Pedagogical Conservatism as a Mechanism of Psychological Defense of a Higher Education Institution Teacher

Aim. Identification of the relationship between pedagogical conservatism and psychological defense mechanisms.

Methodology. The study involved the teaching staff of Russian universities (Samara, Ulyanovsk, Bashkortostan, Yekaterinburg) aged 25 to 65 years (mean age M=42.3; SD=8.7). The diagnostic tools used were the questionnaire “Assessment of pedagogical conservatism” (I. B. Avakyan), the method “Diagnostics of typologies of psychological defense” (R. Plutchik adapted by I. Wasserman, O. F. Eryshev, E. B. Klubova et al.). The statistical methods used were the onesample Kolmogorov-Smirnov λ-test, the standardized effect size of Cohen's d, the nonparametric rank correlation test rs Spearman, the linear regression method.

Results. The consistency of the sample data with the normal distribution law was established. An exceptionally large value of the statistical effect of non-constructive protective psychological mechanisms (denial, repression, regression, projection, substitution, reactive formation) and a small, average value of the compensation effect, intellectualization in the dynamics of the state of pedagogical conservatism of a university teacher were revealed. Positive relationships were found between the indicators of pedagogical conservatism of a university teacher and the mechanisms of psychological defense. A linear relationship was found between the level of pedagogical conservatism of a university teacher and the mechanisms of psychological defense. The results of the empirical study showed the dominance of the expression of the average and high level of pedagogical conservatism of a university teacher based on the prevalence of nonconstructive mechanisms of psychological defense, which allows us to consider pedagogical conservatism as a negative phenomenon leading to a state of professional stagnation.

Research implications. The results obtained during the study can be used to develop a program for the prevention and overcoming of pedagogical conservatism through the formation of psychological readiness for innovative changes in the system of higher professional education.

1. Avakyan I. B. [Striving for self-development as a factor in the innovative readiness of university teachers]. Obrazovanie i samorazvitie [Education and self-development], 2020, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 88–102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26907/esd15/2/08

2. Avakyan I. B. [Factor analysis of the development of innovative readiness of university teachers]. Science for Education Today [Science for Education Today], 2019, no. 1, pp. 43–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1901.03

3. Avakyan I. B., Miniyarov V. M. [Pedagogical conservatism of a university teacher under professional stress]. Nauchnyi rezul'tat. Pedagogika i psikhologiya obrazovaniya [Scientific result. Pedagogy and psychology of education], 2024, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 63–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8971-2024-10-1-0-5

4. Bergis T. A. [Personal resources of stress resistance in the professional activity of a teacher]. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal meditsiny i psikhologi [International Journal of Medicine and Psychology], 2022, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 58–66

5. Varzanova M. A. [Organizational and pedagogical conditions for the inclusion of teachers in innovative activities: overcoming resistance]. Yaroslavskii pedagogicheskii vestnik [Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin], 2020, vol. 1, no. 112, pp. 22–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20323/1813-145Х-2020-1-112-22-30

6. Dudkina E. I., Karpov A. A., Bukhtoyarov I. I. [The relationship between resilience and coping strategies in students of a departmental educational organization]. Izvestiya Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Voronezh State Pedagogical University], 2020, no. 4, pp. 64–68. DOI: 10.47438/2309-7078-2020-4-64

7. Erzyleva I. A., Mamaeva Yu. A. [Psychological safety of a university teacher in the context of digital transformation of education]. Biznes. Obrazovanie. Pravo [Business. Education. Law], 2024, vol. 2, no. 67, pp. 360–364. DOI: 10.25683/VOLBI.2024.67.952

8. Ilyina I. Yu. [Professional burnout of university teachers: factors of occurrence and methods of prevention]. Ekonomika. Sotsiologiya. Pravo [Economy. Sociology. Law.], 2022, vol. 3, no. 27, pp. 22–27. DOI: 10.22281/2542-1697-2022-01-03-22-27

9. Kazakevich I. V., Sin'ko T. V., Pishchik V. I. [Model of the construct of the attitude of teachers of different generations to uncertainty]. Science for Education Today [Science for Education Today], 2022, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 31–47. DOI: 10.15293/2658-6762.2203.02

10. Melnikova M. L., Chebykina I. V. [Coping Strategies and Defense Mechanisms of the Personality of Student Teachers]. Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie v Rossii. [Pedagogical Education in Russia], 2020, no. 2, pp. 84–98. https://doi.org/10.26170/po20-02-10

11. Merzlyakova D. R. [Features of the Psychological Health of Teachers with Different Levels of Professional Skills in the Context of the Digital Transformation of the Educational Process]. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskie issledovaniya [Psychological and Pedagogical Research], 2022, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 48–63. https://doi.org/10.17759/psyedu.2022140204

12. Mitina L. M. [Psychological resources and life-meaning orientations in alternative models of teachers’ professionalization]. Vestnik gosudarstvennogo universiteta prosveshcheniya. Seriya: Psikhologicheskie nauki [Bulletin of the State University of Education. Series: Psychological sciences], 2024, no. 2, pp. 22–39

13. Selezneva Yu. V. [Features of professional deformations of higher education teachers at different stages of professionalization]. Mir nauki. Pedagogika i psikhologiya [World of science. Pedagogy and psychology], 2022, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–11. URL: https://mir-nauki.com/PDF/25PSMN322.pdf (accessed: 12.09.2024).

14. Fetiskin N. P., Kozlov V. V., Manuilov G. M. Sotsial'no-psikhologicheskaya diagnostika razvitiya lichnosti i malykh grupp [Social and psychological diagnostics of personality and small group development]. Moscow: Publishing House of the Institute of Psychotherapy, 2002. 362 p.

15. Shulga I. I. [Pedagogical culture: value-semantic context of digital transformation of education] // Vestnik pedagogicheskikh innovatsii. [Bulletin of pedagogical innovations], 2022, vol. 1, no. 65, pp. 5–12.

16. Koeslag-Kreunen M. G.M., Van der Klink Marcel R. Van den Bossche Piet, Gijselaers Wim H. Leadership for team learning: the case of university teacher teams // Higher Education. 2018. Vol. 75. P. 191–207. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-017-0126-0

17. Costello, R. (2017). Gaming innovations in higher education: Emerging research and opportunities (Book) // Gaming Innovations in Higher Education: Emerging Research and Opportunities. 2017. 1–178. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2981-1

18. Stupnisky R. H., BrckaLorenz A., Yuhas B., Guay F. Faculty members’ motivation for teaching and best practices: Testing a model based on self-determination theory across institution types // Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2018. Vol. 53. P. 15–26. DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.004

19. Weitze C. L. Designing pedagogical innovation for collaborating teacher teams // Journal of Education for Teaching. 2017. Vol. 43. No 3. P. 361–373. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2017.1319511