.png)
.png)
Email this article 
Psychology of didactic communication: innovation constructivist approach
https://doi.org/10.15372/PEMW20190324
Abstract
The article deals with the problems of constructivist reflection and the construction of didactic communication, the innovations, opportunities and limitations that the constructivist model of pedagogical interaction offers. The aim of the work was an analysis of innovations and perspectives of understanding the modern educational process in the context of the constructivist approach. Postmodern, the era of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, leaving, leaves many interesting and productive developments, which undoubtedly include constructivism. Contesting the existence of reality as such, constructivism offered several solutions to the problem of man's comprehension of himself and the world. These solutions united by a common idea of producing internal and external reality in social dialogue, in the interaction of people and groups (actors and co-actors) interested in solving problems, united in situational, subject, active collaborations (associations, groups) to develop the best and satisfying all participants as stakeholders of a consensus solution of the problem. Constructivism has changed the view of what is happening in the relations of people in a number of areas, including management and education. Findings. Due to its debatable nature, the development of constructivism ideas in the context of the development of educational ideologies and technologies activates the processes of reconceptualization of the traditional model of didactic communication, and the constructionist model of education itself can and should become an object of systematic methodological, theoretical, empirical and applied research. Any of these approaches can be disclosed as an example of a constructivist educational model. The leading signs of this model are the dialogue nature of education, the focus on understanding the internal and external world in a dialogue with significant other people. This model assumes the consideration of such a dialogue as a process by which a person builds his own life world and himself, as a creative «rediscovery» of the basic truths of human existence, as making socially and personally meaningful decisions in a situation of educational, professional and life choices.
About the Authors
M. R. ArpentievaRussian Federation
Mariam R. Arpentieva, Grand Doctor of Psychology, associate professor, Professor, at the Department of Developmental Psychology and Education, 248023, Kaluga, Russian Federation, Razin str., 26
P. V. Menshikov
Russian Federation
Petr V. Menshikov, Candidate of Psychology, associate professor, Associate Professor at the Department of Developmental Psychology and Education, 248023, Kaluga, Russian Federation, Razin str., 26
O. P. Stepanovа
Russian Federation
Olga P. Stepanovа, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor Head of the Department of Psychology, 455000, Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk region, Russian Federation, Lenin str., 38
O. V. Tokar
Russian Federation
Oksana V. Tokar, Candidate of pedagogical sciences, associate professor of the department psychology, 455000, Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk region, Russian Federation, Lenin str., 38
N. G. Bazhenova
Russian Federation
Natalya G. Bazhenova, candidate of pedagogical sciences, associate professorof the department psychology, 455000, Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk region, Russian Federation, Lenin str., 38
E. D. Bazhenova
Russian Federation
Elizaveta D. Bazhenova, Student, specialty «Psychology of performance activities» 455 000, Magnitogorsk, Chelyabinsk region, Russian Federation, Lenin str., 38
References
1. Milutinovich J. Social societies of constructivism in the field of education and study. Bulletin of the Institute for pedagogical teacher, broj. 2011, vol. 2, br. 177–194. (in Serb)
2. Nabi A. E. Constructivist Translation Classroom Environment Survey. The International Journal for Translation & Interpreting Research, 2013, vol. 5 (2), pp. 163–186. DOI: 10.12807/ti.105202.2013.a10
3. Taylor S. Critical realism vs social constructionism & social constructivism: application to a social housing research study. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 2018, vol. 37 (2), pp. 216–222.
4. Taylor P., Fraser B., Fisher D. Monitoring the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Science Teachers Association, Kansas City, 2013. MO, Kansas City, 1993.
5. Stojanov D. Konstruktivizam kao paradigma. Beograd, Institut za pedagoška istraživanja, 2005. Br. 3 (in Serb)
6. Spaić N. Geneza i mogućnosti razvijajuće nastave. Pedagogija, Beograd, 2007, vol. LXII, br. 4. (in Serb)
7. Đorđević J. Teorije i shvatanja o nastavi i razvoju. Pedagoška stvarnost, Novi Sad, 2009, vol. 50, br. 9–10. (in Serb)
8. Štefanc D., Muršak J. Konstruktivizem in pedagogika. Sodobna pedagogika, Ljubljana, 2008, br. 4. (in Serb)
9. Vygotskiy L. S. Sobranie soch.ineniy v 61 tomah. Collected Works: In 6 Vols. Moscow, 1983, vol. 3, 368 p. (in Russ)
10. Lave J., Wenger E. Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. UK, 2003, 138 p.
11. Moll L. C. L. S. Vygotsky and Education. New York, Routledge Publ., 2014, 173 p.
12. Wenger E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. UK, 1998, 318 p.
13. Petrenko V. F. Constructivism as a new paradigm in the human sciences. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Series 12. Sociology, 2010, no. 2, pp. 127–133. (in Russ)
14. Baskanskiy O. E., Kucher E. N. Cognitive science: from cognition to ac-tion. Moscow, KomKniga Publ., 2005, 184 p. (in Russ)
15. Vinogradov E. G. Constructivism, pluralism and ontology. Kentavr: Methodological and igrotechnical almanac, 2000, no. 24, pp. 32–38. (in Russ)
16. Tsokolov S. A. Discourse of radical constructivism: Traditions of skepti-cism in modern philosophy and the theory of knowledge. München, 2000, 324 p. (in Russ)
17. Watzlawick P. How Real is Real? Boston: Boston U. P., 1979, 175 p.
18. Gergen C. J. Social constructionism: knowledge and practice. Minsk, 2003, 232 p. (in Russ)
19. Rockmore T. Kant on representationism and constructivism. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2005, no. 1, pp. 35–46. (in Russ)
20. Matthews M. R. Old wine bottles with constructivist epistemology. Urbana, University of Illinois Publ., 1992, pp. 303–311.
21. Kanselaar G. Constructivism and socio-constructivism. Edu. Fss. Uu.Nl. 2002. pp. 1. Available at: http://edu.fss.uu.nl/medewerk-ers/gk/files/Constructivism-gk.pdf (access date: 26.03.2019).
22. Rowlands S., Carson R. The contradictions in the constructivist dis-course. Philosophy of mathematics educational journal, 2001, vol. 14, pp. 1. Available at: http://www.people.ex.uk/Pernest/pome14/rowlands.pdf (access date: 26.03.2019).
23. Babich N. Constructivism: learning and teaching. Bulletin of the Krasno-yarsk V. P. Astafiev State Pedagogical University, 2013, no. 3 (25), pp. 6–30. (in Russ)
24. Wendt M. Konstruktivische Fremdsprachen Didaktik: Lerner – und hand-lungsorientierter Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tübingen, 1996, 112 p. (in Germ)
25. Dewey D. Pedagogy and psychology of thinking. Moscow, Perfection Publ., 1997, 208 p. (in Russ)
26. Pluzhnikova N. N. Constructivism pedagogy as a methodological model of modern culture. Bulletin of the association of universities of tourism and service, 2016, no. 10 (3), pp. 65–74. (in Russ)
27. Petrovichev V. M., Ivanova V. I. Methodological constructivism and cul-ture of pedagogical research. News of Tula State University. Ser. «Humanities», 2014, no. 4–1, pp. 39–47. (in Russ)
28. Cole M., Wertsch J. V. Beyond the individual – social development in dis-ability and social development. Human Development, 1996, vol. 39 (5), pp. 250–256.
29. von Glasersfeld E. Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Syntese, 1989, vol. 80, pp. 121–140.
30. Duffy T., Cunningham D. Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In: D. H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996, pp. 170–198.
31. Kezin A. V. Radical constructivism: knowledge in the «cave». Moscow Uni-versity Bulletin. Series 7. Philosophy, 2004, no. 4, pp. 3–24. (in Russ)
32. Gergen K. J. The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 1985, vol. 40 (3), pp. 266–275.
33. Pratt D. D. Dobro poučavanje: Jedno rješenje za sve. Edupoint časopis, 2006, vol. 6 (8), pp. 29–37. (in Serb)
34. Van Boxtel C., Van der Linden J., Kanselaar G. Collaborative learning tasks of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 2000, vol. 10 (4), pp. 311–330.
35. Robbins J. Contexts, collaboration and cultural tools: a sociocultural per-spective on children»s thinking. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2005, vol. 6 (2), pp. 140–149.
36. Rogoff B. The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press, 2003, XIII, 448 p.
37. Wood D., Bruner J., Ross G. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1976, Vol. 17 (2), pp. 89–100.
38. Stone C. A. What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In: E. A. For-man, N. M. Minick, C. A. Stone (Eds.), Context for learning. Sociocultural dy-namic in children development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 169–183.
Supplementary files
For citation: Arpentieva M.R., Menshikov P.V., Stepanovа O.P., Tokar O.V., Bazhenova N.G., Bazhenova E.D. Psychology of didactic communication: innovation constructivist approach. Professional education in the modern world. 2019;9(3):3121- 3129. https://doi.org/10.15372/PEMW20190324
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
