Stereology of Vocational Interests of Pre-service Teachers in Cross-cultural Contexts of Teacher Education

   The study presents the main trends in vocational interests of pre-service teachers in cross-cultural contexts of higher education. The model of teacher professionalisation implies the need to take into account potentially new multi-agent functions of educational environments that change the content of educational programmes. To achieve the target model, the university needs to solve multi-vector tasks to develop mechanisms for integrating educational, scientific and expert agenda in response to the indigenisation of local educational practices worldwide. The changing nature of the educational environment imposes new requirements on teachers and leads to a change in their personality types. Modern trends in the professionalisation of pre-service teachers are identified on the basis of the empirical data of J. L. Holland’s theory in universities of Russia and Uzbekistan. The RIASEC personality codes of the pre-service teachers are identified and interpreted according to the congruence of their vocational interests and professional environments. To assess the compliance of the Holland codes with the teaching profession in cross-cultural contexts, the J.L. Holland RIASEC Profile and the Self-Directed Search (Form R) adapted to Russian were applied. The presented data can be useful for dissemination and the development of teacher education in different countries.

1. Benet-Martínez, V. (2012). Multiculturalism: Cultural, Social, and Personality Processes. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 624–648). Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398991.013.0025

2. Brown, D. (2002). Status of Theories of Career Choice and Development. In D. Brown & L. Brooks, and associates (Eds.), Career Choice and Development: Applying Contemporary Theories to Practice (pp. 510–515). Jossey-Bass.

3. Budarina, A. O., Kuznetsova, T. A., Parakhina, O. V., & Pridannikov, R. V. (2020). Legal and institutional prerequisites for promoting the enhancement of the educational process efficiency for pedagogical areas of training in higher education. Mir nauki. Pedagogika i psihologiya – World of Science. Pedagogy and psychology, 8(1), 1–12.

4. Budarina, A. O., & Morozov, O. G. (2013). Implications of J. L. Holland’s Theory: Applicability of RIASEC Structure and Assessment to English Teachers of the Kaliningrad Region. Vestnik Baltiyskogo federal'nogo universiteta im. I. Kanta – Bulletin of the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, 2, 99–107.

5. Bullock, E. E., Andrews, L., Braud, J., & Reardon, R. C. (2010). Holland’s Theory in International Context: Applicability of RIASEC Structure and Assessments. Technical Report No. 50. University of Southern Mississippi, Florida State University.

6. Collin, A., & Young, R. A. (Eds.). (2000). The Future of Career. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511520853

7. Deshpande, A., Rajpurohit, T., Narasimhan, K., & Kalyan, A. (2023). Anthropomorphization of AI: Opportunities and Risks. Computer Science. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.14784

8. Dorofeeva, A. S., Rudinskiy, I. D., Parakhina, O. V., & Kravets, O. Ja. (2022). Implementation of STEAM Approach within the Framework of Educational Engineering Methodology. ASEDU-II-2021: Conference Proceedings, 2647, 3–21. doi: 10.1063/5.0104428

9. Ferreira, A. I., Rodrigues, R. I., & da Costa Ferreira, P. (2016). Career interests of students in psychology specialties degrees: psychometric evidence and correlations with the RIASEC dimensions. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 16, 91–111. doi: 10.1007/s10775-015-9289-3

10. Gottfredson, G. D. (1996). Dictionary of Holland Occupational Codes. Psychological Assessment Resources.

11. Habermas, J. (2006). Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x

12. Hedrih, V., Šverko, I., & Pedović, I. (2018). Structure of Vocational Interests in Macedonia and Croatia – Evaluation of the Spherical Model. Facta Universitatis. Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History, 17(1), 19–36. doi: 10.22190/FUPSPH1801019H

13. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3^rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.

14. Holland, J. L., Powell, A. B., & Fritzsche, B. A. (1997). The Self-directed Search (SDS): Professional User’s Guide. Guide to Self-Administered, Self-Scored, and Self-Interpreted Vocational Assessment Test. Psychological Assessment Resources.

15. Iachan, R. (1984). A measure of agreement for use with the Holland classification system. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24(2), 133–141. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(84)90001-0

16. Ignatyev, V. I. (2019). And the “Other” Actor is Coming... The Formation of Technosubject in the Context of the Movement to Technological Singularity. Sotsiologiya nauki i tekhnologiy – Sociology of Science and Technology, 10(1), 64–78. doi: 10.24411/2079–0910–2019–10005

17. Kok, K. P. W., Loeber, A. M. C., & Grin, J. (2021). Politics of complexity: Conceptualizing agency, power and powering in the transitional dynamics of complex adaptive systems. Research Policy, 50(3), 104183. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104183

18. Lemov, D. (2021). Teach Like a Champion 3.0: 63 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College (3^rd ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

19. Liu, S. (2017). Cross-cultural adaptation: An identity approach. In L. Chen (Ed.), Intercultural Communication (pp. 437–456). De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9781501500060-020

20. Long, L., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2006). Structure of RIASEC scores in China: A structural meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 39–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.002

21. Malovrh, P. A., & Moreno, N. (2023). Second Language Identity: Awareness, Ideology, and Assessment in Higher Education. Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316779798

22. Morgan, B., & de Bruin, G. P. (2017). Structural Validity of Holland’s Circumplex Model of Vocational Personality Types in Africa. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(2), 275–290. doi: 10.1177/1069072717692747

23. Nauta, M. M. (2010). The development, evolution, and status of Holland’s theory of vocational personalities: Reflections and future directions for counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 11–22. doi: 10.1037/a0018213

24. Nistal, M. T. F., Soto, J. K. M., & Zaragoza, F. A. P. (2019). The structural validity of Holland's and Gati’s RIASEC models of vocational interests in Mexican students. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 17(3), 707–730.

25. Rayman, J., & Atanasoff, L. (1999). Holland’s Theory and Career Intervention: The Power of the Hexagon. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 114–126. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1701

26. Soh, S., & Leong, F. T. L. (2001). Cross-Cultural Validation of Holland’s Theory in Singapore: Beyond Structural Validity of RIASEC. Journal of Career Assessment, 9(2), 115–133. doi: 10.1177/106907270100900202

27. Swanson, P. B. (2008). The RIASEC profile of foreign language teachers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 25–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.10.012

28. Tak, J. (2004). Structure of Vocational Interests for Korean College Students. Journal of Career Assessment, 12(3), 298–311. doi: 10.1177/1069072703261555

29. Tien, H.-L. S. (2009). Cultural encountering: The applicability of Holland's typology in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Counselling, 16(2), 193–226.

30. Usslepp, N., Hübner, N., Stoll, G., Spengler, M., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2020). RIASEC interests and the Big Five personality traits matter for life success – But do they already matter for educational track choices? Journal of Personality, 88(5), 1007–1024. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12547

31. Valeeva, R. A., Parfilova, G. G., Kremen, F. M., Kremen, S. A., Pak, L. G., Ivanishcheva, N. A., Kochemasova, L. A., Eremina, A. P., Demakova, I. D., Adamyan, E. I., Adamyan, L. I., Mikhailenko, O. I., Bagova, R. H., Skudareva, G. N., & Ustseva, M. N. (2024). Dynamics of Сareer Orientations of Student Teachers: Interuniversity Study Results. Education and Self Development, 19(3), 114–133. doi: 10.26907/esd.19.3.09

32. Wei, R. (2024). Examining the influence of the RIASEC theory within the Holland code on students’ academic performance in their chosen disciplines among the context of higher education. Cogent Education, 11(1). doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2391274

33. Yang, W., Stokes, G. S., & Hui, C. H. (2005). Cross-cultural validation of Holland’s interest structure in chinese population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 379–396. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.003

34. Zainudin, Z. N., Foon, L. W., Yusop, Y. M., Othman, W. N. W., Kamarudin, E. M. E., & Anuar, M. (2024). A Review on Application of Holland’s RIASEC Theory in Educational Settings. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(5), 395–410. doi: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i5/21397

35. Zhang, J., & Jing, Y. (2022). Application of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Cross-Cultural Communication of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022(1), 6563114. doi: 10.1155/2022/6563114