The profile of a high level of social intellect`s of future teacher
Keywords:
teacher, social intellect, behaviour, verbal communication, non-verbal expression.Abstract
The profile of social intellect`s high level of one of Kazakhstan high schools` students is considered in this work(N=66). The aim of the research work is to define features of social intellect`s high level of future teachers and to give characteristic`s of the structure of their social intellect`s profile. The test on social intellect by Gilford-Salpivan adapted by E.S.Mikhailova(Aleshina) was used as the method of research. The stock normative mark not lower than 3 was the indicator of future teachers high level of social intellect. It is found out that the verbal expression as the substructure of social intellect is an important indicator of abilities to communication of future pedagogs which are revealed in their everyday life and educational activity. The successful results of subtest №3 define the strategy and tactics of efficient behaviour of future teachers in the processof communication; rather developed perceptive characteristics; psychological readiness to pedagogical communication; display ing interest to social reality; the social roles` latitude. The results of subtest №1 are on the second place in the profile of social intellect`s high level of future teachers. High qualitative data of subtest №1 testify that the future teachers are well versed in ethic norms and rules of communication and behaviour in society; the adequately realize consequences of their actions and others` deeds. The analyses of qualitative indicators of the given subtest shows that future teachers social-psycologically adapt to various communicative situations. The results of subtest №2 take the third place. High results on given subtest show that future teachers can be versed in non-verbal reactions in the process of communication. They un derstand the meaning of interlocutor`s words as they adequately understand, and are able to take into account non-verbal expression that follows them. The social sensitivity of future teachers is confirmed by high results of subtest №2. According to qualitative data the subtest №4 is on the last place. Nevertheless the average meaning on subtest №4 in the profile of social intellect`s high level shows that future teachers have rather developed social thinking. The highest composite mark in the profile of social intellect allows to summarize that the future teachers skillfully understand the situations of interpersonal communication. And the composite mark and the results of subtests display that for future teachers the inner values are subjective priorities in the process of communication.
These results are partly confirmed by the results of analog researches, made by foreign scientists. They are lead by the differences of educational sphere and society of different countries and those requirements to personal uniqueness of students. That shows the university medium and standards and norms of communication and behav iour in society.
References
2. Карамуратова Р.Б. Педагогикалық процесте жанашырлық бағалау рөлін психологиялық зерттеу. [Тұлға – Личность]
– Өскемен, 2007.
3. Митина Л.М. Еңбек психологиясы және мұғалімнің кәсіби дамуы. – М., 2004.
4. Реан А.А. Тұлға психологиясы. Әлеуметтану, тәрбие, қарым-қатынас. – СПб, 2004. – 416 б.
5. Брушлинский А.В. Субъект: Ойлау, оқу, қиял. – М., 1996.
6. Вертгеймер М. Продуктивті ойлау психологиясы. – М., 1987.
7. Выготский Л.С. Ойлаужәнесөйлеу [Жинақ. шығ.] – Т. 2. – М., 1982. – 5-361 бб.
8. Гилфорд Дж. Интеллектінің құрылым моделі [Ойлау психологиясы]. – М., 1965.
9. Космитский К, Джон О.П. Әлеуметтік интеллектінің айқын концепциясы жасырын пайдалану // Тұлғалық және жекелік айырмашылықтар. – 1993. – 11-23 б.
10. Кант Н., Хилстром Дж.Ф. Әлеуметтік барлау және жеке тұлғаның танымдық бағалауы. – С. 2., – 1989. – 1-59 бб.
11. Михайлова (Алешина) Е.С. Әлеуметтік интеллектіні зерттеу әдістері. – СПб., 1996.
12. Ерментаева А.Р., Кенжебаева Қ.С. Болашақ педагогтардың әлеуметтік интеллектісінің ерекшеліктері. Әлеуметтік ғылымдар. – С.10., 2015. – 1523-1527 бб.
1. Bodalev A.A. Adam – adam retіnde kabyldau zhane tusіnu. – M.,1982.
2 Karamuratova R.B. Pedagogikalyk proceste zhanashyrlyk bagalau rolіn psihologijalyk zertteu. [Tulga – Lichnost’] Oske-men, 2007.
3. Mitina L.M. Enbekpsihologijasyzhanemugalіmnіnkasіbidamuy. – M., 2004.
4. Rean A.A. Tulғa psihologijasy. Aleumettanu, tarbie, karym-katynas. – SPb, 2004. – B. 416.
5. Brushlinskij A.V. Subekt: Ojlau, oқu, kijal. – M., 1996.
6. Vertgejmer M. Produktivtі oilau psihologijasy. – M., 1987.
7. Vygotskij L.S. Ojlauzhanesoileu [Zhinak. shyg.] – T. 2. – M., 1982. – B. 5-361.
8. Gilford Dzh. Intellektіnіn kurylym modelі [Ojlau psihologijasy]. – M., 1965.
9. Kosmitskij K, Dzhon O.P. Aleumettіk intellektіnіn ajkyn koncepcijasy zhasyryn pajdalanu // Tulgalyk zhane zhekelіk ajyr-mashylyktar. – 1993. – B. 11-23.
10. Kant N., Hilstrom Dzh.F. Aleumettіk barlau zhane zheke tulganyn tanymdyk bagalauy. – S. 2., – 1989. – B. 1-59.
11. Mihajlova (Aleshina) E.S. Aleumettіk intellektіnі zertteu әdіsterі. – SPb., 1996.
12. Ermentaeva A.R., Kenzhebaeva K.S. Bolashak pedagogtardyn aleumettіk intellektіsіnіn erekshelіkterі. Aleumettіk gylym-dar. – S.10., 2015. – B.1523-1527.
