Transgressiveness, Innovation, and Readiness of the Modern Teacher for

Change

Lyudmila L. Khoruzha

, Victoria V. Zhelanova

, Mariia V. Bratko

, Svitlana P. Palamar

and

Inna V. Leontieva

Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, 18/2 I. Shamo Blvd., Kyiv, 02154, Ukraine

{l.khoruzha, v.zhelanova, m.bratko, s.palamar, i.leontieva}@kubg.edu.ua

Keywords:

Higher Education, Transgressiveness, Innovativeness, Readiness of a Modern Teacher for Innovative Activi-

ties, Relocated University.

Abstract:

The article substantiates the social relevance of the phenomena of transgressiveness and innovation in all

spheres of modern society, including higher education. Their essence and objective mutual determination are

considered, and attention is focused on the scientiﬁc position that one of the aspects of transgressiveness of

higher education is the innovativeness of the teacher, the indicator of which is his readiness for innovative

activity in the conditions of transgressiveness of society. The essence of the teacher’s readiness for innova-

tive activity was considered through the analysis of its semantic components, and its structure was developed,

which includes innovative-personal orientation, innovative awareness, content-innovative activity, and reﬂec-

tion of innovativeness. The logic and diagnostic tools of the experimental research were disclosed, the purpose

of which was to determine the level of readiness of higher school teachers for innovative pedagogical activities,

to compare the results obtained in relocated and non-relocated universities, as well as to identify correlations

between the real level of its formation and age, length of service, availability academic degree and scientiﬁc

title. However, the anonymity of the survey made it impossible to reveal all aspects of the representativeness

of the study sample. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the results of the experimental work, which are

visualized, is presented. The results of the component analysis of the components of teachers’ readiness for

innovative activity and their statistical processing made it possible to formulate several conclusions. Among

the teachers of Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University and Mykhailo Drahomanov Ukrainian State University,

innovative awareness is dominant in the structure of readiness, content-innovative professional activity is in

the last place, and the second and third place, respectively, is occupied by the reﬂection of innovativeness

and innovative-personal orientation. The results of the representatives of the relocated State institution Taras

Shevchenko Luhansk National University are somewhat different: there is a certain similarity of indicators

for the components of innovative awareness and content-innovative professional activity. However, innova-

tive, and personal orientation takes the second place, instead, the reﬂection of innovativeness is in the third

place. The logic of such distribution of components is determined by the main objective factors related to

the situation of repeated relocation of the institution (2014, 2022); the loss of the material and technical base,

developed didactic and methodical support, and other resources of the innovative educational environment;

personnel dispersion.

1 INTRODUCTION

In a rapidly changing world, education ceases to be a

ﬁxed phenomenon in the context of content, technol-

ogy, resources, tools, etc. This is, as a rule, a complex,

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4405-4847

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9467-1080

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7162-2841

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6123-241X

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3807-1974

ambiguous, unstable process that must consider new

challenges and trends. A teacher at a higher school in

these conditions is constantly in the process of perma-

nent changes, searching for new professional orien-

tations, development and self-development, and im-

provement. To characterize such a situation, the term

transgressiveness is the aptest, as it characterizes the

phenomenon of crossing an impassable border, ﬁrst,

the border between the possible and the impossible.

The literal understanding of this term means “going

Khoruzha, L., Zhelanova, V., Bratko, M., Palamar, S. and Leontieva, I.

Transgressiveness, Innovation, and Readiness of the Modern Teacher for Change.

DOI: 10.5220/0012649000003737

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning (ICHTML 2023), pages 163-172

ISBN: 978-989-758-579-1; ISSN: 2976-0836

163

beyond”. One of the aspects of transgressiveness in

the context of changes and the search for something

new is innovativeness as a phenomenon of modern ed-

ucation, which proves its quality and effectiveness.

A basic indicator of a teacher’s innovativeness is

readiness for innovative activity, which actualizes the

need and expediency of empirically determining the

level of his/her ability to go “beyond the limits of the

possible”, that is, to move from traditions to innova-

tions in higher education, to modernizing the design

of higher education based on axiologising and mean-

ingful transformation of the best experience, as well

as the deﬁnition of problems, barriers, prospects of

innovative growth of a modern university teacher.

Let’s consider the basic phenomena of the pre-

sented research, which are transgressiveness and in-

novativeness. The problem of transgressiveness is de-

voted to the study of foreign scientists Lotz-Sisitka

et al. (2015), who connect this phenomenon with the

following key trends in modern higher education: re-

ﬂective social learning based on the theory of abil-

ities; phenomenology of critical thinking; sociocul-

tural and cultural-historical theory of activity, as well

as taking into account social initiatives of the infor-

mation society. Saarnivaara et al. (2012), who as-

sociate transgressive learning with mentoring and su-

pervision, express a slightly different point of view.

In the domestic scientiﬁc space, transgressive issues

are raised in the study of Aleksandrov (2018), who

focuses on “breaking and going beyond the limits” of

the traditional understanding of higher education. The

personal context of transgressiveness is presented in

the research of Fomenko (2014), who considers trans-

gressiveness as a series of conscious acts that cause

forward movement, the desire to expand one’s world,

create new material and symbolic values, develop sci-

ence, technology, art, and organizational activity.

Considering the outlined scientiﬁc positions, we

consider transgressiveness in two dimensions. On the

one hand, it is an essential feature of a turbulent so-

ciety, related to its innovativeness; on the other hand,

it is a phenomenon at the personal level, which in-

volves the ability of a modern university teacher to

go beyond established educational canons and imple-

ment a movement “beyond” traditions based on inno-

vation. The phenomenon of innovativeness became

the subject of discussions at the World Summit on

Innovations in Education Research, which outlined

the strategic directions of reforms in education until

2030. Among them, the priorities are the following:

the intensive implementation of online technologies,

changing the status of the teacher from a lecturer to

a facilitator, which motivates and inspires the student;

to a mentor who directs him to search for information.

Herodotou et al. (2019), Kukulska-Hulme et al.

(2021), who emphasize the orientation of innovative

pedagogy for the future and for building the future,

are devoted to the problem of innovativeness in edu-

cation; Konst and Kairisto-Mertanen (2018), whose

research is aimed at the implementation of innova-

tive pedagogy in the practice of higher education, as a

kind of response to the challenges of the future; Fer-

rari et al. (2009), who investigate the role of edu-

cators in promoting creativity and innovation in the

educational process; Santos et al. (2019), Walder

(2014), and Lotz-Sisitka et al. (2015), who com-

prehensively investigate pedagogical innovations and

the success of their implementation in higher educa-

tion, etc. The practical implementation of these scien-

tiﬁc ideas is carried out by various educational institu-

tions and universities. Thus, since 2012, the Institute

of Educational Technology at The Open University

(UK) has been publishing on its open resources ev-

ery year a report based on the results of a study of

the latest pedagogical technologies that were popu-

lar in the world during the year under review (http:

//www.open.ac.uk/blogs/innovating/), which it labels

as already inﬂuencing educational practice or offer

opportunities for the future. Such a list is also com-

piled for 2022 (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2022).

For researchers of innovations in the domestic

ﬁeld of education, a thorough monographic study

edited by Kremen (2008) will be useful. Among the

works of Ukrainian scientists, we also consider it nec-

essary to pay attention to Zhelanova’s research on the

parameters of innovativeness of modern higher educa-

tion (Zhelanova, 2022); Khoruzha (2021), whose sub-

ject of scientiﬁc research is the socio-psychological

aspects of the transition of pedagogical knowledge

into innovation; Bratko and Kozyr (2020), who

present a holistic vision of pedagogical innovation as

a subject and object of study in higher education and

others; Kozak (2021) regarding innovative activities

of preschool teachers; Nezhyva and Palamar (2020),

about innovative educational technologies for train-

ing future primary school teachers; Leontieva (2022),

regarding modernization risks of innovative develop-

ment of higher education in Ukraine.

The aspect of pedagogical innovation is pointed

out by Khoruzha (2021), according to which it affects

different segments of education, namely: didactic, ed-

ucational, and managerial, and their components, and

the criteria for identifying their innovativeness are:

• relativity (comparison of existing practices with

innovation);

• rarity (recognition of the uniqueness, and origi-

nality of the innovation);

• productivity (certiﬁes the effectiveness of the in-

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

164

novation);

• obviousness (unquestionable, clear novelty);

• efﬁciency (achieving effectiveness with the lowest

costs);

• value (reﬂects the humanistic orientation of the in-

novation).

There is a scientiﬁc opinion on the innova-

tive dimensions of modern higher education, among

which the conceptual-innovative (correspondence to

the ideas of polyparadigmatic and interdisciplinary

methodology of modern education), technological-

innovative (related to the implementation of a tech-

nological approach to modern higher education in

the format of innovative educational technologies),

communicative-innovative dimension (related to the

new format of relations between teachers and students

based on educational partnership) (Zhelanova, 2022).

In our research, such a broad interpretation of the phe-

nomenon of innovativeness in educational activity is

narrowed down to the professional and personal as-

pects and actualized through the prism of readiness

for innovative activity.

We understand innovativeness as a certain capac-

ity of the subject of innovative activity to apply in-

novation in one or another ﬁeld of activity, which is

based on his/her readiness for innovative activity (in-

novativeness) and a complex of knowledge and skills

(innovative competence), which will ensure the suc-

cess of his/her professional activity on the basis in-

novativeness. In our opinion, the innovative activity

of the teacher involves updating the content and tech-

nologies of modern higher education based on the in-

novative orientation of the subjects of the educational

process, which lead to a departure from traditional in-

efﬁcient models of professional activity in the condi-

tions of transgressiveness of modern society.

Taking into account that the work of each re-

searcher is characterized by a certain subjectivity in

considering the phenomenon of innovations in the ed-

ucational sphere, it is worth highlighting the com-

mon points that scientists pay attention to. This is the

thesis that innovative approaches increase the inter-

est of education seekers, motivation and critical think-

ing, increase reﬂection, encourage the development of

higher levels of thinking, deepen personal responsi-

bility for learning, develop the ability to interact with

peers and teachers, ensure satisfaction with the pro-

fessional activity of teachers and systemic, often in-

stant, feedback with learners.

Therefore, we believe that the main parameter

that characterizes the properties, features, and certain

states of a modern teacher in the context of trans-

gressiveness and innovativeness is the innovative di-

mension of his/her activity, presented in four direc-

tions: axiological; content, and activity; communica-

tive, and reﬂective.

The purpose of the article is to investigate the pe-

culiarities of the readiness of a modern teacher of a

higher school for innovative activities in the context

of the transgressiveness of education.

2 THEORETICAL

FUNDAMENTALS OF

RESEARCH

The problem of readiness in the foreign scientiﬁc dis-

course is presented in different ways. For example,

Manasia et al. (2020) substantiated and developed a

conceptual model of teacher readiness with an em-

phasis on sustainable development education, consid-

ering it according to the following dimensions: pro-

fessional knowledge and practice, professional inter-

action, and self-management realized through a psy-

chological attitude to design, implementation, evalu-

ation, and involvement of subjects of the educational

process based on interactive learning and partnership.

Mohamed et al. (2017), studying the level of

readiness of future teachers for pedagogical activity

according to 11 indicators of the international frame-

work of teacher competencies, associate the achieve-

ment of the state of readiness with four vectors of ped-

agogical education, which correlate with the compe-

tencies outlined in the framework, their implementa-

tion, integration, application, and modeling.

In the domestic scientiﬁc space, there is a system-

atic study of the phenomenon of readiness, in par-

ticular readiness for innovative activity (Dychkivska,

2017; Kozak, 2021). Thus, in the research of Dy-

chkivska (2017) regarding the readiness of future

teachers of special education for innovative pedagog-

ical activities, the problem of the motivational and

value attitude of the future specialist to innovative

activities, the ability to creativity and reﬂection, the

ability to respond promptly to the dynamics of socio-

economic processes, to ensure the variability of the

educational process on principles of innovation. The

basis of the innovative activity of a teacher of a higher

school consists of two important pedagogical aspects:

the study, generalization, and dissemination of peda-

gogical experience and the production of new ideas

based on the achievements of a psychological and

pedagogical science and their implementation in prac-

tice.

Our interpretation of the deﬁnition “a teacher’s

readiness for innovative activity” consists in interpret-

Transgressiveness, Innovation, and Readiness of the Modern Teacher for Change

165

ing it as the professional and personal formation of a

modern teacher, which consists of the following basic

components:

1. Innovative and personal orientation.

2. Innovative awareness.

3. Content-innovative activity.

4. Reﬂection on innovativeness.

We consider it appropriate to consider in more de-

tail the elements that make up each of the outlined

components, on which the experimental part of our

research will be based.

The innovative and personal orientation of the

teacher is a set of motives, needs, values, and atti-

tudes that reﬂect a stable value attitude to innovative-

ness; adaptability in conditions of social and personal

uncertainty; the need to update the strategy of profes-

sional activity based on transgressiveness. We con-

sider the orientation to innovation as a basic value of

the development of higher education to be a sign of a

teacher’s innovative and personal orientation; aware-

ness of the need to be adaptive in conditions of social

and personal uncertainty; the need to change and up-

date the strategy of one’s professional activity.

Innovative awareness presupposes erudition re-

garding fundamental knowledge and achievements of

modern science and trends in higher education and

innovations, and general awareness of innovations in

education.

Content-innovative activity – this component is

related to the constant updating of the content of

educational disciplines based on taking into account

the innovative guidelines of strategic regulatory doc-

uments, educational standards, and the innovative po-

tential of educational programs; implementation of

innovative content in the educational process through

an innovative format of relationships between sub-

jects of the educational process (facilitation, men-

toring, coaching, pedagogical partnership) and in-

novative research projects; renewal of didactic and

methodical support of educational disciplines based

on innovation; implementation of innovative learning

technologies and/or alternative resources and IR tools

within the open innovative educational environment.

Reﬂection of innovativeness is an awareness of

one’s innovative potential in professional activity, in-

cluding a feeling of lack of knowledge regarding tech-

nological support for the implementation of pedagog-

ical innovations; assessment of the innovativeness of

one’s professional activity and forecasting of its re-

sults and prospects; taking into account the level of

student satisfaction with the quality of education in

the context of its innovativeness; responsibility for

successes and failures in professional activity, includ-

ing its innovative component.

3 RESEARCH RESULTS

To determine the level of readiness of higher school

teachers for innovative pedagogical activity and to

identify correlations of its level with age, work expe-

rience, the presence of a scientiﬁc degree, and aca-

demic title, a survey of scientiﬁc and pedagogical

workers of higher education institutions of Ukraine

was conducted.

The questionnaire consisted of twenty questions

grouped into four blocks:

I. Innovative and personal orientation of the indi-

vidual (correlated with axiological, motivational,

adaptive aspects of readiness for innovative activ-

ity)

II. Innovative content of professional pedagogical

activity (related to substantive content at the state-

normative and corporate levels)

III. Innovativeness in professional activity (the pa-

rameters of which are a new format of relations

between the subjects of the educational process,

the introduction of innovative educational tools)

IV. Reﬂection and self-assessment (correlates with

the reﬂective and analytical mechanisms of the in-

dividual).

167 respondents from three universities took

part in the survey: Borys Grinchenko Kyiv Uni-

versity (hereinafter KUBG), Mykhailo Drahomanov

Ukrainian State University (hereinafter UNU), and

the relocated SI “Taras Shevchenko Luhansk Na-

tional University” (hereinafter LNU). However, the

anonymity of the survey made it impossible to reveal

all aspects of the representativeness of the study sam-

ple.

The questionnaire was aimed not only at diagnos-

ing the basic components of a teacher’s readiness for

innovative activity but also at comparing the readiness

for such activity of relocated and non-relocated teach-

ers of higher education institutions in Ukraine.

Note that we interpret the teacher’s “readiness

for innovative activity” as his professional and per-

sonal education, which includes: innovative and per-

sonal orientation (valuable attitude to innovativeness;

adaptability in conditions of social and personal un-

certainty; the need to update the strategy of profes-

sional activity); innovative awareness of fundamen-

tal knowledge, achievements and modern trends of

higher education; content-innovative activity of the

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

166

teacher (taking into account the guidelines of strategic

normative documents, educational standards and the

potential of educational programs regarding the con-

tent support of innovative activity, as well as the prac-

tical context of innovation (subject-subject format of

relationships, didactic-methodical support of educa-

tional disciplines on the basis of innovation, introduc-

tion of innovative learning technologies); reﬂection

of the results of innovative activity (awareness of po-

tential, evaluation of own achievements and satisfac-

tion of students, forecasting prospects for the devel-

opment of professional innovativeness). The obtained

results of the conducted questionnaire for each com-

ponent of the teacher’s readiness for innovative activ-

ity, as well as the generalized result, are visualized

in the diagrams below. Figure 1 graphically presents

the obtained data regarding the study of the teacher’s

level of readiness for innovative activity according to

the component “Innovative and personal orientation

of the individual”.

According to the conducted research, 60.00% of

the teachers of KUBG, 50% of LNU, and 69.09% of

UNU have a high level of innovative and personal ori-

entation. The level above the average is observed in

29.39% of teachers of KUBG, 30.73% – of LNU, and

24.54% of UNU. The average level of innovative and

personal orientation was found in 6.94% of teachers

of KUBG, 13.66% – of LNU, and 5.45% of UNU.

A low level was diagnosed in 2.04% of teachers of

KUBG, 2.44% – of LNU, and 0.92% of UNU.

Thus, a high level of innovative and personal ori-

entation prevails among teachers, they demonstrate a

valuable attitude to innovativeness; modern trends in

higher education; adaptability in conditions of social

and personal uncertainty; declare the need to update

the strategy of professional activity.

A high level of readiness of the teacher for inno-

vative activity according to the component “Innova-

tive awareness” is observed in 67.75% of teachers of

KUBG, 55.12% – of LNU, and 77.28% of UNU. The

level above the average was found in 28.57% of the

teachers of KUBG, 32.20% – of LNU, and 17.28% of

UNU. The average level of innovative awareness was

found in 3.26% of teachers of the KUBG, 8.29% – of

LNU, and 3.63% of the UNU. A low level was diag-

nosed only in representatives of LNU – 1.22%.

Therefore, the majority of teachers have a high

level of readiness for innovative activity according

to the “Innovative awareness” component, i.e. they

demonstrate awareness and erudition regarding fun-

damental knowledge and achievements of modern

science and trends in higher education and innova-

tions; general awareness of innovations in education.

The results of the teachers’ survey are shown in ﬁg-

ure 2.

Analysis of the research results shown in ﬁgure 3

allows us to conclude the level of the teacher’s readi-

ness for innovative activity according to the compo-

nent “Substantive and innovative professional activ-

ity”. Thus, a high level was found in 42.86% of

teachers of KUBG, 30.73% – of LNU, and 44.55%

of UNU. The level of readiness of the teacher for in-

novative activity according to the component “Sub-

stantive and innovative professional activity” is above

average found in 33.47% of the teachers of KUBG,

36.34% – of LNU, and 29.09% of UNU. The aver-

age level was diagnosed in 13.88% of the teachers of

KUBG, 20.73% – of LNU, and 16.36% of UNU. A

low level was diagnosed in 4.08% of the teachers of

KUBG, 4.88% – of LNU, and 4.54% of teachers of

UNU.

The results obtained under this component indi-

cate that among teachers there are specialists who ap-

ply innovativeness in their practical activities: con-

stant updating of the content of educational disci-

plines based on taking into account the innovative

guidelines of strategic regulatory documents, edu-

cational standards, the innovative potential of edu-

cational programs; innovative research projects; re-

newal of didactic and methodical support of educa-

tional disciplines based on innovation; implementa-

tion of innovative learning technologies and/or alter-

native resources and IR tools within the open innova-

tive educational environment.

Figure 4 graphically presents the results of study-

ing the level of readiness of the teacher for innovative

activity according to the component “Reﬂection of in-

novativeness”.

According to the conducted research, 60.82% of

the teachers of KUBG, 44.39% of LNU and 73.64%

of UNU have a high level of reﬂection and self-

esteem. The level above the average is observed in

33.47% of teachers of KUBG, 40.24% – of LNU, and

19.10% of UNU. The average level of reﬂection and

self-assessment was found in 4.08% of the teachers

of KUBG, 13.90% – of LNU, and 6.36% of UNU. A

low level was diagnosed only in representatives of the

KUBG – 0.41%.

That is, a high level of reﬂection and self-

assessment prevails among teachers, they demon-

strate awareness of their innovative potential in pro-

fessional activity; adequate evaluation of the innova-

tiveness of their professional activity, forecasting of

its results and prospects; responsibility for successes

and failures in professional activity, including its in-

novative component.

The analysis of the generalized results allows us

to conclude the structure of the teacher’s readiness for

Transgressiveness, Innovation, and Readiness of the Modern Teacher for Change

167

Figure 1: The results of the study of the level of the teacher’s readiness for innovative activity according to the component

“Innovative and personal orientation of the individual”.

Figure 2: Results of the study of the level of readiness of the teacher for innovative activities according to the component

“Innovative awareness”.

Figure 3: Results of the study of the level of readiness of the teacher for innovative activity according to the component

“Content-innovative professional activity”.

innovative activity. Thus, among the teachers of Bo-

rys Grinchenko Kyiv University and Mykhailo Dra-

homanov Ukrainian State University, the ﬁrst place

is innovative awareness, the second place is a reﬂec-

tion of innovativeness, the third place is innovative-

personal orientation, and the fourth place is a content-

innovative professional activity. For representatives

of the Taras Shevchenko Luhansk National Univer-

sity, the results are slightly different, so the innova-

tive and personal orientation is in second place, and

the reﬂection of innovativeness is in third place.

Therefore, it is obvious that teachers of Boris

Grinchenko Kyiv University and Mykhailo Dra-

homanov Ukrainian State University have a higher

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

168

Figure 4: Results of the study of the level of readiness of the teacher for innovative activity according to the component

“Reﬂection of innovativeness”.

Figure 5: The results of the study of the teacher’s readiness for innovative activities.

level of readiness for innovative activities than teach-

ers of SI “ Taras Shevchenko Luhansk National Uni-

versity” in all basic components.

In our opinion, the main objective factors of the

decrease in the level of teacher readiness for in-

novative activity among teachers of the SI “Taras

Shevchenko Luhansk National University” are the sit-

uation of repeated relocation of the institution (2014,

2022); loss of the material and technical base, de-

veloped didactic and methodical support and other

resources of the innovative and educational environ-

ment; personnel dispersion.

To conﬁrm the results obtained with the help

of qualitative analysis and to determine the differ-

ence between the indicators of teacher readiness

for innovative activity of the respondents of Borys

Grinchenko Kyiv University, Mykhailo Drahomanov

Ukrainian State University and SI “Taras Shevchenko

Luhansk National University”, non-parametric Mann-

Whitney U test was used (table 1).

The analysis of the results presented in the table

allows us to conclude that there is a statistically sig-

niﬁcant difference in the level of teacher readiness for

innovative activity between the groups of teachers of

KUBG/UNU and LNU on the component “Reﬂection

of innovativeness” at a signiﬁcance level of p=0.0001;

“Content-innovative professional activity” at the level

of signiﬁcance p=0.001; “Innovative awareness” and

“Innovative and personal orientation of the individ-

ual” at the level of signiﬁcance p=0.005.

To assess the statistical relationship between the

constituent components of the teacher’s level of readi-

ness for innovative activity according to such indica-

tors as age, seniority, scientiﬁc degree, and academic

title, obtained as a result of the conducted empirical

research, the Pearson correlation coefﬁcient, which is

a parametric statistical criterion, was used. The sta-

tistical analysis allowed us to reveal relationships be-

tween indicators at the signiﬁcance level of 0.05 and

0.01 (at p<.01 and p<.05). The results are shown in

Transgressiveness, Innovation, and Readiness of the Modern Teacher for Change

169

Table 1: Calculation of Mann-Whitney U test for comparing the results of the study of the level of teacher readiness for

innovative activity among teachers of different higher education institutions.

Variables

Sum of ranks

(KUBG/UNU)

Sum of ranks

(LNU)

Level of

signiﬁcance

Innovative and

personal orientation

of the individual

3087.00 1963.00 882.00 .0015

Innovative

awareness

3861.00 1215.00 806.00 .0013

Content-innovative

professional activity

2798.00 2251.00 766.50 .001

Reﬂection of

innovativeness

3074.00 1880.00 495.00 .0001

table 2.

Thus, we can conclude that there is a high level

of statistical signiﬁcance between the academic title

and all components of the level of readiness of the

teacher for innovative activities; scientiﬁc degree, and

age with innovativeness in professional activity, re-

ﬂection, and self-assessment. Statistically reliable re-

lationships were found between seniority and all com-

ponents of the teacher’s level of readiness for innova-

tive activities; scientiﬁc degree and age with the inno-

vative and personal orientation of the individual and

innovative content of professional pedagogical activ-

ity.

4 CONCLUSIONS AND

PROSPECTS OF FURTHER

RESEARCH

The phenomena of transgressiveness and innovative-

ness reﬂect the contradictory features of modern soci-

ety, associated with its turbulence, uncertainty, insta-

bility, and psychological tension, and become chal-

lenges facing higher education today. The profes-

sional and personal indicator of the speciﬁed objec-

tive social phenomena is the readiness of a higher

school teacher for innovative professional activity, the

structure of which includes several components: in-

novative personal orientation, innovative awareness,

content-innovative professional activity, and reﬂec-

tion of innovativeness. Quantitative and qualitative

analysis of the results of the teachers’ survey, as well

as their statistical processing, proved the similarity of

indicators of the readiness of teachers of all three uni-

versities for the components of innovative awareness

and content-innovative professional activity. How-

ever, the results of teachers of LNU differ according

to the components of innovative-personal orientation

and reﬂection of innovativeness (innovative-personal

orientation takes second place, and reﬂection of in-

novativeness is in third place). We believe that the

logic of this distribution of components of readiness

for innovative activity of LNU teachers is conditioned

by the main objective factors related to the situation

of repeated relocation of the institution (2014, 2022);

the loss of the material and technical base, developed

didactic and methodical support and other resources

of the innovative educational environment; personnel

dispersion. It was concluded that there is a high level

of statistical signiﬁcance between the academic title

and all components of the teacher’s readiness for in-

novative activities; at the same time, a signiﬁcant de-

pendence was established between academic degree

and age and content-innovative professional activity

and reﬂection of innovativeness. Statistically reli-

able connections were found between seniority and all

components of the teacher’s readiness for innovative

activities; at the same time, academic degree and age

correlate with the innovative and personal orientation

of the individual and the innovative awareness of the

teacher. Therefore, the readiness of the teachers of

KUBG, UNU, and LNU for innovative professional

activity was internalized only at the level of motiva-

tion and awareness but did not turn into a practical

toolkit regarding the content and technological sup-

port of the innovative professional activity. That is,

the problem of increasing the level of readiness of the

teacher for innovative professional activity according

to the component of content-innovative professional

activity must be raised at the level of declaring inno-

vative content at both the state (legislative) and insti-

tutional (corporate) levels in the format of regulatory

documents and educational programs of innovative

orientation, through the strengthening of their prac-

tical component, related to the provision of subjective

activity of teachers regarding the implementation of

skills, as a component of content-innovative profes-

sional activity.

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

170

Table 2: The results of the correlation analysis of the constituent components of the teacher’s level of readiness for innovative

activity by indicators.

Indexes

Level of signiﬁcance

Age Seniority

Scientiﬁc

degree

Academic

title

Innovative and personal

orientation of the individual

.37

∗

.25

∗

.25

∗

.41

∗∗

Innovative awareness .28

∗

.31

∗

.24

∗

.43

∗∗

Content-innovative

professional activity

.47

∗∗

.27

∗

.53

∗∗

.51

∗∗

Reﬂection of innovativeness .43

∗∗

.23

∗

.54

∗∗

.67

∗∗

* – p≤.01; ** – p≤.05

REFERENCES

Aleksandrov, D. (2018). Quo Vadis?: Transgression of

modern institute of education. Scientiﬁc Bulletin Meli-

topol State Pedagogical University. Series: Pedagogy,

(20):12–16. http://magazine.mdpu.org.ua/index.php/

nv/issue/view/88.

Bratko, M. V. and Kozyr, M. V. (2020). Pedagogical inno-

vation. https://elibrary.kubg.edu.ua/id/eprint/32807/.

Dychkivska, I. M. (2017). Pidhotovka maybutnikh vykho-

vateliv doshkilnykh zakladiv do innovatsiynoyi peda-

hohichnoyi diyalnosti: teoriya i metodyka [Prepara-

tion of future educators of preschool institutions for

innovative pedagogical activity: theory and method-

ology]. O. Zen, Rivne.

Ferrari, A., Cachia, R., and Punie, Y. (2009). Innovation and

Creativity in Education and Training in the EU Mem-

ber States: Fostering Creative Learning and Support-

ing Innovative Teaching: Literature review on Innova-

tion and Creativity in E&T in the EU Member States

(ICEA. Technical Note JRC 52374, Luxembourg.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265996963.

Fomenko, K. I. (2014). Transgressive “Me” in the struc-

ture of personality’s self-consciousness. Problems of

Modern Psychology, (26):573–584. http://nbuv.gov.

ua/UJRN/Pspl 2014 26 47.

Herodotou, C., Sharples, M., Gaved, M., Kukulska-Hulme,

A., Rienties, B., Scanlon, E., and Whitelock, D.

(2019). Innovative Pedagogies of the Future: An

Evidence-Based Selection. Frontiers in Education, 4.

https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00113.

Khoruzha, L. (2021). Socio-psychological aspects of the

transformation of the pedagogical knowledge into in-

novation. Educological discourse, 35(4):103–117.

https://doi.org/10.28925/2312-5829.2021.47.

Konst, T. and Kairisto-Mertanen, L. (2018). Innovation

Pedagogy: Preparing Higher Education Institutions

for Future Challenges. Turku University of Applied

Sciences, 2 edition.

Kozak, L. (2021). Formation of readiness of future teach-

ers of preschool education to innovative activity on the

principles of project-based learning. Pedagogical ed-

ucation: theory and practice. Psychology. Pedagogy,

(35 (1)):71–77. https://doi.org/10.28925/2311-2409.

2021.3510.

Kremen, V. H., editor (2008). Fenomen innovatsiyi: osvita,

suspil’stvo, kultura [The phenomenon of innovation:

education, society, culture]. Pedahohichna dumka,

Kyiv. https://tinyurl.com/2dshupw7.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Bossu, C., Coughlan, T., Ferguson,

R., FitzGerald, E., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Maina,

M., Prieto-Bl

azquez, J., Rienties, B., Sangr

a, A., Sar-

gent, J., Scanlon, E., and Whitelock, D. (2022). In-

novating Pedagogy 2022. Open University Innova-

tion Report 10, Milton Keynes. https://oro.open.ac.

uk/84152/.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Bossu, C., Coughlan, T., Ferguson,

R., FitzGerald, E., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Rien-

ties, B., Sargent, J., Scanlon, E., Tang, J., Wang, Q.,

Whitelock, D., and Zhang, S. (2021). Innovating Ped-

agogy 2021. Open University Innovation Report 9,

Milton Keynes. https://oro.open.ac.uk/74691/.

Leontieva, I. (2022). Realities of innovation in the devel-

opment of higher pedagogical education, or when the

Internet disappears. Pedagogical education: theory

and practice. Psychology. Pedagogy, (38 (2)):57–62.

https://doi.org/10.28925/2311-2409.2022.389.

Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A. E., Kronlid, D., and McGarry,

D. (2015). Transformative, transgressive social learn-

ing: rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of

systemic global dysfunction. Current Opinion in En-

vironmental Sustainability, 16:73–80. Sustainability

science; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.018.

Manasia, L., Ianos, M. G., and Chicioreanu, T. D. (2020).

Pre-Service Teacher Preparedness for Fostering Ed-

ucation for Sustainable Development: An Empirical

Analysis of Central Dimensions of Teaching Readi-

ness. Sustainability, 12(1):166. https://doi.org/10.

3390/su12010166.

Mohamed, Z., Valcke, M., and De Wever, B. (2017).

Are they ready to teach? Student teachers’ readi-

ness for the job with reference to teacher compe-

tence frameworks. Journal of Education for Teaching,

43(2):151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.

2016.1257509.

Nezhyva, L. and Palamar, S. (2020). Innovative technolo-

gies in the literary education of future primary school

teachers. Educological discourse, 31(4):129–142.

https://doi.org/10.28925/2312-5829.2020.4.9.

Saarnivaara, M., Ellis, C., and Kinnunen, H.-M. (2012).

Transgressiveness, Innovation, and Readiness of the Modern Teacher for Change

171

Transgressive Learning: A Possible Vista in Higher

Education? In Tynj

a, P., Stenstr

om, M.-L., and

Saarnivaara, M., editors, Transitions and Transfor-

mations in Learning and Education, pages 307–325.

Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.

1007/978-94-007-2312-2 18.

Santos, J., Figueiredo, A. S., and Vieira, M. (2019). Inno-

vative pedagogical practices in higher education: An

integrative literature review. Nurse Education Today,

72:12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2018.10.003.

Walder, A. M. (2014). The Concept of Pedagogical

Innovation in Higher Education. Education Jour-

nal, 3(3):195–202. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.

20140303.22.

Zhelanova, V. V. (2022). The innovative dimension of mod-

ern higher education: Analysis of directions. Innova-

tive Pedagogy, 50(1):145–148. http://innovpedagogy.

od.ua/archives/2022/50/part 1/30.pdf.

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

172