Publishing House SB RAS:

Publishing House SB RAS:

Address of the Publishing House SB RAS:
Morskoy pr. 2, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia



Advanced Search

Professional Education in the Modern World

2018 year, number 1

FACILITATING AND INHIBITING DIDACTIC COMMUNICATION FACTORS IN THE CONTEXT OF STUDENTS‘ SUBJECTIVE VIEWS

P. V. Menshikov
Kaluga State University named after Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Kaluga, Russian Federation
Keywords: дидактическая коммуникация, факторы, фасилитирующие и ингибирующие дидактическую коммуникацию, открытая коммуникативная позиция обучающего, дополнительные линии коммуникации, didactic communication, factors facilitating and inhibiting didactic communication, open communicative position of a student, additional communication

Abstract

The article explores the problem of effective educational communication between a teacher and a student. The author analyzes national and foreign proceedings and highlights the growing interest of researchers to deeper investigation of the factors facilitating the process of didactic communication. At the same time, Psychology hasn’t investigated personal views of students about these factors. The research is based on the model of didactic communication that includes temporal and topological aspect (time and space of educational interaction), organizational, individual and reflexive ones. The author uses own methodic of questionnaire that reflects all structural components of didactic communication. The research focused on 3 groups of first-year students of Tsiolkovskiy Kaluga State University where average age was 18 years and the number of participants was 84 persons. The research reveals students’ views about the factors that favor and prevent didactic communication. The students prefer education interaction that have comfortable temporal and topological conditions, open communicative position of a student and his communicative initiative. The students prefer the forms of education interaction that are characterized by additional communication, availability of channels of knowledge transmitting and affective intension of didactic communication. The students do not prefer didactic communication that prevents communicative initiative of participants and worsens their interaction.