Psychodiagnostic Research of a Dialogue in Culturally Oriented Surrounding in the Process of School Studying

Мета дослідження - здійснити психодіагностичне дослідження діалогу в культурологічно зорієнтованому середовищі в процесі шкільного навчання.

Методи дослідження. Для розв'язання поставлених у роботі завдань використовувалися такі теоретичні методи дослідження: категоріальний, структурно-функціональний, аналіз, систематизація, моделювання, узагальнення. Експериментальним методом є метод організації емпіричного дослідження.

Результати дослідження. Доведено, що причинами низького рівня обґрунтованості думок та суджень учнями є: 1) невдала організація дискусії на уроках англійської мови в закладах середньої освіти; 2) як наслідок першої причини - учні не знайомі з дискусією як формою навчальної роботи, вони не знають, як себе поводити на такому уроці, і найчастіше обирають стандартну позицію "учня", який уважно слухає вчителя, відповідає на його запитання стисло, чітко, без урахування своєї точки зору; 3) 68% учнів не розуміють, чому потрібно обґрунтовувати свої думки (адже вони завжди висловлюють тільки ті думки, які є в їх підручниках, чи які на попередньому уроці висловив вчитель); 4) 32% школярів бояться обґрунтувати свій вислів "невірно", "неправильно" та отримати погану оцінку.

Висновки. Потрібно розрізняти, з одного боку, діалог, а з іншого, - просту розмову. Діалог розуміється як взаємна комунікація, що має специфічні риси: тематичну цілеспрямованість чи проблемність, двосторонність інформації, сполученість тематичноїцілеспрямованості з двосторонньою передачею інформації, що допомагає рішенню загального завдання. Доведено, що існують лінгвістичне та психологічне розуміння діалогу, тому в процесі психологічного вивчення діалогу необхідно звернути увагу як на інформативний обмін між партнерами, так і на особливості їх взаємовідношень, зокрема на їх рольовий аспект.

Ключові слова: діалог, культурологічно зорієнтоване середовище, низький рівень обґрунтованості думок, дискусія, навчальна діяльність.

Introduction

The analysis of psychological and pedagogical literature on the problem of communication (Batel, 2020; Максименко, Ткач, Литвинчук & Онуфрієва, 2019) showed that in recent years dialogue has become the subject of psychological and pedagogical analysis with the aim of using it to improve and humanize the system of education, to increase the effectiveness of school education. In this case, it is necessary to emphasize that there are three ways of understanding of a dialogue in psychological literature, which need to be described in this article, because it is the idea of a dialogue between the participants of the discussion at the lessons that will interest us to the greatest extent.

So, we'll analyze a dialogue as:

1) exchange of remarks or statements between the participants of communication;

2) the principle of mutual relations;

3) dialogical nature of the very content of thinking and the activity of a modern person.

If we tell about the first understanding of a dialogue, as the example we have to note, that school psychologists in Germany pay a great attention to the ability to communicate productively: teachers study the internal mechanisms of mutual influence between the teacher and the student, the means of influencing the emotional and mental development of the student (Blago- vechtchenski, Gnedykh, Kurmakaeva, Mkrtychian, Kostromina & Shtyrov, 2019).

Scientists (Dijkgraaf, Hartsuiker & Duyck, 2017) believe that the ability for productive communication between the teacher and pupils and between schoolchildren themselves can be better developed under conditions when: a) the teacher encourages pupils to a dialogical interaction with each other and with the teacher, facilitate them to exchange spiritual values; b) at the lessons the teacher strives to put pupils into the position of inventors, researchers who independently acquire knowledge, prove proposed them hypotheses; c) the teacher builds learning as a holistic creative process in a form that is close to a business game, with elements of competition, theatrical action.

According to the second understanding of a dialogue, productive communication in the educational process at school can be understood as communicative interaction (cooperation) in the subsystems "a teacher - a whole class", "a teacher - a pupil", "a schoolchild - a schoolchild", "a pupil - a group of schoolchildren", "a pupil - a whole class". It involves encouraging schoolchildren to share spiritual values and enriching on this basis significant motives for cognitive activity, to the development of children's creativity. Scientists (Ivashkevych Er., Perishko I., Kotsur S. & Chernyshova, 2020) believe that the degree of the development of the ability to productive communication is determined by the formation of the motivational (cognitive interests, focus on cooperation with the teacher and classmates) and instrumental (thinking operations, emotional-volitional sphere) aspects. Based on these points, it is possible to distinguish the psychological and pedagogical conditions for the formation of productive communication:

• a democratic nature of the relationships between the teacher and pupils (Cilibrasi, Stojanovik, Riddell & Saddy, 2019);

• the organization of training with the creation of problem situations at the lessons (Bredart, 1991). New knowledge is not presented by the teacher as ready-made one, but pupils have to master it in the process of active independent activity and communication between themselves and the teacher (Derwing, Mun- ro, Thomson & Rossiter, 2009);

• the development of thinking operations of pupils, such qualities of thinking as independence, depth and flexibility (O'Donnell, MacGregor, Dabrowski, Oestreicher & Romero, 1994);

• the construction of education as a holistic creative process (Murphy, Melandri, Bucci, 2021).

If we take into account the third understanding of a dialogue - "Dialogical nature of the very content of thinking and the activity of a modern person", we characterize the educational dialogue that is the most effective in the classroom in the process of secondary education. We believe that in the educational dialogue there are four dominant functions of communication: communicative, informative, regulatory and emotional, but at different lessons one function plays a major role and others - a secondary one. The topic of the educational dialogue should depend on its subject and clearly correspond to the educational program. At the same time, we believe that the goals of any dialogue are boundless, they have no end, as the processes of learning and cognition itself do (Valis, Slaninova, Prazak, Poulova, Kacetl & Klimova, 2019).

So, the teacher has to form his/her own individual language style, which will correspond to the composition of his/her personality, promote the person's adequate expression and compensate the teacher's negative traits (Ware, Damnee, Djabelkhir, Cris- tancho, Wu & Benovici, 2017). Speaking about the individual style of speech, we have to note that there is no consensus on how permissible in the teacher's speech there are presented certain violations of stylistic norms, even if it increases the effectiveness of pedagogical influences (Zuniga & Simard, 2019). At the same time, there is a great reason to believe that in order to achieve the greatest expressiveness of speech, to create casual dialogic relationships in the discussion, the teacher can use elements of colloquial speech, heterogeneous vocabulary, stylistic interruptions, etc. In addition, mastering the techniques of creating the individual style of pedagogical speech forms, a teacher's social maturity, it contributes to a more adequate orientation in various situations that are arisen in the classroom during discussions (Crookes, 1989; Ivashkevych, Ed. & Onufriieva, 2021). dialogue role psychodiagnostic

If we take into account, that the dialogue ideas of the mutual relations were pointed out by pedagogues and psychologists of a humanistic orientation (such as Carl Rogers (1983)), we'll name the next, the fourth understanding of a dialogue. In this case the main is the influence of the teacher as a facilitator (according to C. Rogers (1983)), the School of Dialogue of Cultures of G. Ball (1995), which help to build the interaction of the teacher with pupils on the basis of equal relations, to carry out a joint search for worldview positions, and with them - to show ways to spirituality and humanism. We believe that approach of G. Ball (1995) to humane education includes the concepts of "facilitation" (Rogers, 1983) and "cooperation" (Івашкевич Ер. & Комарніцька, 2020), as well as the teacher's desire to enrich the internal child's world (Alahmadi & Foltz, 2020). This reason affirms the pupil's right to be the subject of the educational process, denies any violence against schoolchildren (de Bot, 1992; O'Brien, Segalowitz, Freed & Collentine, 2007).

So, the purpose of our research is to provide psychodiagnostic research of a dialogue in culturally oriented surrounding in the process of school studying.

The tasks of our research are:

1. To propose the author's understanding of a dialogue as a process of communication of different cultures.

2. To show non-equivalent words are cultural-marked lexical units that serve us to express concepts that are not in another culture and another language.

3. To describe the results of psychological and pedagogical experiment to know the level of reasonableness of opinions expressed by schoolchildren is one of the criteria for the effectiveness of the discussion.

4. To propose the reasons of a low level of validity of opinions and judgments by pupils.

5. To justify exercises to teach pupils to communicate effectively at the English lessons.

Methods of the research

The following theoretical methods of the research were used to solve the tasks formulated in the article: the categorical method, structural and functional methods, the methods of the analysis, systematization, modeling, generalization. The experimental method was the method of organizing empirical research.

Results and their discussion

We think, that the fourth understanding of a dialogue can be understanding of it as a process of communication of different cultures. We'll explain our position. We think that any language does not exist out of culture. In such a way it is a socially inherited set of practical skills and ideas, characterizing our way of life. In such a hypostasis one can consider language as a dominant form of preservation of culture and its characteristics.

A language is a form of preservation of any culture. It emphasizes on cultural values of any ethnic group and is a means of their reflection into the future. On the one hand, the language reflects the subconscious intuitions of people - their bearer, surrounding us world. It keeps information about the significant historical events in the life of the ethnic group. From this point of view the language is an instrument of culture that spiritually forms its bearer, imposes on the vision of the world having been embodied in the linguistic forms and defines the image of thoughts and feelings of the user (according to the language). Under the national image of the world we understand the special structure of the relations of elements common to all people, which, if not comprehended by the individual, will necessarily be rejected as something unacceptable. For example, in American culture whistling is an emotional form of the expression of consent, approval, as well as applause. For Polish and Ukrainian cultures, for example, the negative connotations of this act are characteristics of ossification of bad actors, speakers and players, whistling - that there are "telling lies, fooling nonsense", "it is the belief that whistling leads to the lack of money".

As for the problem of the correlation of the language and the culture, we'd express our opinion that a person is forced to live in a culture just as he/she lives in the biosphere. In such a way the language serves one or another culture, reproduces first of all the images of the user of this culture and the language itself, the image of the ethnic language of the person.

We deny the "general correlation" between the cultural type and the structure of the language. We can determine how one or another cultural trait influenced the basic structure of the language. Nevertheless, if the specifics of the notion of "linguistic structure", referring to certain phonetic, morphological, lexical, syntactic, functional and communicative peculiarities of a particular language, then systemic-language correlations with the national world view, world perception and world understanding as general components of a complex phenomenon of the national mentality will be sufficiently relevant and specific.

Taking into account close relationships between the culture and the language, as well as defining the components of sociocultural competence, it is important and necessary to take into account the unity of languages with the world and the culture of people speaking these languages. Thus, the effectiveness of communication depends on many factors: the conditions and the culture of communication, rules of etiquette, possession of nonverbal forms of the expression (facial expressions, gestures), the presence of deep background knowledge and much more.

Overcoming the language barrier is not enough to ensure the effectiveness of communication between representatives of different cultures. It is necessary to overcome the cultural barrier. We believe that problems in intercultural communication cause national-specific features of various components of cultures of respondents (peculiarities that make us possible the implementation of these components of ethno-differentiating function). The components of culture, and hence it follows that the components of socio-cultural competence, having been a national specific color, include the following: traditions, customs and ordinances; traditional and everyday culture; national pictures of the world; artistic culture, which reflects the cultural traditions of a particular ethnic group.

So, we'll state that in the process of teaching a foreign language the problem of the interrelation of the language and the culture appears to be particularly relevant and bipolar: the language is recognized through the culture, and due to the language, the transition to the world of another culture takes a place, and therefore we need a country-study approach. We also consider socio-cultural competence as the ability to implement intercultural communication based on the knowledge of lexical units with the national-cultural component of semantics and the skills of their adequate application in intercultural communicative situations, as well as the ability to use background knowledge to achieve mutual understanding in situations of mediated and direct intercultural communication. We also think the linguistic-ethnographic competence as the ability to perceive the language in its cultural-bearing function, with its national and cultural specificity. In such a way linguistic competence includes knowledge of linguistic units, including the national and cultural components of semantics, and the ability to use them in accordance with the social and speech situations. The basis of linguistic competence are the national and cultural components of the foreign language, which is reflected in units of different levels of language, as well as background knowledge of the typical educated representative of a certain lingua-cultural community. This knowledge denotes everything that is characteristic to some culture, everyday life, traditions throughout various historical epochs. They are usually referred to this psycholinguistic context.

Non-equivalent words are cultural-marked lexical units that serve us to express concepts that are not in another culture and another language. They do not have equivalents beyond the language to which they belong. Unclaimed vocabulary usually refers to the names of the realities of our life and the life of other people. In the linguistic theory the term "reality" denotes the object (or the phenomenon of culture) and the word that it calls. We consider realities as special referents - the elements of objective reality, reflected in our consciousness. They are objects of thought, which correspond to this language conformity. From this position, there are three main groups of realities: 1) uni- versals - identical in their essential and secondary features in the crop to be compared (the sun, water, air); 2) quasi-realities - identical in their essential features, but different from the secondary point of view (grant - стипендія, Teachers' Training College - педагогічний інститут); 3) actual realities - those ones, that, by their essential and secondary features, are unique characteristics of only one of the cultures having been compared.

The realities also include (examples are given in English):

1) toponyms: the names of the constituent parts of the country (regions, countries, etc.): (East Anglia, Highlands, Suffolk, Yorkshire); city names: (Brighton, Cambridge); names of urban areas: (Westminster, Kensington, Chelsea); streets and area names: (Fleet Street, Kings Road, Downing Street); 2) anthro- ponyms: (King Arthur, Isaac Newton, Charles Dickens, Joshua Reynolds, James Cook, John Lennon, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, etc.); 3) ethnographic realities: food, drinks (fish and chips, haggis, pudding); rest types of sport, games: (Boat Race, caber, soccer, snooker, Wembley, cricket, Wimbledon, Highland Games); customs and traditions, holidays: (Remembrance Day, Trooping the Color, St. Patrick's Day, the Queen's Silver Jubilee etc); 4) socio-political realities: (House of Parliament, the Blues and the Royals, OBE (Order of the British Empire), constitutional monarchy, the Queen, etc.); 5) the realities of the educational system: (girl guide, Patrol, summer schools, National Education Act, system of options, career guidance, PTA (Parent-Teacher Association), system of options, etc.); 6) realities of culture, cultural figures: (Charlotte Bronte, Robert Burns, David Copperfield, Charles Dickens); cinema and theater: (Globe Theater, the Royal Opera House, Barbican Center); Fine Arts: (National Gallery, Tate Gallery); the Media (the BBS, the Observer, the Times, the Financial Times, Top of the Pops etc).

Each language has its own phraseological units with their national and cultural semantics, which is formed under the influence of ethnolinguistic, historical, sociological, cultural and other features of a particular language community. We believe that the phraseological system of any language reflects the cultural and historical experience of people, makes it possible to understand the national Psychology, the national vision of the world, for example: An Englishman's home is his castle (Мій дім - моя фортеця); Praise is not pudding (Слів густо, а в животі пусто). It is obvious that in each of these consistent statements at the lexical level there is a reference to the realities of English culture and lifestyle - "English house", "Pudding", etc.

In order to test the hypothesis that the level of reasonableness of opinions expressed by schoolchildren is one of the criteria for the effectiveness of the discussion, a psychological and pedagogical experiment was organized. In the process of the ascertaining experiment, which involved 79 pupils of the 5th and the 7th forms of secondary schools 15 (Rivne) and 4 (Kamianets- Podilskyi). At this stage of the experiment we used the authors' methodology (Михальчук, Івашкевич, Ед. & Івашкевич, Ер., 2023).

It was established that the level of validity of the opinions expressed by pupils at the lessons of the English language during educational discussions is very low (see Table 1).

So, partners of communication do not always understand the content, the essence of the opinion expressed by the teenager (in 73% of cases). Very often the sentences of schoolchildren are grammatically and stylistically incorrectly constructed (in 68% of cases), pupils do not know how to prove logically their point of view (in 87% of cases). Therefore, the discussion held at the lessons of the English language most often does not go beyond one problem, one unresolved issue; it is more reminiscent of a conversation between a teacher and schoolchildren than a discussion in which all partners of communication occupy equal positions.

Table 1

The level of reasonableness of opinions expressed by schoolchildren as one of the criteria for the effectiveness of the discussion (in %)