Peculiarities Of Dialogical Thinking Formation In Future Teachers

Abstract

The article raises the question of training a professional teacher with dialogical thinking at a university. The authors proceed from the fact that the dialogical nature of thinking reflects the essential properties of a person. Particular attention is paid to the peculiarities of the formation of future teachers of dialogical thinking in pedagogical activity. The multidimensionality of pedagogical activity is shown, which is the upbringing and teaching influence of the teacher on the student, aimed at his personal, intellectual and activity development. The conditions for the formation of dialogical thinking in future primary school teachers and technology teachers in the process of university education are determined. The model of the process of forming dialogical thinking in future teachers is presented. Within the framework of the study, a diagnostic program was developed. The study is based on a humanitarian-anthropological approach and value-oriented psychology, according to which the formation of dialogical thinking is the result of students' mastering of activities related to self-cognition in dialogue situations and with reflection of the system of their values. The article deals with the analysis of the moments related to barriers in communication, the distinction between "monologue" and "dialogical" speech. The authors analyzed the work with future teachers on the formation of their dialogical thinking at the intermediate stage. The authors note that the research continues, and its prospects are associated with the development and implementation of the technology for the professional training of future teachers, based on the formation of their dialogical thinking.

Keywords: Future teacher, dialogical thinking, dialogue, humanitarian-anthropological approach, value-oriented psychology

Introduction

The changes taking place in the world today and having a global character require increased attention to the role of the person and to the humanitarian problems of education. The need to form a vocational education system that meets not only the requirements of the labor market and the needs of an innovative economy, but also the needs of the individual is noted. Important tasks of innovative development of education are associated with focusing on a person who is able to “reach a qualitatively new understanding of reality” (Kuhn, 2010) or a person with dialogical thinking overcoming the unambiguity and fragmentation of the vision of the world. The lack of dialogical thinking and dialogicity as a quality of relations between people leads to conflicts and reduces the level of life. This is all the more relevant today, when, in the context of the digitalization of society, there is a lack of connections with the deep foundations of a person and a decrease in the proportion of "live" contacts between people. And therefore, among the tasks of higher education, the most important is the training of teachers who are not only specialists in the subject, but are able to be in dialogue with the child and ensure the development of a dialogical personality.

Problem Statement

At present, the training of a professional teacher with dialogical thinking should become a key area of activity for universities. The education sector no longer needs a specialist teacher of one or two subjects, but needs a professional who is capable of designing, creating and organizing conditions for achieving educational goals. In the context of the ideas of the humanization of society and education, such a teacher must be able to create a humanitarian educational environment, the basis of which is dialogue as a component of the content of education, a way of cognition and a form of pedagogical interaction. Accordingly, a teacher must have dialogical thinking. Thinking in science is known as the highest cognitive mental process the essence of which is the generation of new knowledge on the basis of creative reflection and transformation of reality by a person. In foreign and domestic literature, most often, the problems of critical thinking are investigated. Thinking arises when it is necessary to solve a problem either in the process of cognition, or in the process of practical activity. In fact, it is always a search for an answer to emerging questions. The problems of thinking, one way or another, relate to a person's determination of their place in the world, the correlation “I am the Other”. The teacher constantly faces such tasks-questions when it is required to carry out mental operations: analysis, synthesis, comparison, abstraction, generalization, concretization. And different teachers can "reflect" in their thinking completely different attitudes towards one and the same object. The question arises as to how clearly a teacher can distinguish certain pedagogical phenomena and adequately perceive them. In particular, a "monologic" view of a child will represent them with the characteristics of a student, while a "dialogical" view will be able to objectively see the entire integrity of a person.

Research Questions

We are talking about a special type of thinking—dialogical one. Unlike monological thinking, which "separates" and opposes, dialogical thinking unites everything, connects everything into integrity. The system of our relations is permeated with “feedback loops” (Inam, 2011). And it is important for a teacher to be able to “read” and take these connections into account when in contact with a child. Dialogue presupposes “I-You-relationship” (Petrakova, 2017). This is “value-semantic and personal equality” (Bykov, 2014). The beginning of such thinking, according to A.I. Vvedensky, is “not I, but We” (as cited in Biryukov & Biryukova, 2011). The dialogical nature of thinking is due to the very specificity of “human involvement in a universal relationship” (Semenov, 2007). And it reflects the essential properties of a person: their universality, infinity, identification with “not-I” (Semenov, 2007). Thinking is inherently dialogical, while the teacher may not fully use its dialogical potential if they are in the position of a monological “division of resources”, but not their addition.

In order to identify the features of the formation of dialogic thinking in future teachers, we need to clearly understand how the phenomenon of such thinking manifests itself in pedagogical activity. Pedagogical activity is multifaceted. It represents the upbringing and teaching influence of a teacher on a student, aimed at their personal, intellectual and demiurgic development (Zimnyaya, 2000). The impact, to a greater extent, is indirect. Often the difficulties associated with this lie in the inability to see the student as an integral personality in the process of formation and development (Zimnyaya, 2000). Such inability is the evidence of the underdevelopment of dialogical thinking. In this case, the teacher can compare one student to another. The teacher may not notice how, instead of supporting the kid, being on an equal footing with them, understanding them and explaining something to them, the teacher moralizes the student, reproaches, demands, puts them in a position of dependence. Dialogical thinking, capable of grasping the situation in all its multidimensionality and polyvariety of meanings, allows the teacher to see the student not as a functional role, but as a person in his own unique developmental situation.

Purpose of the Study

The task of our research was to determine the conditions for the formation of dialogical thinking in future primary school teachers and technology teachers in the process of higher education. Such thinking is important for training a teacher who is able to exist not in the pedagogy of authority and manipulation, but in the “pedagogy of support” (Kornetov, 2015). The modern teacher should know himself well as a pedagogical "tool". And first of all, a tool of thinking. He is able to “look inside himself and test his original values” (Gadetsky, 2019). The purpose of this article is to present the features of the process of forming the quality under study as a system of scientific, methodological and didactic guidelines for higher education teachers.

Research Methods

The methodological basis of the research was presented by the humanitarian-anthropological approach and value-oriented psychology, according to which the formation of dialogical thinking is the result of students' mastering of activities related to self-knowledge in dialogue situations and with reflection of their value system.

As research methods we used: analysis of the results of philosophical, pedagogical, psychological and interdisciplinary treatises on dialogue, thinking and human consciousness, dialogical pedagogical activity; generalization of empirical data on the manifestations of dialogic thinking in future teachers and the conditions for its formation; measuring the levels of formation of dialogical thinking; theoretical modeling of the process under study; approbation of the developed model within the framework of the formative experiment.

Findings

We have chosen the following criteria as the initial elements of the model of the dialogical thinking formation in future teachers:

1) the need for dialogue as a value and sense of their future profession;

2) knowledge about dialogue as a way of thinking, which involves a holistic vision of objects, phenomena and processes;

3) the experience of possessing knowledge and applying it in situations of communication with another person;

4) the emotional and psychological readiness for dialogical interaction in situations of difficult communication and conflict;

5) the reflection and self-control of one's own actions in terms of their dialogic nature.

As part of the study, we have developed a diagnostic program that is based on these criteria (Table 1).

In order to classify students to one or another level of formation of dialogical thinking, we used a scale of levels. A high level of formation of dialogical thinking corresponds to: the position of “loving contemplation”; non-judgmental perception; acceptance of the duality of the world; understanding the uniqueness of any person; the ability to be in a relationship of value-semantic equality; awareness of the connections and unity of everything with everything; ability to communicate constructively. At the middle level of the formation of dialogical thinking, it is noted: knowledge and understanding of the importance of dialogue; striving for dialogical interaction; insufficient awareness of the meanings of another person; not always adequate perception of a conflict situation; episodes of critical and value judgment. The low level is characterized by: lack of pronounced motivation for dialogue; predominantly monologue speech with unambiguous assessments; one-sided perception (without understanding the context); insufficient formation of the ability for self-reflection.

Our understanding of the process of forming the dialogical thinking in future teachers is based on several ideas. First of all, it is the idea that such thinking can be formed not through the transmission of some information, but in the context of the dialogue itself. Dialogue can only be taught through a dialogue. Dialogic thinking is formed in a situation where such thinking is in demand. This means that it is necessary to specifically design and experience these situations. Another idea that is important to us concerns the inner side of education. The educational process can be organized in different ways, creating different external conditions, but self-education takes place “inside” each individual person and taking into account his capabilities. It is important, in this regard, when creating a dialogical situation, to understand these possibilities and rely on the contexts that exist in this group of students. In addition, one must realize that the phenomena of thinking cannot be "touched" and seen directly. And this means that we need such an activity that will allow the very process of thinking to objectify. Such objectification is possible within the framework of textual-dialogical activity (Belova, 2016). The dialogue about texts as copyright messages is the next idea that underlies the development of our model. Another important idea concerns the logic of the development of thinking. According to psychology, it is associated with speech and reflects the general laws of the holistic development of a person. This means that the future teacher must "go over again" and comprehend some of the stages in the development of their thinking.

The formation of the dialogical thinking of future teachers involves the analysis of emerging problem situations that may be associated with a specific student but become the property of others. In particular, we are talking about the analysis of moments related to barriers in communication, the distinction between "monological" and "dialogical" speech. For example, excessive theorizing and providing “the only correct” arguments; tendency to one-sided interpretations; inability to listen to the interlocutor; inability to see the context of the text; unaddressed and alienated utterance; closedness in communication and distrust in interlocutors; inability to ask questions; lack of interest in another person. It is important for a teacher in situations of communication with a student to be interested and involved, to be able to hear, focus on the "flow" of communication (Csikszentmihalyi, 2001), to clarify, reflect his feelings and judgments.

The process of forming dialogical thinking in future teachers involves five stages: 1) "emotional-dialogical", designed to arouse students' interest in dialogue as a way of thinking; 2) "cognitive-dialogical", allowing to accumulate the experience of cognition of dialogical thinking; 3) "communicative-dialogical", which gives an understanding of dialogue as a form of communication; 4) "demiurgic-dialogical", which forms the ability to create a product of activity as a result of dialogical thinking; 5) "reflexive-dialogical", associated with the experience of analysis and adequate assessment of their educational activities.

Based on the ideas of M.M. Bakhtin, who singled out interrogation as the main characteristic of dialogue, we came to the conclusion that the basis of work with students at all stages is a system of special questions that encourage them to develop dialogical thinking. Such questions should include the possibility of reflecting the nature of one's thinking and the possibility of “objective” knowledge of reality as “loving perception” (Gadetsky, 2019). On the basis of such questions, future teachers were asked to make a diary "How do I think about ...". In fact, these are a kind of "reflexive pauses" that allow students to "catch" their own judgments, assessments, attitudes at different moments of the educational process. The unity of the moment of living and its reflection is what is important here. And this is the idea of the “observing I”, when the possibilities of “western”, “objective” cognition are combined with “eastern-mystical” cognition, sensory cognition (Deikman, 2007).

An example of questions (the technique of unfinished sentences), around which the thinking of students is organized: "I think that this lesson ..."; "I see that I am present at this lesson in the role of ..."; "The thought that worries me now ..."; "What new have I learned about myself ..." etc. The questions here are not important as such, more like they are a material for reflection. For example, “What new have I learned about myself ...” allowed, in dialogue with students, reaching the level of thinking about how through the nature of our listening (attentive or inattentive, included or uninterested) and our relationship to the speaker we can learn about ourselves. The speaker we listen to tells us “about us” not through the information that comes from them, but through the communication situation in which we are. In such conversations, students begin to see the broad context of the teacher's thinking, communication and activities. They fully begin to realize that a person is contradictory and non-uniform: he lives and functions on two different levels of existence—involved and uninvolved (Subbotsky, 2007). It is important to help them look for information that helps them see themselves from different angles as the bearer of "relative" thinking. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the words of Kurpatov (2019), the fact that it seems to us that we understand another person is only an annoying misunderstanding, to which we owe our consciousness, desperately not fond of demonstrating its desperate failure.

Using the analysis of communication transactions and psychodiagnostic techniques, we identified the difficulties of future teachers in the formation of dialogical thinking in them. They are associated with a lack of knowledge about subjective reality (phenomena of the inner world); one-sided perception of oneself and other people as carriers of certain roles; unwillingness to accept a situation of openness and trust in another person in a communication situation; the presence of stereotypes of pedagogical thinking (upholding the point of view "how it should be"); lack of holistic and constructive perception of pedagogical reality. As the students got to know themselves and their own inner world, they accumulated experience of clearer distinctions and broader vision of certain ideas, opinions, problems. They learned to separate the object of their vision (interlocutor, educational material, their behavior), the subject (themselves, their role), the process of seeing/cognition itself.

Conclusion

Our work with future teachers on the formation of their dialogical thinking continues. But already now, at an intermediate stage, its analysis allows concluding that this process largely depends on the work of self-cognition. As they study themselves as a "tool" of cognition, as they explore their needs, meanings, values, the context of their behavior, their perception and attention, the students become more and more interested in dialogue. In their speech, unambiguous value judgments became less common. They learned to ask questions, wanting to clarify their vision of certain phenomena. And what is most important, interest in my future profession has grown greatly. Many students made, in some way, the discovery that pedagogical activity begins not so much with knowledge of pedagogical tools and methods, but with their own "head", with their thinking and perception of a particular child. Summarizing, among the features of the formation of dialogical thinking, the following factors can be distinguished: identification of dialogical potential in educational information, which is reflected in its perception by a person; connection of the communication situation with the possibility of self-knowledge; inclusion of questions for self-reflection in learning situations; the implementation of the process under study through the sequential deployment of the stages at which the cognition of dialogical attitudes, dialogical thinking, dialogic communication, dialogic activity, dialogic introspection is carried out. Our research continues, and its prospects are associated with the development and implementation of technology for the professional training of future teachers, based on the formation of their dialogical thinking.

References

• Belova, S. V. (2016). Teacher as an “element” of the humanitarian educational environment. The value potential of interaction in the educational environment. Kruton.

• Biryukov, B. V., & Biryukova, L. G. (2011). Alexander Ivanovich Vvedensky as a logician. Logical Investigat., 17, 34–68.

• Bykov, S. V. (2014). The value-semantic foundations of dialogical communication in the concept of existential-ontological psychology by M. M. Bakhtin. Bull. of the Samara Human. Acad. Ser. Psychol., 2(16), 33–40.

• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2001). Expressive Forms and the Evolution of Consciousness. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 5180–5186). Elsevier.

• Deikman, A. D. (2007). The observing me: mysticism and psychiatry. Enneagon Press.

• Gadetsky, O. G. (2019). Value-Based Psychology: A Universal Approach to Solving Psychological Problems. LLC “Media-Policy”.

• Inam, W. (2011). The role of feedback in various systemic methodologies. Manag. Probl. in soc. Syst., 3(5), 56–80.

• Kornetov, G. B. (2015). Pedagogy of authority, manipulation and support. Academia. Pedag. J. of the Moscow reg., 3(5), 46–56.

• Kuhn, T. (2010). The structure of scientific revolutions. Researcher, 1-2, 46–60.

• Kurpatov, A. V. (2019). The laws of the brain. Universal rules. LLC “Capital”.

• Petrakova, N. V. (2017). The structure of interhuman relations in the philosophy of M. Buber. Bull. of the Buryat State Univer. Pedag. Philol. Philos, 5, 109–117.

• Semenov, I. N. (2007). The psychology of human integrity. Psychol. Quest., 3, 180–181.

• Subbotsky, E. V. (2007). Consciousness under construction. Meaning.

• Zimnyaya, I. A. (2000). Pedagogical psychology. Logos.