https://doi.org/10.53656/ped2022-5.04

Резюме. The deepening and complication of connections in today's globalized world have led to an increased interest among scientists in the problem of formation of communicative culture of future professionals in all industries. Many scientific works of both Ukrainian and foreign scientists are devoted to the problem of formation of communicative culture of future teachers. However, scientists mainly consider the problem of formation of communicative culture of future professionals separately from other types of culture. As a result, the scientific achievements of scientists may not be fully implemented in practice. This leads to a lot of gaps in the training of future teachers. The insufficient level of communicative culture of teachers creates a barrier for the spiritual, psychophysiological and social development of children. The purpose of this article is to determine the effectiveness of cultural dialogue technology techniques in the formation of communicative culture of future teachers in primary school. To achieve this goal, the following research methods have been used: analysis of the development of communicative culture of elementary school teacher, more specifically students at Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University (Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine), participants questionnaires, various diagnostic methods, pedagogical experiment, as well as statistical methods. 92 students of the pedagogical faculty of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian University participated in the experimental work. The results of the experimental work confirmed the effectiveness of the technology of culture dialogue in the formation of communicative culture of prospective primary school teachers.

Ключови думи: communicative culture; cultural approach; dialogue; technology of cultural dialogue

Introduction

The Pedagogical Constitution of Europe (2013) emphasizes that the future of each nation and country depends on the qualitative training of future educators. In Ukraine, the problem of development of pedagogical communication culture is reflected in many state documents. This problem has become especially relevant due to adoption of the concept of a new Ukrainian school (2016) and a new State standard of primary education (2018). “The completion of professional goals of primary school teachers' depends first of all on their ability to interact effectively with their environment” (Oliiar 2015, 5).

Numerous scientific research works of both Ukrainian and foreign scientists are devoted to the problem of formation of communicative culture of future teachers – N. Anikeieva, Sh. Amonashvili, O. Bodalev, O. Verbytsky, V. Kahn-Kalik, O. Leontiev, V. Semychenko, V. Sukhomlynsky, T. Yatsenko, etc.

At the same time, it should be noted that scientists mainly consider the problem of development of communicative culture of future specialists separately from other types of culture. This prevents the comprehensive consideration of the problem and leads to ignoring the numerous links in the interconnected chain of cultural phenomena. As a result, the scientific achievements cannot be fully implemented into practice. That causes a lot of gaps in the training of future teachers. Cases of extreme lack of teachers’ culture, when a student is not only subject to the authoritarian influence of the teacher, but also to the brutality, cruelty and intimidation, are still present in school teaching practice. A low level of teacher’s communicative culture inhibits the spiritual, psychophysiological and social development of children, as well as makes school students more susceptible to neuroses and psychoses. Shortcomings of the education system lead to a slowdown in democratic, socio-economic and political processes in Ukraine in general.

The purpose of the article is to determine the effectiveness of technology of cultural dialogue in the development of communicative culture of prospective primary school teachers.

Methods

92 third-year students of Pedagogical faculty of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University (32 students from control group and 30 students from two experimental groups; age 19 – 22 years, all randomly selected) participated in the experimental work. As for the gender-demographic group composition, all 3 groups predominantly consisted of female students (90%).

The following research methods were used to achieve this goal: the analysis of development of communicative culture of prospective teachers at Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, review of experiment participants questionnaires, diagnostic methods defining the empathy level of prospective teachers – “Scale of emotional response” (according to A. Megrabian and N. Epstein), diagnostics of the real structure of value orientations of personality of S. Bubnov, O. Kleptsova's “Methods of emotional response in pedagogical situations in interaction with subjects of pedagogical reality”, and V. Boyko`s test of communicative tolerance; the experimental implementation of culture dialogue technology into educational process; the analysis of effectiveness of culture dialogue technology based on students’ activity observation, review of their written assignments, practice diaries, as well as other materials.

Literature Review

The current article is based on the study of interaction between culture and education. M. Kagan considers this issue in the light of reformation of educational system in Ukraine (Kagan 1996). The concept of culture dialogue is described in scientific works of M. Bakhtin and V. Bibler (Bakhtin 1986; Bibler 1991). S. Kurganov and I. Solomadin have developed the conceptual background of culture dialogue school (Kurganov & Solomadin 1986). Those research works played a fundamental role in creation of dialogue educational technologies. According to Ukrainian scientist Y. Pidborskiy, these technologies facilitate the formation of innovative thinking in prospective teachers, help them to become active and creative, think independently, make own decisions and seek self-education (Pidborskiy 2012). The theoretical foundations of development of communicative culture of prospective pedagogues are described in scientific works of G. Bilavych, N. Blahun, A. Dombrovych, V. Van-Kalika, O. Koropetska, M. Oliiar, T. Yatsenko and others. These researchers “analyse the problems of interaction between language and the social environment, the relationship between the language norm and the building of national identity, the social determinants of language choice, study the issues of linguistic stability and linguistic tolerance, European principles of linguistic policy and prospects of their use in Ukraine, etc.” (Bilavych 2017, 68).

Conceptual background

Scholars interpret the teacher's communicative culture as part of his professional culture. It is a dynamic personal formation, which includes the art of speech and listening, objective perception and correct understanding of the interlocutor, as well as promotes the development of humane relationships.

The technology of educational dialogue is considered by modern scientists as one of the main technologies of development of communicative culture of a person. However, traditionally dialogic technologies are considered mainly as a heuristic method of mastering of the monologic knowledge. In return, the concept of cultural dialogue makes it possible to greatly expand the possibilities of dialog technology as a form and principle of organization of learning based on the conceptual foundations that underpin our research:

– the developing personality’s thinking should engage in dialogical communication with previous forms of culture, as well as with representatives of different generations interacting in a singular time space;

– the process of personality development as a dialogue of different historical epochs is a free communication between school students and teachers, junior and senior fellows. In the process of such communication, participants affirm their unique views of the world and themselves in it, form their own identity by assimilating the modern culture as a revival of previous cultures;

– the dialogue achieves its purpose only when the clashes of different points of view, disputes and unity of views, thoughts and evaluations are constantly based on the internal dialogue of an individual; these two types of dialogue are the source of the creative self-development of an individual, contributing to the reorientation of the “educated person” to the “person of culture” (Dychkivska 2004, 161 – 162).

Discussion

Culture and education are closely linked and exist in a constant dialogue. The culture concentrates all aspects of humanity's existence: spiritual, moral, material, social, etc. In its turn, education through a dialogue with culture is a main sociocultural tool for the realization of cultural heritage.

The most important trend in the development of education of Ukraine today is the formation of a single pan-European educational space based on a dialogue of cultures, which makes it possible to choose the values of the modern historical era. In this regard, there is an active rethinking of theoretical and pedagogical approaches to the professional training of prospective teachers. In particular, one of the most relevant methodological approaches to the formation of the content of pedagogical education in Ukraine is the cultural approach. The essence of the cultural approach lies in the focus of the educational process on the development of cultural personality of a specialist, the formation of a student as a carrier of general and professional culture (Nikitina 2002, 54).

A. Novikov has a good idea about the following: “modern orientations of national education on the formation of a “person of culture”, including professional education – on the formation of a “person of professional culture”, necessitate a fundamentally different approach to the formation of goals and content of education, namely: they should be revealed not in the concepts of “knowledge” and “ability”, but in the concepts of culture: “moral culture”, “aesthetic culture”, “information culture”, etc. With this approach, the goals and content of education drop their technocratic character, alienated from the human essence” (Novikov 2000, 49).

According to E. Bondarevskaia, the main values of education in the cultural approach, is a person as a subject of culture, education as a cultural development environment, that forms a personality using cultural values (universal, national, religious, etc.), as well as dialogue and creativity as means of self-development and existence of an individual (Bondarevskaia 1999, 124).

In the concept of the dialogue of cultures of M. Bakhtin – V. S. Bibler, dialogue is interpreted as a foundation of human consciousness, a constructive base of interaction between education and culture (Bakhtin 1986; Bibler 1975). In particular, in the field of education, the dialogue is aimed at mutual understanding, tolerance, empathy, enrichment with new content and ideas. Dialogue can be implemented either directly through communication (communication interaction) of two or more people, or through texts (publications, scientific works), as well as any other sign systems (photos, paintings, works of art, etc.) created by other people. The cultures of the past, present and future are in contact here with each other in the present, resulting in development of a new cultural reality enriched with past experiences. This process is directly related to the formation of communicative personality of a teacher. In communication with teachers, other educators and children in a school environment, texts of artistic and scholarly works, through the implementation of dialog technologies, a teacher acquires the qualitative features of a modern specialist (Bogoiavlenskaia 1993, 56). Own internal dialogue is crucially important as well. It is closely linked to the pedagogical reflexivity skills, without which it is impossible to imagine the quality professional activity of a teacher.

The idea of creativity is leading in the concept of the dialogue of cultures, since “the category of creativity... denotes the way in which a person is represented in culture, or, more precisely, the way of life of a person in culture” (Bibler 1991, 34). Creativity in the aspect of cultural dialogue is the production by the teacher of texts directed to oneself or to others that have a certain cultural content.

Dialogue relations lay in the heart of organization of the modern educational process in institutions of higher pedagogical education. The differences between the traditional and the dialogue systems in the communicative culture development of prospective primary school teachers are presented in Table 1.

As noted from Table 1, in the context of dialog teaching in the relations between teachers and students, the subject-subject relations of mutual respect, trust, openness and understanding, rejection of authoritarian forms of influence on the interlocutor are actively affirmed. In the process of knowledge mastering from all cycles of disciplines, there is a constant interaction with culture through dialogue of prospective teachers with themselves, the teacher, textbooks, computer equipment etc. Within the teaching process the varieties of the general culture of prospective teacher are formed, such as professional, legal, ethical, aesthetic, communicative, etc., which, in turn, is the basis for the implementation of the concept of dialogue of cultures into a professional activity. Thus, the dialogue of cultures is aimed at the mutual rapprochement and enrichment of the subjects of educational process, the acquisition of new cultural experience by both teachers and students.

Results

The study of the effectiveness of technology of cultural dialogue in the process of development of the communicative culture of prospective primary school teachers was carried out during the 2017 – 2018 academic year at the Pedagogical faculty of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpatian University (Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine).

The following criteria of well-formed communicative culture of students were defined:

1. Motivational-valuable criterion (awareness of the value of dialogical forms of pedagogical communication, recognition of the views and opinions of another person, the ability to recognize own and other people's identity, out-of-the box thinking, pedagogical reflection).

2. Organizational criterion (design of the nature of communicative interaction with students, the ability to organize it, and to analyze the results).

3. Communicative and activity-related criterion (attentive listening, understanding of another person’s speech, open expression of own thoughts, ability to ask questions, to encourage students to express their thoughts openly, tolerance and empathy).

Based on these criteria, we defined 3 levels of students' communicative culture: a high level (perception of another person's personality as a carrier of many “I”cultures, co-creation); medium (dialogical) – possession of technology of culture dialogue as a basis of dialogical interaction in the school environment; low (monologic) – selfish “I” as the basis of communicative activity, authoritarian type of communication with students.

The main objective of current experimental work was the organization of a dialogue environment in the studying process of the disciplines of pedagogical cycle, where prospective teachers were able to improve their communication skills in an atmosphere of co-creation.

At the ascertaining stage of the experimental work it was necessary to clarify the attitude of students towards their future teaching profession, their value priorities, and the level of knowledge about dialogue as a form of interaction between cultures. Conversations and questionnaires were conducted for this purpose. The questionnaires included the following questions: 1. Why did you choose a teaching profession? 2. What personal qualities of a teacher are important for his successful work? 3. How do you understand the term “teacher-student partnership”? 4. What is a dialogue? 5. How do you understand the concept of “dialogue of cultures”?

Answering the first question, only 32.6% of students stated that the profession of teacher is their vocation, they dreamed about it since childhood or belong to the dynasty of teachers, love children and enjoy communicating with them. Other students chose the teaching profession because it is prestigious (19.6%); important in society (14.1%); parents wanted it (13%); because they were unable to enter other more desirable specialties (12%); because their friends or relatives (8.7%) study here, etc. Thus, only one third of students made a conscious choice of teaching profession.

We ranked professionally important personal qualities of a teacher based on students` responses (Table 2).

As seen in Table 2, it is traditional for an old school model that students prefer the knowledge paradigm (professional knowledge and skills, knowledge of their subject) – 46.7%. It is very important that, in addition, the love for children, according to students, ranks second among the leading qualities of the teacher (45.7%). At the same time, such traits as the culture of communication with a student, and the ability to understand students occupy only 12th and 13th positions, the creative approach – 16th position in the list.

Mostly similar responses of students to 3rd and 4th questions of the questionnaire testified also the traditional views of students on the problem of teacher-student partnership and the role of dialogue in it. Most of the students (71.7%) described the dialogue as a conversation between two persons, partnership interaction as equal relationships between the teacher and the students (56.5%), and a mutual respect for each other (36.9%). Only 11.9% of respondents were able to fully describe the concept of “dialogue of cultures”. Thus, the students' answers indicated that their professional training is carried out mainly in a traditional way without taking into consideration the current changes in the educational paradigm in Ukraine and the rest of the world. This has become a wake-up call for us. After all, a stereotypical thinking, according to scientists, hinders the development of partnership dialogues in the school environment (Bondarevskaia 1995, 26).

The results of the questionnaire, as well as the use of diagnostic methods defining the empathy level of prospective teachers – “Scale of emotional response” – according to A. Megrabian and N. Epstein, diagnostics of the real structure of value orientations of personality of S. Bubnov, O. Kleptsova's “Methods of emotional response in pedagogical situations in interaction with subjects of pedagogical reality”, and V. Boyko`s test of communicative tolerance helped us to discover the levels of communication culture of students. As seen in Table 3, a high level of communicative culture was observed only in the aspect of motivation for pedagogical activity and values of future pedagogical activity. In the control group, this indicator was slightly higher (37.5%) than in the experimental groups (30% and 26.7%). As for the organizational and communicative and activity related criteria, none of the students reached a high level. A significant amount of students in both the control and experimental groups (from 16.7% to 43.8%) showed a low level of communicative culture.

The modelling experiment was conducted with the 3rd year students during 2017 – 2018 academic years in two experimental groups, and in the control group the training was carried out traditionally. The main tasks of the modelling experiment were: 1) change of a student's attitude from rigid “Socratic” dialogue as a form of previous periods of pedagogical culture development, to modern forms of culture dialogue based on empathy, reflection, orientation on the inner world of the student, self-knowledge and self-understanding as a prospective teacher; 2) teaching students to model a constructive dialog environment at school; 3) improving the culture of dialogue (ability to correctly ask questions, listen carefully to the answer, adequately respond to what is said taking into account the conditions of communication, age and individual characteristics of the interlocutor, etc.).

The development of students' communicative culture based on the technology of cultural dialogue was carried out in the studying process of the disciplines of the pedagogical cycle. Different forms and methods of teaching (heuristic dialogue, debate, discussion, problematic lectures, micro-research seminars, etc.) were used for this purpose. During the third year study of such disciplines as “Pedagogical Innovation”, “Pedagogical Mastery”, students were introduced to the content of the concept of dialogue of cultures of W. Bibler, the main tasks of the school of dialogue of cultures and ways of their implementation. The main task of the course of “Theory and Methods of Education” was to inform students that the purpose of any direction of educational work with school students is to form a certain type of personality culture – moral, mental, physical, labour, aesthetic, environmental, legal, communicative, etc.

A case method was one of the leading ones during practical lessons. Cases contained a system of texts from the works of teachers and scholars of different historical eras, classics of pedagogical science, modern scholars as expressers of the pedagogical culture of present time. Thematically, the textual passages were related to the vision of the future elementary school student as a carrier of various images, statuses and roles, a system of values, a “person of culture” at a certain age stage of personality development. While working with texts, students had to answer a series of questions: 1) What problems are revealed in the passage? 2) Which statements now seem contradictory to you and why? 3) Outline your own views on this issue. 4) Formulate problematic questions for your mates. 5) Organize a dialogue with them. These and similar types of work allowed students to develop critical thinking, form their own views on pedagogical phenomena and themselves in them, their personal views, their own “I” through the acquisition of the achievements of modern culture and previous cultures, value orientations based on consideration of the inner world of students. Students also participated in independent creative works, essays in which they expressed their opinions about certain statements related to the norms of communicative culture, for example: “It is difficult to communicate with a partner of another intellectual level”, “You should always be rude in response to other people’s rudeness”, “It's always nice to be in charge of other people” and more.

During practical training in pedagogical disciplines, we have practiced with students various techniques of dialogue. The main form of training was working in small groups (5 – 7 students), the composition of which was changed regularly. In the process of dialogic interaction in groups, students gained experience in constructive dialogue, the ability to defend their own “I-view”, to compare it with the views of other members of the group and to respect it, to listen to recommendations, to reflect. At the end of the class, students reflected on their own dialogical activities that contributed to the recognition of the importance of dialogical relationships and their own shortcomings in the process (Blahun 2017).

An elective “Communicative Pedagogy” course was developed for students of the experimental groups, which covered both theoretical and practically oriented methodical aspects of communicative culture development of prospective teachers based on technology of cultural dialogue. The main objectives of the course were: 1) Systematize students' knowledge about the essence of technology of cultural dialogue. 2) Develop the qualities of a communicative personality of a prospective elementary school teacher. 3) Develop the ability of students to use effective forms, methods and ways of improving their own communicative culture. 4) Diagnose the stage of development of communicative culture.

Students` work in the Laboratory of Educational Innovations at Vasyl Stefanyk National Precarpathian University promoted their adoption of the acquired knowledge and mastery of the technology of cultural dialogue. Communication trainings, meetings and discussions with supervisor teachers and trainers about problems of the new Ukrainian school were held during the laboratory work with students. Independent research work of students with different groups of school students (gifted children, children with low educational success, children with deviant behaviour, children from incomplete families, etc.) was organized in order to develop such qualities of future teachers as understanding of the sociocultural features of these groups, ability to effectively communicate with these groups and support them, empathy and tolerance. There was a constant dialogic interaction between students and teachers, between students themselves, with primary school teachers, and younger school students. Students participated in didactic and simulation games based on the lessons they have previously developed themselves. Those were followed by a discussion of the communicative behaviour of their own, as well as of their companions according to a pre-developed series of questions.

The knowledge and skills acquired by students during the 5th semester study of disciplines of pedagogical cycle were used in the course of their professional activity during the pedagogical practice in the 6th semester. An experimental work aimed at developing the image of a future prospective as a specialist in the field of cultural dialogue was completed at this stage. For the students of experimental groups a program of practical training was developed. Individual research and educational tasks were developed for each student, and included the following three components: 1. Observation of teacher's dialogical activity, and its analysis. 2. The student's implementation of own communication activity and its reflection. 3. Final analysis of one's own communication activity, its evaluation by elementary school teacher, supervisor teachers, as well as self- and mutual evaluation.

Analysis of observations of students` work, their practical diaries and other materials revealed the results of the modelling experiment, summarized in table 4.

As seen in Table 4, there were some positive changes in the control group, in particular, slightly fewer students demonstrated a low level according to all three criteria. At the same time, in both experimental groups, from 4 (13.3%) to 6 (20%) students reached a high level (there were no such students at the beginning of work according to organizational, and communicative and activity related criteria). The number of students in the experimental groups, who were characterized by a low level of communicative culture, also decreased significantly.

In particular, significant positive changes were observed when considering indicators of motivational-valuable criterion. All of the students recognized the importance of incorporation of technology of dialogue into their professional activities, its positive impact on relationships with school students. Students became more open, tolerant, responsive to children, lenient of points of views of other people; students mastered the skills of asking different types of questions (closed, open and detailed), empathetic listening, greater flexibility in various communication situations, and constant reflection on their own communication activities, etc.

Students of the experimental groups changed significantly their attitude towards the use of cultural experience of the past. Prospective educators were actively interested in exploring the works of prominent scientists, as well as modern psychological and pedagogical literature. This has facilitated students’ comprehensive understanding of the essence and importance of the dialogue of pedagogical cultures of different times in their future professional activity.

Conclusion

1. Cultural awareness of pedagogical phenomena is quite natural, and it is caused by a close connection between education and culture. The cultural approach to education plays an important role because it integrates various scientific achievements related to studying of the cultural heritage of mankind.

2. The modern educator is considered by scientists as a carrier and creator of general and professional culture, as a person possessing humanistic culturalappropriate thinking, ability of constant self-improvement and creative selfdevelopment. Training of such specialists requires significant changes in the system of higher pedagogical education.

3. The technology of dialogue of cultures in a higher educational institution is a special form of professional training, which advocates for the equality of teachers and students; constitutive behaviour of the participants of dialogue; promotion of independence of students' opinions; tolerance, partnership, empathy between the participants of the dialogue; creation of conditions for open sharing of thoughts; the students’ right for criticism; the right of dialogue participants to make mistakes; ensuring a culture of dialogic interaction; the birth of new socio-cultural information in the process of dialogue; assimilation of new communicative experience by students; reflection of communicative behaviour of the prospective teacher.

4. Mastering the technology of cultural dialogue is a complex process, the results of which are reflected in motivational-valuable, activity-related and reflexive criteria. According to those criteria, 3 levels of student groups were defined: high level (perception of another person's personality as a carrier of many “I”-cultures, co-creation); medium (dialogical) – possession of technology of dialogue of cultures as a basis of dialogical interaction in a school environment; low (monologic) – selfish “I” as the basis of communication activity, authoritarian type of communication with school students.

5. Dialogue interaction in the context of pedagogical process can be successful only if all of its participants recognize themselves as part of a single, adequately organized dialogue environment, as partners engaged in dialogue in order to achieve mutual understanding.

6. The results of the experimental work confirmed the effectiveness of technology of the dialogue of cultures in enhancement of the communicative culture of prospective primary school teachers.

REFERENCES

BAKHTIN, M., 1986. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. Moskva: Imaginative literature [In Russian].

BIBLER, V., 1975. Thinking as creativity (introduction to the logic of mental dialogue). Moskva: Politizdat [In Russian].

BIBLER, V. S., 1991. Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, or Poetics and Culture. Moskva: Progress: Gnosis [In Russian].

BILAVYCH, H. & SAVCHUK, B., 2017. Ukrainian scientific language in the context of future teachers' scientific activity. Innovation in education, 6, 67 – 74 [In Ukrainian].

BLAHUN, N., 2017. Fundamentals of culture and technology of speech. Ivano-Frankivsk [In Ukrainian].

BOGOIAVLENSKAIA, D., 1993. Creative personality: its diagnosis and support. University psychological service: principles, work experience. Moscow [In Russian].

BONDAREVSKAIA, E. 1995. Education as a revival of a citizen, a person of culture and morality. Rostov-na-Donu [In Russian].

BONDAREVSKAIA, E. & KULNEVICH, S., 1999. Pedagogy: personality in humanistic theories and education systems. Rostov-na-Donu: Creative Center Teacher [In Russian].

DYCHKIVSKA, I. 2014. Innovative pedagogical technologies. Kyiv: Academwid [In Ukrainian].

KAGAN, M., 1996. The Philosophy of culture. Sankt-Peterburg [In Russian].

KURGANOV, S., 1989. Child and adult in educational dialogue. Moskva: Education [In Russian].

KURGANOV, S. & SOLOMADIN, I., 1986. Educational dialogue and psychological research of thinking process. Methodological issues of science fundamentals. Kyiv: Scientific thought [In Ukrainian].

NIKITINA, N., ZHELEZNYAKOVA, O. & PETUHOV, M., 2002. Fundamentals of professional pedagogical activity. Moskva: Craftsmanship [In Russian].

NOVIKOV, A., 2000. Russian education in a new era. Moskva: Egves [In Russian].

OLIIAR, M., 2015. Theory and practice of forming communicative-strategic competence of future primary school teachers. Ivano-Frankivsk: Simyk [In Ukrainian].

PIDBORKSKIY, Y. 2012. The implementation of dialogue technologies in educational process. Bulletin of Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University, 22(257), 132 – 139 [In Ukrainian].