Yermolayeva Y. V.

Title of the article The Main Characteristics of Dialogic Inter­acti­on (Defining the Actual Tasks of Pedagogic Dialog)
Authors Yermolayeva Y. V.  
Year 2012 Issue №7 Pages  
Type of article   Index UDK   Index BBK  

The paper deals with one of the fast developing modern educational approaches – the pedagogy of dialog, based on the philosophical works and concepts of the well-known thinkers of the 20-th century: M. Buber, F. Ebner, O. Rosenshtok-Hussy, M. Bakhtin, etc. Two main directions of dialogic pedagogy are outlined – the instrumental and ontological. Within the framework of the first direction, the dialog is considered to be the main means or instrument of effective teaching used for communication skills development. According to the ontological version, the dialog is not only the instrument, but rather the dominating goal of education: it facilitates meaningful assimilation of skills and knowledge, including the learning ability; promotes cooperation and communal life skills; provides favorable conditions for versatile creative self-development. The supporters of this approach regard the real people, as well as the art works, nature, culture, alter ego etc, as the dialog subjects.

The paper observes the main characteristics or prerequisites of dialogic interaction: dialogic attitude (emotionally ethical precondition); antinomian thinking (intellectual precondition); open outlook and creativity (precondition of personal meaning creation in the course of dialog).

The comparative analysis of dialogism and non-dialogism of schoolchildren from Riga and Moscow are given regarding their behavior in conflicting situations; attitude to extremism; and reactions to bulling situations.

The author is convinced that studying students’ dialogism in different age groups should be continued to improve the educational process effectiveness. Shearing the positive experience in dialogic education by Latvian and Russian colleagues can be very useful.

Download file.pdf
Index terms: dialogic interaction, prerequisites of dialog, tasks of dialogic education, dialogism/non-dialogism of students in Riga and Moscow.

1. Batkin L. M. The Italian Renaissance in search of identity M.: Nauka, 1989. 448 s.

2. Bahtin M. M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. M.: Sov. Rossija: 1979. 320 s.

3. Bahtin M. M. The problem of speech genres // M. M. Bahtin. Sobr. soch. v 7 t. M.: Rus. slovari, 1997. T. 5. S. 159–206.

4. Buber M. The problem of man // M. Buber. Dva obraza very: per. s nem. M.: Respublika, 1995. S. 157–232. (Mysliteli XX veka).

5. Gadamer G. G. Truth and Method. Fundamentals of philosophical hermeneutics: per. s nem. M.: Progress, 1988. 704 s.

6. Gadamer G. G. Relevance fine: per. s nem. M.: Iskusstvo, 1991. 367 s. (Istorija yestetiki v pamjatnikah i dokumentah).

7. Ermolaeva E. B. Developing the ability to dialogical relationship to the text // Integration of technology in teaching philological disciplines: types, principles, techniques. N. Novgorod: Nizhegorod. gos. un t, 2011. S. 55–60.

8. Ermolaeva E. The problem of capacity for dialogue with the metaphorical companion // Problems of Education in the 21‑st Century. Šiauliai: SMC «Scientia Educologica». 2011. V. 33. Р. 133–142.

9. Ро­зен­шток-Хюс­си О. Речь и дей­стви­тель­ность: пер. с англ. М.: Лабиринт: 1994. 224 с.

10. Buber M. Ich und Du. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2008. 142 s.

11. Burbules N. C. Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press, 1993. 186 p. (Advances in Contemporary Educational Thought, 10).

12. Jermolajeva J. Dialoģiskā pieeja mūsdienu mācībās skolā. Promocijas darba autoreferāts. Rīga: Latvijas Universitāte, 1997. 58l p. (Ермолаева Е. Ди­ало­ги­чес­кий подход в сов­ре­мен­ном учебном процессе: автореф. дис.).

13. Jermolajeva J. Jauniešu dialoģiskums/nedialoģiskums viņu uzvedībā konfliktsituācijās un attieksmē pret ekstrēmistisko darbību // Mūsdienu skolēni Rīgā un Maskavā: Salīdzinošais starptautiskais pētījums / Sast. A. Špona, zin. red. A. Špona un V. S. Sobkins. Rīga: RaKa, 2011. 177–199 p. (Ermolaeva E. Dialogicness / nedialogichnost behavior of schoolchildren in conflict situations and in their relation to extremist actions / / Modern students of Riga and Moscow: International. Cross-cultural study / comp. A. lim ¬ on, scientific. Ed. A veneer and VS Sobkin. Riga: RaKa, 2011. С. 177–199).

14. Matusov E. Journey into Dialogic Pedagogy. New York: Nova Science Publishers: 2009. 495 p.

15. Wegerif R. Dialogic Education: What is it and why do we need it? // Education Review. V. 19, № 2, Autumn 2006. Р. 58–66.

16. Winkel R. Historia docet? Kann uns die Geschichte etwas lehren? Ein Gespräch mit Theodor Ballauf // Winkel R. Antinomische Pädagogik und kommunikative Didaktik: Studien zu den Widersprüchen und Spannungen in Erziehung und Schule. Düsseldorf: Schwann, 1986. S. 158–163.


You are reporting a typo in the following text:
Simply click the "Send typo report" button to complete the report. You can also include a comment.