Abstract
The paper brings forward the results of an empirical study of styles of intergenerational pedagogical interaction of teachers (representatives of the Soviet and transitional generations), and students (representatives of the post-Soviet generation). The authors overviewed the existing research on the issue of intergenerational interaction. The purpose of the study was to establish the dominant styles of intergenerational pedagogical interaction and their socio-psychological components in teachers and students of the institutes of higher education. A. A. Bodalev’s ideas about communication and V. I. Pishchik’s concept of the mentality of generations formed theoretical foundations for the present work. The study involved teachers of two generational groups (the Soviet and transitional generations), and students (the post-Soviet generation); each group of the sample
consisted of 60 persons. Applying the techniques the authors studied the following generational factors: identification with the generation (Soviet, transitional, post-Soviet); type of mentality of the generation (traditional, transitional, innovative, postinnovative); socio-sychological characteristics of interaction (interpersonal relations, communicative attitude, personal characteristics, and interaction style). The empirical study revealed that indifferent and conforming styles of intergenerational pedagogical communication were characteristic to teachers of the Soviet generation; manipulative and indifferent styles of intergenerational pedagogical communication were characteristic to teachers of the transitional generation; apathetic; manipulative and indifferent styles of intergenerational pedagogical communication were characteristic to students of the post-Soviet generation. Cluster analysis revealed the components of the preferred style of interaction. The study established interconnected clusters, which included the preferred styles of interaction and socio-psychological characteristics of interaction: interpersonal relations, communicative attitudes, personal characteristics. This paper has clearly shown that teachers and students prefer to use different styles of intergenerational pedagogical interaction, which depends on their generational identification. The components of the same style of intergenerational pedagogical interaction differ in students and teachers of different generational
groups. Innovative mentality is characteristic for the teachers of the transitional generation and the students of the post-Soviet generation; manipulative style is the leading style of intergenerational pedagogical interaction, which confirms the hypothesis that the convergence and similarity of the mentality of teachers and students of different generations determines the choice of the style of pedagogical
interaction.
References
Gorianina V. A. Psikhologicheskie predposylki neproduktivnosti stilia mezhlichnostnogo vzaimodeistviia [Psychological preconditions of unproductive style of interpersonal interaction]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal – Psychological Journal, 1997, no. 6, pp. 73–83.
Griaznova Iu. G. Konfliktogennost' mezhpokolennogo vzaimodeistviia v kul'ture sovremennogo rossiiskogo obshchestva [Conflicts in intergenerational interaction in the culture of modern Russian society]. Vestnik Adygeiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia 1: Regionovedenie: filosofiia, istoriia, sotsiologiia, iurisprudentsiia, politologiia, kul'turologiia – Bulletin of Adyghe State University. Series 1: Regional Studies: philosophy, history, sociology, law, political science, culturology, 2011, no. 2, pp. 42–47.
Delitsyn L. L. Prefigurativnyi tip kul'tury: kak preodolet' tsifrovoi razryv? Rossiia: tendentsii i perspektivy razvitiia [A prefigurative type of culture: how to overcome the digital gap? Russia: tendencies and prospects of development]. 2011, V. 6, Part 2.
Izvol'skaia A. A. Problemy vybora strategii vzaimodeistviia prepodavatelia i studenta na etape adaptatsii v pedagogicheskom vuze [Problems of choosing a strategy of interaction of the teacher and the student at the stage of adaptation in the pedagogical institute of higher education]. Molodoi uchenyi – Young Scientist, 2012, no. 12, pp. 476–478.
Isaeva E. R. A new generation of students: psychological characteristics, academic motivation and difficulties in the first year of education. Medical psychology in Russia, 2012, no. 4 (15). Available at: http://medpsy.ru
Isaeva M. A. Pokolenie [Generation]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie – Knowledge. Understanding. Skill, 2011, no. 1, pp. 265–268.
Coates D. Generational and learning styles (Russ. ed.: Koats D. Pokoleniia i stili obucheniia. Novocherkassk, NOK Publ., 2011. 121 p.).
Koroleva D. O. Ispol'zovanie sotsial'nykh setei v obrazovanii i sotsializatsii podrostka: analiticheskii obzor empiricheskikh issledovanii (mezhdunarodnyi opyt) [The use of social networks in education and socialization of adolescents: an analytical review of empirical research (international experience)]. Psikhologicheskaia nauka i obrazovanie – Psychological Science and Education, 2015, V. 20, no. 1, pp. 28–37.
Mendzheritskaia Iu. A., Hanzen M., Horz H. Pravila vyrazheniia emotsii prepodavateliami rossiiskikh i nemetskikh universitetov [Rules of expression of emotions of teachers in Russian and German universities]. Rossiiskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal – Russian Psychological Journal, 2015, no. 4, pp. 54–78.
Pavlova E. A. Osobennosti primeneniia distantsionnogo obucheniia s uchetom teorii pokolenii [The use of distance learning regarding the theory of generations]. Vestnik MPGU. Seriia «Informatika i informatizatsiia obrazovaniia» – Bulletin of Moscow State Pedagogical University. Series “Informatics and Informatization of Education”, 2012, no. 1 (23), pp. 64–68.
Pishchik V. I. Pokoleniia: sotsial'no-psikhologicheskii analiz mental'nosti [Generations: a socio-psychological analysis of mentality]. Mezhdunarodnyi retsenziruemyi zhurnal. Sotsial'naia psikhologiia i obshchestvo – International Peer-Reviewed Journal. Social Psychology and Society, 2011, no. 2, pp. 80–88.
Pishchik V. I. Preemstvennost' i izmenenie obshchikh chert pokolenii, sopriazhennykh s ikh mental'nost'iu: Prikladnaia i prakticheskaia sotsial'naia psikhologiia [The continuity and change of the common traits of generations, associated with their mentality: Applied and practical social psychology]. Moscow, KREDO Publ., 2015, pp. 20–30.
Postnikova M. I. Psikhologiia otnoshenii mezhdu pokoleniiami v sovremennoi Rossii. Diss. kand. psikh. nauk [The psychology of intergenerational relations in modern Russia. Cand. psych. sci. diss]. St. Petersburg., 2011.
Sadykova Kh. N. Spetsifika mezhpokolennogo vzaimodeistviia v sovremennoi Rossii (na primere Tiumenskoi oblasti) [The specificity of intergenerational interactions in modern Russia (on the example of Tyumen region)]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie – Knowledge. Understanding. Skill, 2014, no. 4, pp. 117–124.
Semenova V. V. Sotsial'naia dinamika pokolenii: problema i real'nost' [Social dynamics of generations: problem and reality]. Moscow, Rossiiskaia politicheskaia entsiklopediia Publ., 2009. 271 p.
Surikova N. V. The relationship between social identity and mentality of generations. Culture and education, 2014, no. 12. Available at: http://vestnik-rzi.ru/2014/12/2717
Skok N. I. Biosotsial'naia problematika mezhpokolennogo vzaimodeistviia [Biosocial perspectives of intergenerational interaction]. Izvestiia vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Sotsiologiia. Ekonomika. Politika – Proceedings of Higher Educational Institutions. Sociology. Economy. Policy, 2012, no. 3, pp. 82–84.
Sychenko Iu. A. Sotsiokul'turnaia determinatsiia mezhpokolennogo rassoglasovaniia tsennostnykh orientatsii sub"ektov pedagogicheskogo vzaimodeistviia [Sociocultural determination of inter-generational mismatch of value guidelines of subjects of pedagogical interaction]. Aktual'nye problemy psikhologicheskogo znaniia – Urgent Issues of Psychological Knowledge, 2012, no. 3, pp. 107–119.
Tarasova L. E. Mezhpokolennoe vzaimodeistvie kak odin iz faktorov sotsializatsii i adaptatsii [Inter-generational interaction as one of the factors of socialization and adaptation]. Izv. Sarat. Univ. New ser. – Proceedings of Saratov University, 2012, V. 12, Ser. Acmeology of education. Developmental psychology, V. 4, pp. 22–25.
Tolochek V. A. Stili professional'noi deiatel'nosti kak chast' problemy stilia v psikhologii [Styles of professional activity as part of the problem of style in psychology]. Stil' cheloveka: psikhologicheskii analiz [The person’s style: the psychological analysis]. Moscow, Smysl Publ., 1998, pp. 163–173.
Tolstykh A. V. Opyt konkretno-istoricheskoi psikhologii lichnosti [The experience of the concrete-historical psychology of personality]. St. Petersburg, Alteia Publ., 2000, pp. 154–160.
Fel'dshtein D. I. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskaia nauka kak resurs razvitiia sovremennogo sotsiuma [Psychological-pedagogical science as a resource for the development of modern society]. Psikhologicheskaia nauka i obrazovanie – Psychological Science and Education, 2012, no. 1, P. 23.
Khomiakova E. I. «POKOLENIE Y» v kontekste sotsial'nogo vzaimodeistviia v sovremennom obshchestve [“GENERATION Y” in the context of social interaction in modern society]. Izvestiia Tomskogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta – Bulletin of Tomsk Polytechnic University, 2011, V. 319, no. 6.
Sharshov I. A., Makarova L. N. Prostranstvennoe modelirovanie vzaimodeistviia prepodavatelei i studentov v vuze [Spatial modeling of the interaction of teachers and students in high school]. Fractal Simulation – Fractal Simulation, 2011, no. 2, pp. 39–51.
Shturvalov A. The time of head is over. It’s time for smart executors. Big plans. Available at: https://thebigplans.ru/generationz
Shurbe V. Z. Sotsiokul'turnye determinanty mezhpokolennogo vzaimodeistviia [Socio-cultural determinants of intergenerational interaction]. Izvestiia VolgGTU – Proceedings of Volgograd State Technical University, 2012, V. 10, no. 3, pp. 53–58.
Kalb C. Generation 9/11. Newsweek. URL: http://europe.newsweek.com/911s-children-grow-79477?rm=eu
Pishik V. I. “The loss” of generations’ traditional subjectity as the phenomenon of mentality transformation. Psychological Journal, 2010, V. 31, I. 2, pp. 20–27.
Salajana F. D., Schönwetterb D. J., Cleghornc B. M. Student and faculty inter-generational digital divide: Fact or fiction? Computers & Education, 2010, V. 55, I. 3.
Schmidt L., Hawkins P. Children of the tech revolution. Sydney Morning Herald. Life & Style, pp. 1–4. URL: http://www.smh.com.au/news/parenting/children-of-the-tech-revolution/2008/07/15/1215887601694.html
Strauss W., Hove N. The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us about America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny. N. Y.: Broadway Books, 1997.
Wallis C. Gen M: The Multitasking Generation. Time Magazine, 2006. URL: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1174696,00.html