the system of higher education, studying characteristics of the university teacher that are the basis of ability to be a subject of work is a relevant task. Professional activity is one of these characteristics, which is a predictor of professional and personal development. Based on this, the need to study the structure, factors and dynamics of professional activity of university teachers is obvious. The study of this psychological phenomenon will give us the opportunity to create an effective system of methods for the development of professional activity. Objective. The goal is to study and describe objective and psychological predictors of professional activity in university teachers, compiling a professional activity equation. Studi Participants. 445 teachers from different universities in Russia, 150 men and 295 women aged 24 to 83 years were involved in the study. Methods. We used the following methods: research questionnaire of professional activity and a form on professional activity, a questionnaire of formal-dynamic properties of temperament by V.M. Rusalov and a questionnaire “Differential type of reflection” by D.A. Leontyev. Results. It has been shown that the predictors of professional activity include gender (β = 0,10; F = 28,25; p = 0,00; R2 = 0,34 for research questionnaire of professional activity; β = 0,16; F = 9,06; p = 0,00; R2 = 0,14 for a question form on professional activity), experience of pedagogical activity (β = 0,21; F = 9,06; p = 0,00; R2 = 0,14 for a question form on professional activity), formal-dynamic properties of individuality: total level of activity (β = 0,20; F = 28,25; p = 0,00; R2 = 0,34 for research questionnaire of professional activity; β = 0,18; F = 9,06; p = 0,00; R2 = 0,14 for a question form on professional activity) and reflection: systemic reflection (β = 0,31; F = 28,25; p = 0,00; R2 = 0,34 for research questionnaire of professional activity; β = 0,15; F = 9,06; p = 0,00; R2 = 0,14 for a question form of professional activity) and introspection (β = –0,34; F = 28,25; p = 0,00; R2 = 0,34 for research questionnaire of professional activity; β = –0,15; F = 9,06; p = 0,00; R2 = 0,14 for a question form of professional activity). Conclusions. The development of professional activity is determined by natural qualities, namely the general level of activity on the one hand. While, on the other hand, qualities that indicate the maturity of the personality as systemic reflection also determine professional activity. The data can be used in the development of professional activity training. Of course, the objective parameters and properties of temperament cannot be corrected. However, we can take them into account in our work, providing an individual approach, and focusing on the development of systemic professional reflection.