Rationality principles in teaching the native language at the 21st century higher education

Summary

interactive teaching educational language

The article outlines the main provisions of the interactive means as the key elements of information and communication technologies in teaching the Ukrainian language at the higher educational establishment of the XXI century. It is specified to clarify the essence of the concept of “information and communication technologies” as processes, methods for the search, collection, storage, processing, provision, dissemination of information and methods for the implementation of such processes and methods; “interactive model of teaching” as an integrated, multidimensional, resource-intensive process involving students and teachers and administration of higher education; “interactive means of teaching” as a means by which the training of specialists in a particular field is carried out. The key interactive tools used in teaching the Ukrainian language at the higher educational establishment of the XXI century have been called: an interactive training kit, which includes: an interactive tutorial, a guide, a simulator, a tasker, a laboratory workshop, visual aids; interactive equipment includes: interactive white board, tablet, plasma panel, mobile devices, projectors, testing systems, small information technology tools.

Key words: interactive means, information and communication technologies, the Ukrainian language, higher educational establishment.

Анотація

Савчук Н. М., Хлистун І. В., Шуляк С. А. Принципи раціональності у викладанні рідної мови у системі вищої освіти XXI століття

У статті висвітлено основні положення інтерактивних засобів як ключових елементів інформаційно-комунікаційних технологій у викладанні української мови у вищій школі ХХІ ст.; уточнено сутність поняття «інформаційно-комунікаційні технології» як процеси, методи пошуку, збору, зберігання, обробки, надання, поширення інформації та способи здійснення таких процесів і методів; «інтерактивна модель викладання» як комплексний, багатоплановий, ресурсномісткий процес, у якому беруть участь і студенти, і викладачі й адміністрація вищої школи; «інтерактивні засоби викладання» як засоби, за допомогою яких здійснюється підготовка фахівців певної галузі; названо ключові інтерактивні засоби, які застосовуються у викладанні української мови у вищій школі ХХІ ст.: інтерактивний навчальний комплект, до якого включено: інтерактивний підручник, довідник, тренажер, задачник, лабораторний практикум, засоби наочності; інтерактивне устаткування включає: інтерактивна дошка, планшет, плазмова панель, мобільні пристрої, проектори, системи тестування, малі засоби інформаційних технологій.

Ключові слова: інтерактивні засоби, інформаційно-комунікаційні технології, українська мова, вища школа.

Аннотация

Савчук Н. М., Хлистун И. В., Шуляк С. А. Принципы рациональности в преподавании родного языка в системе высшего образования XXI века

В статье освещены основные положения интерактивных средств как ключевых элементов информационно-коммуникационных технологий в преподавании украинского языка в высшей школе XXI ст.; уточнена сущность понятия «информационно-коммуникационные технологии» как процессы, методы поиска, сбора, хранения, обработки, предоставления, распространения информации и способы осуществления таких процессов и методов; «интерактивная модель преподавания» как комплексный, многоплановый, ресурсоемкий процесс, в котором принимают участие и студенты, и преподаватели и администрация высшей школы; «интерактивные средства обучения» как средства, с помощью которых осуществляется подготовка специалистов определенной отрасли; названы ключевые интерактивные средства, которые применяются в преподавании украинского языка в высшей школе XXI ст.: интерактивный учебный комплект, в который входит: интерактивный учебник, справочник, тренажер, задачник, лабораторный практикум, средства наглядности; интерактивное оборудование включает: интерактивную доска, планшет, плазменную панель, мобильные устройства, проекторы, системы тестирования, малые средства информационных технологий.

Ключевые слова: интерактивные средства, информационно-коммуникационные технологии, украинский язык, высшая школа.

The problem statement

The change in the paradigm of modern higher education actualizes the necessity for finding efficient ways of forming the key competences of the future linguist / philologist as a subject of professional activity. In particular, a student, acquiring linguistic degree, must have the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to carry out various activities - educational, labour, aesthetic, research; to be free to navigate in pedagogical and methodical reality, to be ready to develop an individual strategy and tactics of his / her professional activity, to realize the pedagogical and methodological techniques and technologies. The teaching of the native language as a means of professional communication requires a corresponding communicative approach to teaching [7; 11], when the special attention is paid to the rational orientation of teaching and learning materials [2, p. 3]. The aim of the article is to outline the principles of rationality in the context of teaching the native language at higher education of XXI century based on works of foreign scholars.

Methodological Framework

The works on 1) the philosophical concept of rationality, 2017); [6, p. 525-529; 25, p. 76-91; 24, p. 420-438; 34, p. 511-522] 2) the theory of the competence approach to teaching and improving of native languages [3, p. 3-15; 13, p. 43-47]. 3) the concept of a student autonomy [36, p. 693-708] and so on helped to formulate the methodological fundamentals in the paper concerning the principles of rationality in the context of teaching the native language at higher education of the XXI century. In addition, the idea that rationality is a fundamental characteristic of human activity acquires the following methodological significance: “the rational bases of individual being of a man are: integrated consciousness through thought; systematically organized rational worldview as a form of integral consciousness, uniting character and self; fully interacting sides of thinking - mind and reason; “smart” feelings, in which events are experienced in view of their worldview significance” [23, p. 7].

Results and Discussion

Fundamental Prerequisites for Investigating Rationality as a Concept of Philosophy Rationality is of Latin origin, the “ratio” means “the mind” and it is understood as something more improved, more efficient. In many cases rationality is considered to be the conformance to the laws of mind, i.e. the laws of logic, methodological norms and rules.

Analysing the notion of “rational”, Karpovich notes the differences in the sense when using this term in different sciences: “economists connect rational with efficiency (rational economic behaviour, for example, investment, in contrast to irrational behaviour), philosophers - with mind (for example, rational knowledge, in contrast to the sensuous)” [17, p. 5-10]. That is why the concept of rationality is actively established in philosophy and today it is interpreted in different ways: Weber [33] understands it as expediency or goal-orientedness, Carnap [8] as a maximally expected utility. In the encyclopaedic dictionary, rationality is considered to be a comparative assessment of knowledge, contrasted with its absolute assessment [26].

Some scholars, as Blinov [5], Porus [22], Shneider [31] and others consider rationality to be expedient: something that contributes to the achieving the goal is rationality, something that is impeded is irrationality.

Until recently, it was believed that the model of rational activity is the science and activities of a scholar. All other field of human activity are rational only to the extent that they rely on scientific knowledge and methods. It is now recognized that every field of activity has its own standards of rationality, which do not always coincide with scientific ones, that is why it is possible to speak about rationality in art, politics, management, etc. [15, p. 296].

We have made an attempt to extrapolate the provisions of the philosophy of rationality to the problems of the methodology of teaching native languages. One of the research tasks is the identification and argumentation of signs of a rational methodology. To do this, we are to turn again to philosophical sources.

In modern philosophy the theory of rationality was studied by the following scholars: Bredo [6, p. 525-529], Blinov [5], Vasilyev [32], Rainone [24], Wiertz [34] and others. In particular, Kazakova [19] examines the problem of rationality from the point of view of philosophical anthropology, the scholar justifies the cultural and anthropological essence of rationality in education, which is regarded as a universal process of becoming a personality in the process of socialization. Due to the version of Kazakova [19], education based on the principles of rationality is the most important value of modern society, without which it is impossible to preserve its moral and cognitive bases, because rationality manifests itself in the nature of cognitive activity, using conscious forms and methods in advancing to the goal; in the nature of human spiritual, practical and educational activities. Rationality is not only the basis of the process of cognition, but also as a form of awareness of being in culture and it can be traced in the form of various types of technologies in social relations [19].

The idea of Porus [22] should also be recalled: with the help of the concept of rationality, the concepts efficiency and economy are defined, i.e. those things are rational that are efficient and economical. Consequently, efficient and economy actions leading to the achieving any goal are expedient. If rationality is an expediency, then according to the scholar's conviction, the success of the action can be considered a measure of expediency. As a fundamental characteristic of human activity Porus [22] calls rationality a cultural value, which simultaneously has a methodological and axiological dimensions. The scholar emphasizes that the methodological sense of rationality cannot be separated from the axiological losses without significant losses, and vice versa. When scientific rationality is interpreted as a system of regulatory means (laws, rules, norms, assessment criteria), accepted and universally valid in a given scientific community, this concept acquires precise meaning and methodological significance. However, this interpretation is a model of scientific activity (in its intellectual aspect) or a methodological way of science, therefore it is necessary to distinguish between scientific rationality and its methodological model. Models of scientific rationality are developed by methodologists and philosophers, proceeding from different tasks: to determine the rational organization of “ready” scientific knowledge, to rationally understand the processes of translation of knowledge and learning, to determine the rationality of scientific growth, development [22].

Concept of Rationality as Methodological Basis for Teaching the Native Language: Theoretical and Practical Aspects Mosterin [21] and Rainone [24] consider rationality in the theoretical and practical aspects. According to the scholar, mind and rationality are not the same: mind is a psychological ability, whereas rationality is an optimization strategy.

Mosterin [21] defines the theoretical rationality as a strategy serving the maximum coverage and accuracy of human representations of reality, containing a formal component that reduces to logical connectivity, and a material component consisting of an empirical justification using innate mechanisms for detecting and interpreting signals. The practical rationality is manifested in a strategy that serves to achieve the best existence of an individual, maximizing the realization of his most important goals and satisfying preferences. The formal component of practical rationality is reduced to the theory of decision-making, and the material component is based on human nature. Thus, practical rationality determines the theoretical, and not vice versa [21, p. 441-473].

It is clear that rational evidence can be changed under the influence of practical results, in the case under consideration, the practice of teaching native languages in specific conditions and striving to achieve efficient results. Bedke (2008) advocates a conceptual priority of rationality and the pursuit of a goal in favour of a conceptual priority of motives. The scholar defines the meaning of rationality as procedural (methodical) rationality, which is connected with the desire for a goal, where the latter is rational to the extent that a person has a motivation to act in accordance with it [4, p. 85-111]. The rational influence of motives determines the possession of rational reflexivity.

Rovane is convinced that a man is not just rational, he has full reflexive rationality [...] that gives him the opportunity to achieve absolute rational unity within himself (within his capabilities). This is the way of actions and thoughts that clarifies the inner picture of the world in the mind of a human being, so that it better corresponds to the real environment, i.e. a rational way of thinking that leads to rational decision-making [27].

Thus, any rational activity presupposes freedom of choice between various rational and irrational variants. From this conclusion the most important methodological postulate may be formulated: the rational method of teaching the native language at higher education of the XXI century is realized both by rational and irrational instructors' actions of the teacher and by the student's learning activities. And if it is irrational in philosophy, it is productive in the teaching methodology of the native language.

Normativity and Rationality as Fusion of Goals and Means in Teaching the Native Language

Indeed, normativity is the basis of rationality: the norm is adopted based on reflexive approval and only if it satisfies certain canons of rationality or rational procedures for its adoption [29, p. 29]. However, not only reflection can become a means of substantiating normativity: “it is precisely its voluntary adherence to this principle and the decision to translate it into action” that is normative for the subject [20, p. 99-122].

The methodological perspective of the consideration of rationality presupposes not only the search for rational methods and methods of teaching the native language, but the establishment of conceptual provisions and conditions for the process of mastering the students of their native language, its normative bases.

In the educational process, there are axiomatic ideas about the means and mechanisms of the cognitive activity of the individual and about the possibilities of developing his abilities, skills, readiness, etc. The observed processes can be explained based on the laws that are deep and hidden from the direct vision of the researcher: “the fact that people believe something is mandatory does not make it mandatory, it requires a substantial explanation of the nature of normativity” [16, p. 6]. In addition, it should be borne in mind that normativity is often seen as a condition for achieving the goal. An action is considered to be normative that is aimed at achieving any goal in accordance with the postulates of practical rationality, which include efficiency, the optimal choice of means to achieve the goal, etc. The selection of basic, source norms as one of the sources of rationality and rules subordinated to these basic rules that allows one to combine normativity and rationality as any fusion of goals and means [18, p. 16].

Principles of Rationality in Teaching the Native Language at Higher Education of the XXI Century

The development of a rational methodology requires the search for normative aspects in the process of mastering the native language by students. As it is known, “the normative arises from ordinary explanations, their sequence. There are no obligations in the facts. But the connection with activity leads the facts to norms. Hence, there are already demands. They are no longer directly conditional on behaviour, but regulate it normatively” [16, p. 6]. The above-mentioned quotation explains the possibility of applying normativity to the methodology of teaching the native languages, when individual facts, disconnected learning actions are transformed in the educational process, on the one hand, into its normative categories, and, on the other hand, regulate it, which is the manifestation of rationality.

Cognition. In the methodology of teaching the native languages, the attempts have been made to rationalize the process of mastering such communicative competence from the standpoint of cognitive learning. In particular, Ellis the author of the associative cognitive system CREED (Construction-based, Rational, Exemplar-driven, Emergent and Dialectic) asserts that the process of studying / teaching the native language is governed by the same principles of associative and cognitive learning that underlie the rest of human knowledge, i.e. based on the principles of rational, exemplar-driven, emergent and dialectic [10]. Learning a language involves mastering the constructions that reflect the language form and the functions of linguistic phenomena. Mastering the native language results from a dynamic system, which is conditioned by the frequency of repetition of learned patterns / constructions and their use in exercises, as well as their use is a dynamic contextualized activation. Frequency, novelty and context are the three most fundamental factors affecting the mastery of linguistic phenomena. Rationality manifests itself in the optimal reflection of the ways of mastering the native language, the associative fundamentals of the language allow users to be rational in the sense that their mental models of language experience are optimal [10, p. 100-121].

Due to the version of Ellis the category of rationality is considered in close connection with cognition as an ability to cognitive activity, actualizing the perception and processing of external information [10].

Abbasova argues that “the possibility of a comprehensive, systematic analysis of the activities of human consciousness at the level of cognition, i.e. thinking, including such layers of activity as memory, imagination, the process of thinking activity at the level of reflection with the help of the linguistic sign system, etc., was provided to cognitive science by philosophical systems and they were the starting impulse in the formation of the concept of cognition” [1, p. 9].

The analysis of the above-mentioned definitions of rationality indicates the mutual conditioning of the categories under consideration. Rationality is interpreted in direct interrelation with cognitive processes, which reflect the thinking activity of the individual, conscious forms and methods of organizing activities. This fact is a direct confirmation of the advisability of considering the category of cognition as a determinant of rationality, which has a direct impact on the rational method of teaching the native language that we develop.

Cognition cannot be reduced to the delineation of mental and behavioural processes; it represents a “complex model of cognition through the integration of different aspects” [9, p. 114]. Their investigation and determination of the leading elements in achieving efficiency become the factors in the realization of rationality in studying the native language.

Thus, the cognitive processes are represented in the basis of the application of rational or irrational learning activities. Their actualization in the learning process becomes a prerequisite for the perception of a student as a rational person, actively involved in the cognitive process. The ways in which students solve the problem of how to learn in the process of communication is the question of applying some kind of intuitive rationality to the conditions of communication, because they are changed under the influence of different circumstances. It is here that the phenomenon of linguistic feedback reaction is manifested. The choice of learners of rational ways of solving problems, possible in specific circumstances (expected utility) and leading to the best results, is based on instrumental rationality, which implements the principles of efficiency and consistency, when the results of the action play a determining role.

Productivity. Productivity is a concept that integrates such characteristics of rationality as efficiency, purposefulness, expediency.

Indeed, the idea of achieving a specific goal is represented in the centre of rationality. Its consequence is a product created through the selection of optimal actions, options, models, etc. Due to Rubtsova point of view, “the result, or product, of creativity, i.e. productive language activity, is, on the one hand, the acquisition of skills for independent study of the native language using linguo- didactical technologies, and on the other hand, the creation of certain spiritual values, self-creation, self-construction, i.e. acquisition of individual personal experience and advancement in its development” [28, p. 50].

Therefore, productivity is relevant to the direction to achieve the result, but with the most rational methods of activity. Productivity in the context of the methodology of teaching native languages broadens the possibilities of presenting learning goals, differentiating them into internal and external ones. “To characterize the goal / result of productive language activity, it is advisable to use the concepts “personal (internal) goals of the trainee”, “personal (internal) content”, “personal educational product”. “External” are the normatively set goals of training” [28, p. 51].

Thus, the productivity in mastering the native language of the students and in the teaching activities of the teacher is an indispensable indicator of a rational methodology: productivity not only ensures the achievement of the desired result, but also “includes generalized methods of learning activity and general methods of studying such a language: a reflexive assessment of its capabilities and results, the correlation of real needs with the learning task, the evaluation of their linguistic speech experience, the reflection of the learning experience and the techniques used and the forms efficient individual style of mastering the native language” [28, p. 51].

In a rational technique productivity is transformed into a procedural category that allows one to observe the activities of trainees and educators, realized to achieve the set goals, and, thus, to reveal manifestations of rationality in the learning process. “Productivity is both a process and as a final cumulative result of the emergence and development of an individual who is capable of self-education and self-development, which ultimately are called upon to provide a professional and communicatively sufficient level of language training for university graduates” [12] As it is seen, our assumption is justified in the works of [35] et al.

Productive language educational activity as “the trainee's ability to independently manage the educational and cognitive process of learning native language” (Worthington & Lee, 2008) is a consequence of the rational organization of the educational process, in which the autonomy of trainees assumes an essential role. This becomes the basis for the differentiation of rational methods in accordance with goals, objectives, conditions, etc. of learning.

The investigation of categories of rationality and productivity indicates their interdependence, which determines the need to take into account the provisions of concepts of productive learning in the development of a rational methodology. At the same time, this proves the complexity of the phenomenon of rationality in the methodological focus of consideration, its multifacetedness and breadth.

Conclusions

The analysis of the philosophical theories of rationality revealed universal categories that have a direct connection to the rational methodology determining it. There is a philosophical conceptual basis of the methodology developed by us which is the theoretical model of rationality proposed by V Schneider. This model is implemented in accordance with the norms that are justified in the process of analytical, textually expressed activity of the trainee, its technological side, implying a method and algorithm. Interpreting the definition of rationality of V. Schneider as a reasonably sound normality, it may be concluded that a student is rational in his actions if the latter are implemented in accordance with some reasonable motives that allow him to achieve the goal [30, p. 30-33].

Thus, rational activity should be supported by motivated and justified norms of performance of exercises and tasks on mastering the native language, and implemented in accordance with the algorithmic program, leading to an increase in the level and quality of ownership of such competencies. Rationality of teaching the native language at higher education of the XXI century is manifested in the facilitation of the process of mastering the student by the most rational cognitive strategies for him (practical rationality) leading to mastering his / her native language.

It can be assumed that rationality - cognition - productivity are the three signs of a rational methodology that ensure the success of the teaching activity of the teacher and the student's learning activity at higher education of the XXI century.

The study of the philosophical concept of rationality and the main provisions of the productive approach allows us to assert that they can serve as a theoretical rationale for a rational methodology for teaching the native languages at higher education of the XXI century, since rationality is the main optimization strategy.

References

1. Abbasova K. Ya. Cognitive Psychology and Philosophy: Problems of Coexistence. Vector of Science of Togliatti State University. Pedagogy, Psychology. 2010. No. 3. P 9-11.

2. Alekseyeva L. Ye. Methodology for teaching professionally oriented foreign language. St.-Peterburg: Filologicheskiy fakul'tet SPbGU. 2007.

3. Al-Khatib H. Revisiting the Communicative Approach: The Tripod Construct. Arab World English Journal. 2017. No. 8 (1). P. 3-15.

4. Bedke M. Ethical Intuitions: What They Are, What They Are Not, and How They Justify. American Philosophical Quarterly. 2008. No. 45 (3). P. 253-270.

5. Blinov A. L. Synergetics of collective irrationality. The Philosophy of Science. 2002. No. 8. P. 34-52.

6. Bredo E. Review of Jack Russell Weinstein, Adam Smith's Pluralism: Rationality, Education, and Moral Sentiments. Studies in Philosophy and Education. 2015. No. 34 (5). P 525-529.

7. Brumfit C. J., & Johnson K. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989.

8. Carnap R. Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1950.

9. Chernikova D. V., & Chernikova I. V. Expansion of human capabilities: cognitive technologies and their risks. Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. 2012. No. 321 (6). P 114-119.

10. Ellis N. C. Cognitive perspectives on second language acquisition: The associative cognitive CREED. AILA Review. 2006. No. 1. P 100-121.

11. Ellis M., & Johnson C. Teaching Business English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008.

12. Galbraith C. S., & Merrill G. B. Faculty research productivity and standardized student learning outcomes in a university teaching environment: a Bayesian analysis of relationships. Studies in Higher Education. 2012. No. 37 (4). P 469-480.

13. Gataullina V. L., Salieva R. N., & Zakirova L. R. Reflection of the Dialogue of Cultures of the English and Russian Languages in the Study of Phraseological Units with a Transparent Inner Form and in the Process of Teaching Native and Non-Native Languages. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods. Special issue. 2016. P. 43-47.

14. Henri D. C., Morrell L. J., & Scott G. W. Student perceptions of their autonomy at University. Higher Education. 2018. No. 75 (3). P 507-516.

15. Ivin A. A., & Nikiforov A. L. Dictionary of Logic. Moscow: Vlados. 1997.

16. Karpovich V. N. Norm and description as a category of epistemology: rationality as a kind and basis of normativity. Novosibirsk State University Bulletin. Philosophy. 2013. No. 11(4). P 5-11.

17. Karpovich V. N. Normativity, rationality and logic in the justification of purposeful activity. Novosibirsk State University Bulletin. Series: Philosophy. 2014. No. 12(1), P. 5-10.

18. Karpovich V. N., & Shevchenko A. A. Rationality and normativity, faith and knowledge. Novosibirsk State University Bulletin. Philosophy. 2013. No. 11(2). P 16-23.

19. Kazakova S. Yu. Rationality as a prerequisite and principle of European education. PhD abstract thesis. Rostov-on-Don. 1999.

20. Korsgaard C. M. Realism and Constructivism in Twentieth-Century Moral Philosophy. Journal of Philosophical Research. 2003. Issue 28 (Suppl.). P 99-122.

21. Mosterin J. Anthropic Explanations in Cosmology. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of the LMPS: Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. London: King's College Publications. 2005. P. 441-473

22. Porus V.N. Paradoxes of scientific rationality and ethics. Moscow: IF RAN. 1995.

23. Puchkov D.B. Rational bases of individual being of the person. PhD abstract thesis. St.-Peterburg. 2010.

24. Rainone A. Razionalita pratica e razionalita teoretica: connessioni e sovrapposizioni. Giornale Critico della Filosofia. 2016. No. 12 (2-3). P. 420-438.

25. Rakitov A. Rationality and the Rehabilitation of Relativism. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2017. No. 51 (1). P. 76-91.

26. Iwin A.A. Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: Gardariki. 2004.

27. Rovane С. Rationality and Persons. In A. Mele & P Rawling (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Rationality Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 2004. P 320-342.

28. Rubtsova A.V. Productivity in the field of teaching foreign languages in the context of a productive approach. Materials of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference: Ways to Improve Teaching Foreign Languages at School and University (24-25 June, Birsk, Russian Federation.). 2011. P 49-52.

29. Shevchenko A. A. Normativity: role, source and status. Novosibirsk State University Bulletin. Series: Philosophy. 2010. No. 8 (4). P 28-32.

30. Shneider V. B. What Is It to Be Rational? Philosophy Now. 1991. No. 1. P 30-33.

31. Shneider V. B. Communication, normativity, logic. Yekaterinburg: Ural University Publ. 2002.

32. Vasilyev V. F. Problems of rationality: monograph. Yaroslavl: YarGU. 2006.

33. Weber M. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1978.

34. Wiertz O. J. The concept of rationality in Andrew Gleeson's antitheodicy. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology. 2017. No. 78 (4-5). P 511-522.

35. Worthington A. C., & Lee B. L. Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998-2003. Economics of Education Review. 2008. No. 27 (3). P 285-298.

36. Yeh Y. L., Lan Y. J. Fostering Student Autonomy in English Learning through Creations in a 3D Virtual World. Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development. 2018. No. 66 (3). P. 693-708.

Размещено на Allbest.ru