Readiness of contemporary students for family and marriage: do university needs the course “Foundations of family psychology”?

UDC   316.36:37.09::378

https://doi.org/10.20339/AM.08-19.023   

S.L. Talanov is Cand.Sci. (Sociology), doc. e-mail: talanov_sergei@mail.ru; А.Yu. Kulikov is Cand.Sci. (Psycholog), doc. e-mail: a.kulikov@yspu.org; Т.G. Dosse is Cand.Sci. (Philology), doc. e-mal: fpk5@mail.ru; and А.V. Davydov is Cand.Sci. (Pedagogy), doc. e-mail: a.davydov@yspu.org  at Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University n.a.,  K.D. Ushinsky

Investigated is importance of contemporary practices of teaching at higher school disciplines, aimed at preparation for making family and marriage. It was established, that the most part of unmarried students, as well as those who are married, but did not study the subjects, aimed at preparation for making family and marriage have stereotypic differentiation of images of “good husband” and “good wife”. Also it was revealed, that those who are married and learnt “family course” have less disagreement of matrimonial expectations and claims than those who did not learning this course. The research enabled to establish, that majority of students are not psychologically and technically ready to realize social functions of married couples. The authors propose some actions, aimed at consolidating institute of family and marriage in student environment.

Key words: family sociology, family values, gender roles, education, socialization.

References

1. Baburkin, S.A., Talanov, S.L. Family problems in “triade” cycle stage. In: Actual problems of modern family. Yaroslavl, 2008. P. –23.
2. Volkova, A.N. Hands-on training by experimental and problem psychology. Leningrad, 1990.
3. Koryakovceva, O.A., Tarkhanova, I.U., Dosse, T.G. Tutorial support of adult students: opportunities and perspectives. Yaroslavl pedagogical bulletin. 2015. No. 5. P. 100–103.
4. Kulikov, A.Yu., Yanbih, S.L. “Education through the life” as system of professinal growgh. In: Additional professional education in modernization. 2017. P. 54–57.
5. Aassve, Arnstein, Guilia Fuochi and Letizia Mencarini. Desperate housework: Relative resources, time availability, economic dependency and gender ideology across Europe. Journal of Family Issues. 2014. No. 35 (8). P. 1000–1022.
6. Carlson D.L., Miller A.J., Sassler S., Hanson S. The gendered division of housework and couples’ sexual relationships: A reexamination. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2016. No. 78(4). P. 975–995.
7. Goldscheider F., Bernhardt E. Lappegård T. The Gender Revolution: A Framework for Understanding Changing Family and Demographic Behavior. Population and Development Review. 2015. No. 41. P. 207–239.
8. Catherine Carden. Primary Teaching: Learning and teaching in primary schools today. London, 2019.
9. Klesment M., Van Bavel J. The reversal of the gender gap in education, motherhood, and women as main earners in Europe. European Sociological Review. 2017. No. 33(3). P. 465–481.
10. Matysiak A. Węziak-Białowolska D. Country-specific conditions for work and family reconciliation: An attempt at quantification. European Journal of Population. 2016. No. 32 (4). P. 475–510.
11. Mencarini L., ignoli D. Employed women and marital union stability: It helps when men help. Journal of Family Issues. 2017. No. 39 (5). P. 1348–1373.