Izvestiya of Saratov University.

Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy

ISSN 1819-7671 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1948 (Online)


For citation:

Kalabina E. S. The relationship between study group subjectivity and its creative qualities. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2026, vol. 26, iss. 3, pp. 318-323. DOI: 10.18500/1819-7671-2026-26-3-318-323, EDN: VHGMZA

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
(downloads: 40)
Language: 
Russian
Heading: 
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
[316.35:37]:316.6
EDN: 
VHGMZA

The relationship between study group subjectivity and its creative qualities

Autors: 
Kalabina Elena Sergeevna, Voronezh State University
Abstract: 

Introduction. Within the modern educational paradigm emphasizing collaborative learning, studying group subjectivity and its relationship with creative qualities is highly relevant. Group subjectivity – defined as the capacity for self-organization and active transformation of the environment – is considered a key success factor in solving non-standard tasks. Theoretical analysis. Traditionally, creativity has been studied as an individual process. However, in the context of collective activity, the concept of group creativity emerges as a distinct phenomenon. Theoretical analysis suggests that group subjectivity, including its developmental levels, may serve as a prerequisite for a group’s creative potential, enabling a synergistic effect. Empirical analysis. The study involved 20 student groups (190 participants). To test the hypothesis, a standardized self-report method was used, implemented through the following instruments: the questionnaire "Levels of Group Subject Development" (K.M. Gaidar) and the inventory for diagnosing business, creative, and moral climate in a team (N.P. Fetiskin, V.V. Kozlov, G.M. Manuilov). Results revealed a moderate correlation between group subjectivity and creative qualities (r = 0,52, p ≤ 0,01). Most groups exhibited a prosubjective level of development, indicating a strong capacity for self-organization. Conclusion. The hypothesis linking group subjectivity and creative qualities is supported. Practical recommendations include implementing training programs to enhance collective interaction and fostering open idea exchange, thereby strengthening student groups’ creative potential.

Reference: 
  1. Zhuravlev A. L., Nestik T. A. Collective creativity as organization’s activity resource: situation and perspectives of study. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 2011, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3–21 (in Russian).
  2. Guilford J. P. Creativity. American Psychologist, 1950, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
  3. Torrance E. P. Tests of Creative Thinking: Normstechnical manual. Princeton, NJ, Personnel Press, 1966. 112 p.
  4. Amabile T. M. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983. vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
  5. Gaydar K. M. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskaya kontseptsiya gruppovogo sub”ekta [Socio-psychological Concept of the Group Subject]. Voronezh, Voronezh State University Publ., 2013. 396 p. (in Russian).
  6. Gaydar K. M. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskaya diagnostika gruppovogo sub”ekta: uchebno-metodicheskoe posobie [Socio-psychological Diagnostics of a Group Subject]. Voronezh, IPTs VGU Publ., 2012. 72 p. (in Russian).
  7. Fetiskin N. P., Kozlov V. V., Manuylov G. M. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskaya diagnostika razvitiya lichnosti i malykh grupp [Socio-psychological Diagnostics of Personality and Small Group Development]. Moscow, Institute of Psychotherapy Publ., 2002. 339 p. (in Russian).
  8. Parygin B. D. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskiy klimat kollektiva [The Socio-psychological Climate of the Team]. Moscow, Nauka, 1981. 192 p. (in Russian).
  9. Bugaeva V. A. The concept of socio-psychological climate in Russian and foreign psychology. Vestnik Magistratury, 2017, no. 11–2 (74), pp. 40–41 (in Russian).
  10. Gillies R. M. Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 2003, vol. 39, no. 1–2, pp. 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00072-7
  11. Silseth K., Furberg A. Bridging group work and whole-class activities through responsive teaching in science education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2024, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 2155–2176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00770-w
  12. Krushel’nitskaya O. B., Kiselev A. V. Intragroup structuring of study groups in different types of educational institutions. Social Psychology and Society, 2011, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 65–85 (in Russian).
  13. Psikhologicheskaya teoriya kollektiva [Petrovskiy A. V., ed. The Psychological Theory of the Collective]. Moscow, Pedagogika, 1979. 239 p. (in Russian).
  14. Yudina O. A. Design technologies in the concept of modernization of Russian education. Concept, 2017, vol. 5, pp. 150–155 (in Russian).
  15. Nazarova Y. V. Dilemmas of digitalization in the cultural paradigm of education: An axiological context. Manuscript, 2024, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 649–653 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.30853/mns20240096
  16. Janis I. L. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1972. 277 p.
  17. Gaydar K. M., Kalabina E. S. Modern technologies for the development of subjectivity of student groups. In: Komarova E. P., ed. [et al.]. Antropotsentricheskie nauki v obrazovanii: vyzovy, transformatsii, resursy: materialy II mezhdunarodnogo foruma [Anthropocentric Sciences in Education: Challenges, Transformations, Resources: Materials of the II International Forum (Voronezh, April 8–9, 2025)]. Voronezh, IPTs “Nauchnaya kniga” Publ., 2025, pp. 294–297 (in Russian).
Received: 
20.12.2025
Accepted: 
03.06.2026
Published: 
30.09.2026