Changes in the Beliefs and Practices of School Teachers as the Basis for Independent Action of Adolescents. Institutional Approach

Independence is one of the key results of modern school education, which is recorded in documents and reports at various levels. Research directly on independence is difficult, since there is no single approach to the operationalization of this phenomenon. The article attempts to fix the trend of destructuring and describe the features of its course in the beliefs and practices of school teachers of one general education school. As conceived by the author, this approach opens up prospects for theoretical and empirical understanding of the independent and initiative action of the student in the institute of school. For this, three elements of the institutional structure of the school were identified: rituals, disciplinary practices, the type of relationship between the teacher and the student, and the ways of destructuring in each element were described: refusal, mitigation, creation of new practices. The basis of the qualitative study was interviews with fifteen teachers from a primary and secondary school in a residential area of Moscow. The author comes to the conclusion that the process of destructuring is slower compared to other spheres of public life due to the limitations outlined in the article. The results of an empirical study can be useful for studying the independent and proactive behavior of an adolescent in the space of the school by teachers with varying degrees of rigidity in their practices, by teachers who use practices that are not typical for the institute of the school.

1. Busygina N.P. Kachestvennye i kolichestvennye metody issledovanii v psikhologii: Uchebnik [Qualitative and quantitative research methods in psychology]. Moscow: Yurait, 2019. 423 p.
2. Gromyko Yu.V., Margolis A.A., Rubtsov V.V. Shkola kak ekosistema razvivayushchikhsya detsko-vzroslykh soobshchestv: deyatel’nostnyi podkhod k proektirovaniyu shkoly budushchego [School as an Ecosystem of Developing Child-Adult Communities: An Activity Approach to Designing the School of the Future]. Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-historical psychology, 2020. Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 57—67. DOI:10.17759/chp.2020160106
3. Goffman E. Total’nye instituty: Per. s ang. [Total institutions]. Moscow: Elementarnye formy, 2019. 464 p.
4. Kvale S. Issledovatel’skoe interv’yu [Research interview]. Per. s ang. Moscow: Smysl, 2009. 304 р.
5. Kosikova S.V. O sushchnosti uchebnoi samostoyatel’nosti shkol’nikov i urovnyakh ee razvitiya [On the essence of the educational independence of schoolchildren and the levels of its development]. Problemy sovremennogo obrazovaniya // Problems of modern education, 2018, no. 4, pp. 143—150.
6. Kravchenko S.A. Uslozhnyayushchiesya metamorfozy — produkt «strely vremeni» i faktor sotsioprirodnykh turbulentnostei [Increasingly complex metamorphoses are a product of the “arrow of time” and a factor of socio-natural turbulences]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya // Sociological research, 2018, no. 9, pp. 3—11. DOI:10.31857/S013216250001952-0
7. Lazarev V.S. K probleme postroeniya modeli «shkoly budushchego [To the problem of building a model of the school of the future]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education, 2021. Vol. 26, no 4, pp. 69—79. DOI:10.17759/pse.2021260406
8. Obrazovanie dlya slozhnogo obshchestva [Elektronnyi resurs] [Education for a complex society]. P.O. Luksha [i dr.]. Doklad Global Education Futures. Red. P.O. Luksha, P.D. Rabinovich, A.A. Asmolov. Moscow, 2018. 213 p. URL: https://vbudushee.ru/upload/documents/obr_sloj_obsh.pdf
9. Rubtsova O.V., Poskakalova T.A. Teatral’naya deyatel’nost’ kak sredstvo razvitiya i obucheniya v podrostkovom vozraste: rezul’taty empiricheskogo issledovaniya [Theatrical activity as a means of development and learning in adolescence: results of an empirical study]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education, 2020. Vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 144—156. DOI:10.17759/pse.2020250612
10. Sorokin P.S., Vyatskaya Yu.A. Mezhdunarodnaya ekspertnaya povestka v obrazovanii: klyuchevye kharakteristiki i problemnye zony [International Expert Agenda in Education: Key Characteristics and Problem Areas]. Obshchie voprosy obrazovaniya // General educational issues, 2022, no 1, pp. 11—52. DOI:10.17853/1994-5639-2022-1-11-52
11. Sorokin P.S., Frumin I.D. Problema “struktura/deistvie v XXI v.: Izmeneniya v sotsial’noi real’nosti i vyvody dlya issledovatel’skoi povestki [The Structure/Action Problem in the 21st Century: Changes in Social Reality and Implications for the Research Agenda]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya // Sociological research, 2020, no. 7, pp. 27—36. DOI:10.31857/S013216250009571-1
12. Federal’nyi gosudarstvennyi obrazovatel’nyi standart osnovnogo obshchego obrazovaniya [Federal state educational standard of basic general education]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 2015. 61 p.
13. Galand B., Hospel V., Dellisse S. Understanding behavioural engagement and achievement: The roles of teaching practices and student sense of competence and task value. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2020. Vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 887—909. DOI:10.1111/bjep.12342
14. Griaznova O.S., Magun V.S. The Basic Values of Russian and European Schoolteachers. Russian Social Science Review, 2013. Vol. 54, pp. 42—68. DOI:10.1080/10611428.2013.11065505
15. Groccia J.E. What Is Student Engagement. New directions for teaching and learning, 2018, no. 154, pp. 45—54. DOI:10.1002/tl.20290
16. Iannone P., O’Brien B. Students’ experiences of teaching at secondary school and university: sharing responsibility for classroom engagement. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2018, pp. 1—15. DOI:10.1080/0309877X.2017.1332352
17. Meyer J.W. World Society, Institutional Theories, and the Actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 2010. Vol. 36, pp. 1—20. DOI:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102506
18. Niemi R., Kumpulainen K., Lipponen L. Pupil`s participation in the Finnish classrooms: turning the UN Convention on the Right of the Child into pedagogical practices. Children’s Rights, Educational Research and the UNCRC. In Gillett-Swan J., Coppock V. (ed.). The UK. Oxford, England: Symposium Books, 2016, pp. 81—100.
19. Nurmi J.E. Students’ characteristics and teacher—child relationships in instruction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 7, 2002, pp. 177—197. DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.03.001
20. OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Concept Note. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2018. URL: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_concept_note.pdf
21. Pelikan E.R., Lüftenegger M., Holzer J. Learning during COVID-19: the role of self-regulated learning, motivation, and procrastination for perceived competence. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 2021, no. 24, pp. 393—418.
22. Reeve J., Tseng C-M. Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2011. Vol. 36, Issue 4, pp. 257—267.
23. Reeve J. Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. (Eds.). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2002, pp. 183—203.
24. Takase M., Niitani M., Imai T. What educators could do to facilitate students’ use of a deep approach to learning: A multisite cross-sectional design. Nurse Education Today, 2020. Vol. 89, pp. 269—286.
25. Udehn L. The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism. Annual Review of Sociology, 2002. Vol. 28, pp. 479—507. DOI:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140938
26. Väyrynen S., Kesälahti E., Pynninen T., Siivola J., Flotskaya N., Bulanova S., Volskaya O., Usova Z., Kuzmicheva T., Afonkina Y. Finnish and Russian teachers supporting the development of social skills. European Journal of Teacher Education, 2016. Vol. 39, Issue 4, pp. 1—15.