Литературные теории в поэтическом мире джона китса
THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF TEACHING INTERACTIVE INTERACTION IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
жүктеу/скачать 1,4 Mb.
|
| THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF TEACHING INTERACTIVE INTERACTION IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Беркинбаева А.Ж.- МШТ 21-4 Ғылыми жетекші: PhD, аға оқытушы Акешова М.М. ОАИУ Түйін. Мақалада шет тіліндегі интерактивті әрекеттің теориялық аспектілері қарастырылған. Резюме. В статье рассматриваются теоретические аспекты интерактивной деятельности на иностранном языке Interactive interaction as a result of foreign language acquisition by secondary school studentsInteractive interaction is a way of learning carried out in the forms of joint activity of students, all participants of the educational process interact with each other, exchange information, solve problems, jointly model situations, evaluate the actions of colleagues and their own behavior, and immerse themselves in the real atmosphere of business cooperation to solve problems. Interaction is mediated by communication. Through communication, people can interact, not the other way around. "Interaction, interaction is a collective activity that is considered by us not from the content or product side, but in terms of its social organization" [1,р.19]. Deeply studied in social psychology by such scientists as B. F. Lomov, T. Parsons, A. A. Leontiev, Ya.Shchepansky, the concept of "interaction" is closely related to the concept of "communication". Communication is a multi-faceted process studied by philosophy, sociology, General and social psychology, linguistics, pedagogy, sociology, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and educational psychology, each of which considers a particular facet, although in General it is a complex problem. Communication is an essential part of human existence and is present in all types of human activity. This is the main condition and way of existence and development of people. Researchers interpret this process from different points of view and offer different approaches to its study: activity-based, communicative, and interactive. Thus, M. S. Kagan considers communication as one of the types of human activity, which has a corresponding structure and attributes [21, р.112]. L. p. Вueva develops a different approach to communication and its correlation with activity. She believes that "activity and communication are two interrelated, relatively independent, but not equivalent sides of a single (individual and social) life process" [10,р.287]. A. N. Leontiev's point of view is that communication should be considered as a certain side of activity, because it is present in any activity as its element. The activity itself can be considered as a necessary condition for communication. A number of researchers understand communication as a special type of activity (as a communicative activity or communication activity) that plays an independent role in a person's life. B. F. Lomov considers activity and communication as two sides of a person's social life and lifestyle. The essence of this approach is that communication is considered as a specific system of interpersonal interaction, the structure and dynamics of which can not be reduced to successive effects, which is characteristic of the activity approach [32,р.236].A. A. Bodalev and his students in their works studied the Gnostic, affective and practical characteristics of communication and their relationship [9, р.72]. For the present study of the problem of interactive interaction, the position of G. M. Andreeva is important, which offers to characterize communication through the identification of three interrelated sides in it: perceptual, communicative, interactive. The perceptual side is related to the process of perception of each other by communication partners and the establishment of mutual understanding on this basis. The communicative side of communication, according to G. M. Andreeva, consists in the exchange of information between communicating individuals. The interactive side characterizes the features of people's interaction and the direct organization of their joint activities [2, р.169]. Thus, the interactive side of communication is a conditional term that refers to the characteristics of those components of communication that are associated with the interaction of people, with the direct organization of their joint activities. Interaction research has a long tradition in social psychology. In the history of social psychology, there have been several attempts to describe the structure of interactions. So, for example, the so-called action theory, or the theory of social action, which in various versions offered a description of the individual act of action, became widespread. This idea was also addressed by sociologists: M. Weber, T. Parsons, P. Sorokin and social psychologists. All recorded some components of human interaction, their connection, impact on each other and, as a result, their changes. The task has always been formulated as a search for the dominant factors of motivation for actions in interaction. Another attempt to construct the structure of interaction is related to the description of the stages of its development. In this case, the interaction is not divided into elementary acts, but at the stage that it passes. This approach is proposed, in particular, by the Polish sociologist Ya. Shchepansky. Another approach to the structural description of interaction is presented in transactional analysis-a direction that suggests regulating the actions of interaction participants by regulating their positions, as well as taking into account the nature of situations and the style of interaction [4, р.216]. From the point of view of transactional analysis, each participant in the interaction can in principle occupy one of three positions, which can be conventionally designated as a Parent, Adult, or Child. These positions are in no way necessarily related to the corresponding social role: it is only a purely psychological description of a certain strategy in interaction. A similar approach is proposed By p. N. Yershov, who, denoting positions, speaks of a possible "extension from above" and "extension from below" [20, р. 271]. It is intuitively easy to assume that there is an unquestionable connection between communication and human interaction, but it is difficult to separate these concepts and thus make scientific research and experiments more precisely oriented. Some scientists identify communication and interaction, interpreting both as communication in the narrow sense of the word (i.e., as the exchange of information), others consider the relationship between interaction and communication as the relationship between the form of a certain process and its content. Sometimes they prefer to talk about the connected, but still independent existence of communication as communication and interaction as interaction. Some of these discrepancies are caused by terminological difficulties, in particular the fact that the concept of "communication" is used in a narrow or broad sense of the word. If we assume that communication in the broad sense of the word (as a reality of interpersonal and social relations) includes communication in the narrow sense of the word (as an exchange of information), then it is logical to allow such an interpretation of interaction when it appears as a different — compared to the communicative - side of communication. If the communicative process is born on the basis of some joint activity, then the exchange of knowledge and ideas about this activity inevitably implies that the achieved understanding is realized in new joint attempts to develop further the activity, organize it. The simultaneous participation of many people in this activity means that everyone has to make a special contribution to it, which makes it possible to interpret interaction as the organization of joint activities. In the course of joint activities, it is extremely important for participants not only to exchange information, but also to organize an "exchange of actions" and plan common activities. In this planning, it is possible to regulate the actions of one individual by "plans that have matured in the head of another" [31, р.16], which makes the activity really joint, when the carrier of it will no longer be a separate individual, but a group. Thus, the question of what "other" side of communication is revealed by the concept of "interaction" can now be answered: the side that records not only the exchange of information, but also the organization of joint actions that allow partners to implement some common activities for them. Such a solution eliminates the separation of interaction from communication, but exclude the identification of them: communication is organized in the course of joint activities, "about" her, and that in this process people need to share and information and the activity itself, i.e. to develop forms and norms of collaborative actions. An indicator of the effectiveness of interaction is an adequate understanding of the situation (as in the case of information exchange) and an adequate style of action in it. In social psychology, there are many classifications of interaction situations. Thus, in the classification proposed by A. A. Leontiev, situations are divided into socially oriented, subject-oriented and personality-oriented. Each situation dictates its own style of behavior and actions: in each of them, a person "presents" himself differently, and if this self-presentation is not adequate, interaction is difficult. If the style is formed based on actions in a particular situation, and then mechanically transferred to another situation, then, of course, success can not be guaranteed. There are three main styles of action: ritual, manipulative, and humanistic. Using the ritual style as an example, it is particularly easy to see the need to correlate the style with the situation, which is important when mastering a foreign language and foreign culture. The ritual style is usually set by some culture. For example, the style of greetings, questions asked during a meeting, and the nature of expected responses. So, in American culture, the answer to the question: "How are you? "answer" is Fine! "no matter how things really are. It is typical for Russian culture to respond "in essence", and not be shy about negative characteristics of its own being. A person who is used to a different ritual, after receiving this response, will be puzzled as to how to interact further [40, р.42]. Analysis of research on the problem of interaction in social psychology allows, according to G. M. Andreeva, to make a General conclusion that the division of a single act of interaction into such components as the positions of participants, the situation and the style of action also contributes to a more thorough psychological analysis of this aspect of communication, making a certain attempt to link it with the content of the activity [41, р.8]. It is considered that interaction in the process of learning a foreign language can be "one-sided" and "multi-sided". In the first case, we mean the organization of the educational process, in which "the teacher asks, i.e. encourages the student to speech activity -the student responds." This process is based on the "stimulus - response" scheme. This training paradigm is characterized by the widespread use of so-called frontal forms of work. As for "multi-channel" communication, typical forms of work are group and collective, in which each student has the opportunity to prove himself as an independent and full-fledged participant in a certain activity. The model of "multi-sided" communication in the classroom has a complex structure of relationships and relationships between participants in the educational process. It represents learning as "free disclosure of personal opportunities" [11, р.35]. Refer to the program requirements of the school to the level of training of graduates (9-11 grades) in a foreign language - student should be able: to develop, manage / maintain and end a conversation in standard communication situations, respecting the norms of speech etiquette, if necessary, asking, clarifying; asking the interlocutor to answer his questions, expressing his opinion request, to respond to the proposal of the interlocutor's consent / refusal based on the subject studied and learned lexical and grammatical material; talk about yourself, your family, friends, your interests and plans for the future, provide brief information about your city / village, your country and the country of the language you are learning; make short messages, describe events / phenomena (within the framework of the topics you have passed), convey the main content, the main idea of what you read or heard, Express your attitude to what you read / heard, give a brief description of characters; use periphrases, synonymous means in the process of oral communication. In other words, students should have the Foundation of a foreign language communicative competence, that is, the ability and readiness to interact with representatives of another culture [42, р.18-24]. References 1. Atanov, I.V., Kapustin, I.V. and Grinchenko, V. A. “Formation of students competences of engineering departments with use of interactive training methods”, Science and education: modern trends: collective monograph, CNS “Interactive Plus”, Cheboksary, - 2014 - p.358 2. Latanova R.U., Sekerbaeva S.A. Competence-based approach of teaching and learning foreign languages Philological science/ 2. Methodology of teaching language and literature. – 2015 - p.81 3. Auerbach E.R., Comptency-based ESL: One step forward or two steps back? TESOL Quarterly.- 1986 - pp.411-430 4.Вербицкий А. А., Ларионова О.Г. Личностный компетентностный подход в образовании: проблемы интеграции. – М.: Логос – 2009 - 96 c 5.Сластенин В. А., Исаев И. Ф., Шиянова Е. Н. Педагогика: учеб. пособие для студ. / под ред. В.А. Сластенина). – М.: Академия, - 2002 – 84c 6. Татур Ю.Г. Компетентностный подход в описании результатов и проектировании стандартов высшего профессионального образования: Материалы ко второму заседанию методологического семинара. М.: Исследовательский центр проблем качества подготовки специалистов, -2004 -18c 7.Томаков В.И., Томаков М.В. Компетентности –результативно-целевая основа обучения Безопасности жизнедеятельности в контексте деятельностного подхода// Фундаментальные исследования. – 2007 – № 2 - с.25 8.Хуторской А.В. Технология проектирования ключевых и предметных компетенций// Интернет-журнал "Эйдос". 2005. Ключевые компетенции как компонент личностно-ориентированного образования //Народное образование. -2003 – № 2 -22c 9.ПерфиловаГ. В. Примерная программа по дисциплине «Иностранный язык» для подготовки бакалавров (неязы- ковые вузы) / Г. В. Перфилова. – М. : ИПК МГЛУ «Рема». -2011-30c 10.Ларионова, И.А. Интегративные тенденции в профессиональной подготовке специалистов социальной сферы :дисс.…д-ра пед. наук : 13.00.01, 13.00.08 / И.А.Ларионова. М.,- 2009 – 424c UDC 811.11.48.52 жүктеу/скачать 1,4 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|