OVERVIEW OF NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS OF LEARNING

Authors

  • H. F. Safonova PhD in Engineering, Associate Professor, teacher, Separated Structural Unit “Kherson Polytechnic Professional College of State University “Odeska Politechnika”, Kherson, Ukraine, [email protected]; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4540-7889
  • O. V. Vichna teacher, Separated Structural Unit “Kherson Polytechnic Professional College of State Uni­versity “Odeska Politechnika”, Kherson, Ukraine, [email protected]; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000- 0003-2223-1494
  • M. S. Safonov PhD in Engineering, head of the cathedra, Separated Structural Unit “Kherson Polytechnic Pro­fessional College of State University “Odeska Politechnika”, Kherson, Ukraine, [email protected]; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9742-8270

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51707/2618-0529-2021-20-10

Keywords:

growth mindset, fixed mindset, belonging, psychological interventions.

Abstract

The article discusses non-cognitive factors of learning, and how they can seriously affect student performance. Among the considered non-cognitive factors are: growth mindset, belonging and academic persistence and other personal qualities. Possible psychological interventions are described, which help to eliminate the influence of some negative factors. In particular, such as fixed mindset by replacing it with growth mindset. There are two ways in which teachers can solve social problems such as: belonging and stress. As well as helping to address students’ concerns about bias and unfair feedback. It is shown how the fear of students’ mistakes can significantly slow down their development process. And self-regulation skills have a strong positive correlation with learning outcomes. The approach of strengthening students’ sense of purpose by targeting their future image is considered. It is emphasized that psychological interventions will be effective only if they are implemented in ways that can significantly and effectively change the way students think about themselves, their group, their work. In addition, these interventions must be subtle and varied. And teachers should not only observe the group environment and the interactions that occur there, but also consider how these elements are interpreted by students. The most common mistakes that teachers make are highlighted and suggested how to avoid them. It encourages students to persevere because of failures only by offering to try again; psychological interventions as general, universal occupations; overestimation of students’ efforts. It is also noted that the way of thinking does not ensure academic success, so psychological interventions should be integrated with academic to improve both motivation and learning outcomes of students.

References

Yeager, D., Walton, G., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Addressing achievement gaps with psychological interventions. Phi Delta Kappan, (Vol. 94), (№ 5), (pp. 62–65). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309400514

Seaton, F. S. (2018). Empowering teachers to implement a growth mindset. Educational Psychology in Practice, 34 (1), 41–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2017.1382333

Darnon, C., Harackiewicz, J. M., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Quiamzade, A. (2007). Performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals: When uncertainty makes a difference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 813–827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301022

Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 33–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientations in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.544

Witkow, M. R., & Fuligni, A. J. (2007). Achievement goals and daily school experiences among adolescents from Asian, Latino, and European-American backgrounds. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 584–596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.584

Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613–628. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613

Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know; What more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 115–138.

Berglas, S., & Jones, E. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4 (2), 200–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727800400205

Mischel, W., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 329–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029815

Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Zeiss, A. R. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 204–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032198

Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244 (4907), 933–938. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2658056

Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 188–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.188

Published

2022-03-28

How to Cite

Safonova, H. F., Vichna, O. V., & Safonov , M. S. (2022). OVERVIEW OF NON-COGNITIVE FACTORS OF LEARNING. Scientific Notes of Junior Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, (1(20), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.51707/2618-0529-2021-20-10