Russian Federation
Moskva, Moscow, Russian Federation
The authors of the article investigate the problem of the increasingly complex structure of knowledge and the education system, in which teachers have to present a large amount of knowledge in a short period of time, while most teachers understand that it is necessary to pay special attention to educational communications and interactions. This is especially true for dialogue when organizing training sessions in a digital environment. The dialogue, full of educational questions, organizes "heuristic" training of students on the individual logic of cognition. Consequently, teachers receive additional functional and emotional load of speech interaction. The results of the study showed that regardless of the style of communication (authoritarian or democratic), the teacher has to devote 4/5 or 2/3 of the academic time to speech communication, of which the lecture will take 1/3 or ¼ of the class time. Consequently, half of the lesson or a little less is spent on communication or other educational activities, corrected by the teacher. It is concluded that educational interaction is influenced by general institutional relations (usually historical and traditional for an educational institution), the level of language proficiency( vocabulary), the theoretical content of the subject or topic of the lesson, divided into microtexts; many teachers consider multi-semiotic resources as undesirable if they are not embedded in the structure of the topic of the lesson, since not all teachers have the latest scientific knowledge, which becomes a lot (this is more true for social and humanitarian knowledge in higher education); learning interactions (having an intersubjective orientation) have a dynamic character, in which students perceive the sequence of learning actions as a learning tool. Research reveals the multifaceted nature of learning interactions, in which there are not only logical, but also emotional judgments. Therefore, the teacher's correction should have intersubjective properties, since the educational dialogue is the creative discourse of students.
educational interactions, educational dialogue, ethnomethodology, digital environment, individualization, mixed individual-collective education, intersubjectivity
1. Abylkassymova A.E., Kalnei V.A., Ryzhakov M.V., Shishov S.E. Development of public consciousness in pedagogical education in Russia and Kazakhstan // ICPE 2018 — International Conference on Psychology and Education. “The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS”. 2018. P. 1–8. SHS Web of Conferences 2018 10.15405/epsbs.2018.11.02.1.
2. Abylkassymova A.E., Kalnei V.A., Shishov S.E. Formation of Public Consciousness, Spiritual and Moral Culture of Students in the System of Continuous Pedagogical Education //Tarih Kultur ve Sanat Arastirmalari Dergisi — Journal of History Culture and Art Research. 2018. V. 7. Iss. 1. P. 26–33. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v7i1.1460.
3. Abylkassymova A.E., Popey-ool S.K., Shishov S.E. On the theory of Personal identification in the system of Continuous Pedagogical Education (Analysis of foreign Experience) //Bulletin of National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 2019. V. 3. No. 379. P. 186–197.
4. Amatari, V. O. (2015). The Instructional Process: A Review of Flanders’ Interaction Analysis in a Classroom Setting. International Journal of Secondary Education, 3, 43-49
5. Auerbach, C. F. & Silverstein, I. B. (2003). An Introduction to Coding and Analysis Qualitative. New York: New York University.
6. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
7. Caldwell, P. and Horwood, J. (2008). Using Intensive Interaction and Sensory Integration. London: Jessica Kingsley.
8. Cazden, C. B. (1996). Selective traditions: Readings of Vygotsky in writing pedagogy. In Hicks, D. (Ed.). Child discourse and social learning: An interdisciplinary perspective, 165—186. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Drew, P. 1981. Adults’ Corrections of Children’s Mistakes: A Response to Wells and Montgomery. In P. French & M. Maclure (eds.), Adult-Child Conversation. London: Croom Helm, 244–267.
10. Flander, N. 1963. «Intent, action and feedback, a preparation for teaching». Journal of Teacher of Education. New York. Pp251-260.
11. Flander, N. 1967 Teacher Influence in the Classroom. Interaction analysis: theory, research, and application Addison-Wesley. Reading, MA:USA. Pp 103-116.
12. Flander, N. 1970 Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Addison-Wesley. Reading, Mass: P.171.
13. Ford, C. E. 1999. Collaborative Construction of Task Activity: Coordinating Multiple Resources in a High School Physics Lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 369–408.
14. Haddington, P. forthcoming 2010. Mobility, environment and sequence organization: Negotiating and selecting the next junction in cars. Research on Language and Social Interaction.
15. He, A. W. 2004. CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 568–582.
16. Hutchby, I. & R. Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity.
17. Indriyani, C.E., & Trioktawiani, F.R. (2019). Teacher talks: an analysis of direct and indirect influences for young learners in EFL class.
18. Lazaraton, A. 2004. Gesture and Speech in the Vocabulary Explanations of One ESL Teacher: A Microanalytic Inquiry. Language Learning, 54(1), 79–117.
19. Lerner, G. H. 1995. Turn Design and the Organization of Participation in Instructional Activities. Discourse Processes, 19, 111–131.
20. Lumettu, A. & Runtuwene, T. L. (2017). Developing the Students’ Speaking Ability through Impromptu Speaking Method. Journal of Physics, 1-9.
21. McHoul, A. W. 1978. The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213.
22. Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons. Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
23. Olsher, D. 2003. Collaborative Group Work in Second and Foreign Language Classrooms: Talk, Embodiment, and Sequential Organization. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of California, Department of Applied Linguistics.
24. Olsher, D. 2005. Talk and Gesture: The Embodied Completion of Sequential Actions in Spoken Interaction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (eds.), Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum, 221–245.
25. Quinlisk, C. C. 2008. Nonverbal Communication, Gesture, and Second Language Classrooms: A Review. In S. G. McCafferty & G. Stam (eds.), Gesture. Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Research. New York: Routledge, 25–44.
26. Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff & G. Jefferson. 1974. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735; (Accessed 6.9.2005).
27. Sahlström, F. 1999. Up the Hill Backwards. On Interactional Constraints and Affordances for Equity-Constitution in the Classrooms of the Swedish Comprehensive School. Uppsala Studies in Education No 85. University of Uppsala.
28. Schegloff, E. A. 1984. On some gestures’ relation to talk. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 266–296.
29. Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Schwarz, G., & Martin, J. (2012). Comenius: dead white guy for twenty-first century education. Christian Scholar’s Review, 42(1), 43-56.
31. Sharma, S. (2016). A Study of Classroom Interaction Characteristics Using Flander’s Classroom Interaction Analysis Ina Maths Class of Rural and Urban Schools. Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science & English Language, 3, 3770-3776.
32. Steiner, R. (1982). Balance in Teaching. Spring Valley NY: Mercury Press
33. Tuan, L. T. & Nhu, N. T. (2010). Theoretical Review on Oral Interaction in EFL Classroom. Studies in Literature and Language, 1, 29-48.
34. Wood, J. T. (2009). Communication in Our Lives. Fifth Edition. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
