The Relationship Between the Level of Reflection and Self-regulation Among Teachers of a General Education Institution

Today, it is education that plays the main role in educating a person who is able and ready to live in modern reality. It is a teacher, a teacher who is capable of self-development, self-study, constant improvement of his qualifications, who helps a child to become a full and full member of the society to which he belongs ^[1].

The profession of a teacher is associated with large expenditures of physical, intellectual and mental energy, and therefore mastering the methods of self-regulation and reflection is necessary to manage one's condition, the ability to resolve problematic and conflict situations, to gain new meanings in crisis periods of one's life.

The process and result of fixing the state of a teacher's self-development is determined by the level of reflexivity, as the ability to analyze one's own thoughts and committed actions. The formation and development of reflexivity among teachers, as a process and result of fixing the state of their development, self-development, will allow the teacher to retrain quickly enough and rebuild his pedagogical activity in accordance with increasing requirements ^[4].

Reflection is one of the most important mechanisms of self-regulation, as the ability to manage the development of one's competencies, i.e. to carry out personal and professional growth ^{[21, 22]}. The development of self-regulation helps a modern teacher to find an individual style of professional activity, allows him to achieve adequate professional and personal self-esteem, predict and analyze the results of his activities, increases the level of self-organization, protects the teacher from professional deformation, allows him to overcome the stereotype of professional thinking. A reflective teacher capable of self–regulation is a thinking, analyzing, exploring his experience teacher, correcting it depending on certain circumstances ^[7]. The lack of formation of self-knowledge and self-understanding skills, as important components of reflection, as well as self-regulation, leads to the loss of subjectivity. Reflection and self-regulation allow you to take a subjective position in relation to yourself, other people and the world around you, to correlate your needs with the available opportunities on the basis of personal meaning ^[9].

Thus, the purpose of our work is to identify the relationship between reflection and self–regulation among teachers of a general education institution.

Subject: the relationship of reflection and self-regulation among teachers of a general education institution.

            In our work, we rely on the methodology of developmental psychology, in particular, on the principles of determination and development of regulatory processes and regulatory-personal properties, the connection of self-regulation with the specifics of the psychological content of a particular age and reflection, revealing the mechanisms of its formation in the process of solving age-related problems (E.A. Aronova, Yu.S. Zhuikov, V. I. Chirkov, T.V. Yurova, S. V. Shik, S. I. Yanovsky, etc.) ^{[11, 12, 13, 15]}.

           In particular, we took as a basis the research of V. I. Morosanova, which describes the concept of conscious self-regulation of voluntary human activity, the typology of individual styles of self-regulation and their relationship with the success of professional activity ^{[6, 7]}.

The main research methods were chosen:

1. Methodology for diagnosing the level of development of reflexivity (Karpova A.V.).

2. Basic questionnaire "Style of self–regulation of behavior - SSPM" (Morosanova V.I.).

Theoretical analysis.In order to investigate the role of reflection and self-regulation in the professional development and formation of teachers, more and more scientists are turning to resource and reflexive approaches.

The essence of the resource approach is not so much to determine favorable conditions for the development of certain qualities of teachers, as in the study of how to turn the existing potential into an effective tool for the implementation of professional activities.  From this point of view, the ability to self-regulation as a component of resource potential and its impact on the effectiveness of teachers' activities are studied by Osadchuk O.L. ^[8], Korotkova S.V. ^[3], Golubeva P.D. ^[2], etc. The importance of professional reflection in a modern teacher is investigated by Rakitina L.A., Mokrinskaya N.V., Ernst G.G. ^[12] and others.

Among foreign scientists, the works of Compas B.E. ^[14], Lehr U. ^[15], H.Thomae are known. ^[16], P. Domer ^[13], which are associated with the development of self-regulation based on the formation of self-competence as an effective resource of a teacher), etc.

The reflexive approach to the professional formation of a teacher in modern educational practice is also widely used. This is due, among other things, to the fact that one of the universal educational actions formed by students is the ability to set goals, regulate their educational activities and be able to reflect on it ^{[10, 11]}. Moreover, reflexivity is included in the list of flexible skills, the development of which contributes to the professional success of a specialist, including a teacher. The reflexive competence of the teacher, thus, acts as a model, mechanism, condition of motivation for the development of reflexive competencies in the student. A teacher who is able to reflect on situations and experience of his professional activity, who owns various reflexive methods, is capable of self-regulation of his own activity, building trajectories of his own development depending on internal and external conditions, which means he will be able to teach this to students (Yurova T.V. ^[11], Bodrov V.A. ^[1], Kobasa S.C., Maddi S.R., Kahn S. ^[17].)

With all the breadth and diversity of studies of reflection and self-regulation of teachers, it seems that their connection is insufficiently studied, as one of the key elements for influencing the process of professional self-development, understanding the causes of his professional failures and failures and for regulating his pedagogical activity.

Study The study was conducted on the basis of secondary schools No. 4 and No. 19.

Krasnoyarsk. In total, 56 teachers aged 30 to 35 years with more than 5 years of experience in school took part in the study. The sample consisted mainly of women (93%) – subject teachers.

According to the results of diagnostics using the method "Diagnostics of the level of development of reflexivity" (Karpova A.V.) of teachers of a general education institution, it was revealed that:

– low level of reflexivity in 25% of teachers;

– the average level of reflexivity in 50%;

– high level of reflexivity in 25%.

It can also be noted that among the teachers of a general education institution, most of them have an average level of reflexivity.

According to the results of diagnostics using the method "Style of self–regulation of behavior - SSPM" (Morosanova V.I.) of teachers of a general education institution, it was revealed that teachers of a general education institution are characterized by:

– low level of planning in 15%, medium in 45%, high in 40%;

– low modeling level in 25%, medium in 40%, high in 35%;

– low programming level at 20%, medium at 60%, high at 20%;

– a low level of evaluation of the results was not revealed, average in 35%, high in 65%;

– low level of flexibility in 25%, medium in 45%, high in 30%;

– low level of independence in 10%, average in 55%, high in 35%;

– low indicators of the general level of self-regulation in 5%, average in 60%, high in 35%.

It can also be noted that among the teachers of a general education institution, most of them have average indicators of the general level of self-regulation.

More clearly, the percentage ratio of comparing the levels of reflexivity and the severity of the level of self–regulation is presented in Figures 1-7.

For comparison, the results of those respondents who showed high and low levels of reflexivity were taken.

Fig. 1 Percentage ratio of the planning level of teachers of a general education institution with a high and low level of reflexivity (VUR – high level of reflexivity, NUR – low level of reflexivity)When comparing the results on the planning scale, it can be seen that teachers of a general education institution with a high level of reflexivity have a high level, and teachers of a general education institution with a low level of reflexivity have an average level.

Fig. 2 Percentage ratio of the modeling level of teachers of a general education institution with a high and low level of reflexivity (VUR – high level of reflexivity, NUR – low level of reflexivity)

When comparing the results on the modeling scale, it can be seen that teachers of a general education institution with a high level of reflexivity have a high level, and teachers of a general education institution with a low level of reflexivity have an average level.

Fig. 3 Percentage ratio of the programming level of teachers of a general education institution with a high and low level of reflexivity (VUR – high level of reflexivity, NUR – low level of reflexivity)When comparing the results on the programming scale, it can be seen that teachers of a general education institution with a high level of reflexivity have a high level, and teachers of a general education institution with a low level of reflexivity have an average level.

Fig. 4 Percentage ratio of the level of evaluation of the results of teachers of a general education institution with a high and low level of reflexivity (VUR – high level of reflexivity, NUR – low level of reflexivity)

When comparing the results on the results evaluation scale, it can be seen that teachers of a general education institution with a high level of reflexivity have a high level, and teachers of a general education institution with a low level of reflexivity have a low level.

Fig. 5 Percentage ratio of the level of flexibility of teachers of a general education institution with a high and low level of reflexivity (VUR – high level of reflexivity, NUR – low level of reflexivity)

When comparing the results on the flexibility scale, it can be seen that teachers of a general education institution with a high level of reflexivity have a high level, and teachers of a general education institution with a low level of reflexivity have an average level.

Fig. 6 Percentage ratio of the level of independence of teachers of a general education institution with a high and low level of reflexivity (VUR – high level of reflexivity, NUR – low level of reflexivity)

When comparing the results on the independence scale, it can be seen that teachers of a general education institution with a high level of reflexivity have an average level, and teachers of a general education institution with a low level of reflexivity have a high level.

Fig. 7 Percentage ratio of the general level of self–regulation of teachers of a general education institution with a high and low level of reflexivity (VUR – high level of reflexivity, NUR - low level of reflexivity)

When comparing the results of the general level of self–regulation, it can be seen that teachers of a general education institution with a high level of reflexivity have a high level, and teachers of a general education institution with a low level of reflexivity have an average level.

Comparing the data of the first and second groups, it can be seen that they have different levels in absolutely all scales, which may indicate their relationship.

Next, we performed statistical data processing using the Mann–Whitney U–test ^[18].

  For statistical analysis of the data, we used the Mann–Whitney U–test, which is designed to assess the differences between two samples by the level of a quantified trait. It allows us to identify differences between small samples when n1,n2?3 or n1=2, n2?5, and is more powerful than the Rosenbaum criterion.The Mann–Whitney U–test is a nonparametric statistical criterion used to compare two independent samples by the level of a quantified trait.

The method is based on determining whether the zone of overlapping values between two variation series is small enough (a ranked series of parameter values in the first sample and the same in the second sample). The lower the value of the criterion, the more likely it is that the differences between the parameter values in the samples are significant ^[1].

We put forward the following hypotheses:

H0: The trait level in group 2 is not lower than the trait level in group 1.

H1: The trait level in group 2 is lower than the trait level in group 1.

Here, group 1 – teachers with a high, group 2 – with a low level of reflection.

After statistical data processing, we received the following results.

Data on the method "Style of self–regulation of behavior – SSPM" (Morosanova V.I.). Automatic calculation of the Mann – Whitney U-test.

Table 1.Data on the planning scale

Critical values

Result: UEmp = 11.5

The empirical value obtained is in the zone of insignificance. Hypothesis H0 is accepted: there are no statistically significant differences between the results of groups 1 and 2.

Table 2

Scale data modeling

Critical values

Result: UEmp = 0

The empirical value obtained is in the zone of significance. H1 is accepted: the differences between the results of groups 1 and 2 are statistically significant.

Continuation of Appendix 1

Table 3

Data on the programming scale

Critical values

Result: UEmp = 0

The empirical value obtained is in the zone of significance. H1 is accepted: the differences between the results of groups 1 and 2 are statistically significant.

Table 4

Data on the scale evaluation of results

Critical values

Result: UEmp = 1.5

The empirical value obtained is in the zone of uncertainty. H1 is accepted: the differences between the results of groups 1 and 2 are statistically significant.

Table 5

Data on the flexibility scale

Critical values

Result: UEmp = 0

The empirical value obtained is in the zone of significance. H1 is accepted: the differences between the results of groups 1 and 2 are statistically significant.

Table 6

Data on the independence scale

Critical values

Result: UEmp = 4

The empirical value obtained is in the zone of uncertainty. H1 is accepted: the differences between the results of groups 1 and 2 are statistically significant.

Table 7

Data on the scale of the general level of self-regulation

Critical values

Result: UEmp = 0

The empirical value obtained is in the zone of significance. H1 is accepted: The differences between the results of groups 1 and 2 are statistically significant.

According to the level of general self-regulation, teachers with high and low levels of reflection have differences. There is also a certain peculiarity in the development of the processes of self-regulation and regulatory-personal properties. There are differences in the scale of independence, flexibility (the level of the ability to rebuild, make corrections to the system of self-regulation when external and internal conditions change), evaluation (characterizes the individual development and adequacy of the assessment of the subject himself and the results of his activities), modeling (the ability to identify significant conditions for achieving goals). and programming (the development of conscious programming by a person of his actions): teachers with a high level of reflection have more developed structures described above ^{[6, 7]}. Therefore, we can say that there is a relationship between reflection and self-regulation among teachers of a general education institution.

Conclusion and conclusions. Reflection is understood by many authors in different ways, but it has always been noted that reflection is the attention of the subject to himself and to his consciousness, in particular, to the products of his own activity, as well as any rethinking of them. According to the majority of scientists, reflexive processes that are basic to human consciousness and involved in various types of activities are: planning; anticipating the consequences of decisions made; evaluating the stages of one's own intellectual activity; stopping or slowing down intellectual activity at any stage of its implementation; choosing and modifying strategies for one's own behavior and learning.

Reflection also participates in the processes of self-regulation. Self–regulation in a generalized sense is a conscious process of controlling one's behavior. With the help of such a connection, a person not only controls and organizes his actions, but also makes planning and evaluation of his actions. Reflexive regulation of one's own internal processes and actions is a complex process in its structure and this structure includes: mental reproduction of possibilities; reflexive play with oneself (which ends with the development of a final decision and the transition to executive actions). The reflexivity of self-regulation also manifests itself in cases when it is necessary to rebuild the existing mode of action, while analyzing the structure of their actions that do not bring success. Therefore, we can say that reflexivity and flexibility are associated with such a willingness to rearrange the ways of action, to detect "mistakes" of actions.

Pedagogical activity includes many functions, including the design of a developing socio-pedagogical environment, the construction of psychological and pedagogical conditions for human learning. To carry out such functions, a teacher is required who is focused on the development of human abilities, and not only on the translation of knowledge, skills and abilities; who is able to build developing educational situations, and not just set and solve didactic tasks. There are also a lot of other features in pedagogical activity, which a well-developed reflexivity and self-regulation processes will help to cope with.

Our goal to identify the relationship between reflection and self-regulation among teachers of a general education institution has been realized. At the first stage, we found out the level of reflection and self-regulation among teachers of a general education institution.

At the second stage, we analyzed the data obtained and drew conclusions based on statistical processing of data on the level of reflection and self-regulation among teachers of a general education institution and identified the relationship between reflection and self-regulation among them.

According to the level of general self-regulation, teachers with high and low levels of reflection have differences. There is also a certain peculiarity in the development of the processes of self-regulation and regulatory-personal properties. Therefore, we can say that the hypothesis put forward at the beginning of our study has been confirmed. That is, the relationship of reflection and self-regulation among teachers of a general education institution exists.  This fact should be taken into account in order to influence the process of professional self-development, to understand the reasons for his professional failures and failures and to regulate his pedagogical activity.