Characteristic features of the principle of dialogic communication. Conditions for dialogical communication. Forms of organizing dialogue interaction in the classroom

O. and interaction between people, which is carried out in accordance with the principles, laws and mechanisms of the psychology of dialogue. If the traditional idea of ​​D. o. comes down to a conversation between two people, an alternating exchange of statements and remarks (actions, gestures, etc.), then in modern. father psychology D. o. is understood as an intersubjective (intersubjective) phenomenon of perception and interaction, arising only under certain conditions. Before. realizes genuine mutual understanding and mutual disclosure of the subjects of O. It reveals the uniqueness of human individuality, affirms the dignity (self-worth) and self-sufficiency of everyone, promotes personal development and creates opportunities for creativity and self-actualization. Fundamentally important for understanding the nature of dialogue is the etymological analysis of the term “dialogue”, according to which “dialogue” can literally be translated as “different logoi”, as “diversity of words”, “different logics (different positions, etc.). )". D. o. is such a verbal and speech interaction between people, in which “different logos” (words, speeches, positions, logics) form an integral unity of human conversation and interhuman existence. Moreover, the first part of the word “dialog” comes not from the prefix “di-” (two), but from the gr. the prefix “dia-”, which means “different”, “between”, “through”. Consequently, the content of the concept of “dialogue” lies not so much in the fact that two individuals participate in a conversation (as in a “dyad” consisting of two people), but in the fact that the points of view (logic, semantic positions) of two or more. communicating people are different, but necessary and complementary. In the 20th century foreign thinkers M. Buber, F. Rosenzweig, F. Ebner, E. Levinas, O. Rosenstock-Hüssy and others carried out philosophical research that reveals the true depth and versatility of the phenomenon of dialogue. Original and fundamental ideas about the dialogic nature of interhuman relations and the essence of human existence were developed in the works of Russian philosophers M. M. Bakhtin, S. L. Frank, P. A. Florensky, N. A. Berdyaev, V. S. Bibler and etc. Philosophy. and psychol. studies show that D. o. differs in a number of characteristics and creates special relationships between people, where the relationship between I and YOU is their ontological and anthropological reality. M. Buber and M. M. Bakhtin came to the conclusion that the concepts of dialogue and monologue are not so much linguistic concepts as existential-ontological, spiritual-anthropological categories. But even from the standpoint of the sciences of language, not every speech is a dialogue. O. can be not only dialogical, but also monological. Various intermediate forms of O. are also possible, for example, dialogized monologues and monologized dialogues. There are many mediated and transformed forms of dialogue, the understanding of which requires a broader view of the nature and forms of human communication. In linguistic terms, dialogue is a form speech activity, i.e., dialogical speech, the essence and content of the cut is fundamentally different from the features of monologue speech. For example, L.P. Yakubinsky understands dialogue as a sequence of intermittent forms of interaction, carried out through a relatively quick change of actions and reactions of interacting individuals. In terms of content, dialogue is a conversation on everyday and business topics, which is characterized by a relatively quick exchange of interdependent remarks. In dialogic speech there is no pre-determined or thought-out of remarks, and there is no premeditated coherence in their construction. Before. is complex in reflection, personal in content and open in the way people address each other. It is optimal from the point of view. communication and has developmental, educational and creative potential both in the communication of adults with children and in the communication of adults themselves. According to G. A. Kovalev, D. o. And dialogical relationship distinguished by the equality of the subjects of O., their a priori unconditional acceptance of each other, and their focus on the individual uniqueness of each. The standards and principles of the organization of D. o. are the emotional and personal openness of O. partners, the attitude towards each other’s states, non-judgment, trust and sincerity in the expression of feelings and states. Despite the comparative novelty of the dialogical approach to the study of O. and the need for further development and study of the D. o. its main provisions are applicable to the analysis of mass communication, intergroup O. and O. cultures. Identified def. psychol. mechanisms and effects of violation of these types of communication, which indicate that it is the “failure” of the dialogic component that leads to this kind of violation. Lit.: Bakhtin M. M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979; Dyakonov G.V. Fundamentals of the dialogical approach in psychological science and practice. Kirovograd, 2007; Kovalev A. G. Active social learning as a method of correction psychological characteristics subject. M., 1980; Kuchinsky G. M. Psychology of internal dialogue. Minsk, 1988; Vasmer M. Etymological dictionary Russian language: In 4 volumes, T. 1. M., 2003. G. V. Dyakonov, T. I. Pashukova

There are two classes of dialogues: informational and interpretive. Informational dialogue typical for situations where, at the beginning of communication between partners, there is a gap in knowledge; interpretative dialogue – for situations where the partners’ knowledge is approximately equal, but receives a different interpretation.

Consequently, one of the main conditions for dialogue communication is the initial (at least small) knowledge gap. This means that if the partners do not tell each other new (more precisely, unknown) information related to the subject of the dialogue, but begin to exchange generally known truths (color TV allows you to receive color image; disabled people without legs find it difficult to move etc.), then the dialogue will not take place. Moreover, communication as speech communication will not take place.

For example, the teacher of geography and history Ippolit Ippolitych from the story by A.P. was extremely uninformative. Chekhov "Teacher of Literature". Being a taciturn person, if he entered into a conversation, it was only to utter another truism:

In winter you need to heat the stove, but in summer it’s warm without stoves. In the summer you open the windows at night and it’s still warm, but in the winter you have double glazing and it’s still cold.

Even in his dying delirium, he mutters a phrase that has become a symbol of communicative banality:

The Volga flows into the Caspian Sea, and the horses eat oats and hay.

Sufficient information content of the dialogue is achieved not only due to the novelty of the information communicated, but also due to linguistic means, emphasizing a new aspect in the perception of well-known information. From this point of view, one cannot fail to note the exceptional information content of B.C.’s songs. Vysotsky, which allows them today to have the effect of novelty and empathy characteristic of dialogue. Example:

I don't like it when my letters are read,

Looking over my shoulder.

Here the first line does not carry information that would “nourish” communication (indeed, who loves it when his letters are read), but the second literally transforms the first, recreating a specific situation and drawing him into dialogue.

However, excessive information content is just as harmful to speech communication as the lack of information content: a message containing Full description outside world, contradicts normal communication, because it is almost impossible to extract significant information from it. Therefore, the ability to dose information is an indicator of speech culture.

It should be borne in mind that low information content does not always indicate insufficient communicative competence. It may be a consequence of the partner’s reluctance to enter into dialogue. This, by the way, explains the formal meaning of those verbal clichés that people exchange during a chance meeting: Hello! What's up? How are you?– they are not aimed at dialogue.

Another important condition for dialogue is need for communication. It arises in a situation when the subject’s existing knowledge about the subject of communication turns out to be insufficient. The presence in this situation of a partner who can actually or potentially be a source of yet unknown information makes the emergence of a dialogue likely.

This determines the next condition of the dialogue – determinism, i.e. compliance with cause-and-effect relationships: there must be reasons for the occurrence of any events; in addition, causes and effects must be interconnected and not arbitrary. Breaking these connections disrupts normal communication. Everyone knows the phrases that characterize a meaningless conversation:

There is an elderberry in the garden, and there is a man in Kyiv; I would marry you, but I have a trough.

By the way, the speech fabric here is also torn: there is no rhythm and rhyme that you expect.

The next condition for normal communication in general and dialogical communication in particular is the requirement shared memory. Participants in the dialogue must have at least a minimum general stock of information about the past - for example, a dialogue about who will win a football match between the team of masters "Spartak" (Moscow) and the team junior schoolchildren Mytishchi district will not make sense, since basic information in this area is missing here.

Another condition for dialogue as a specific linguistic form of communication is at least small general language knowledge. Dialogue will not work if the partners speak different languages, if one of the partners saturates the speech with terminology, borrowed or other vocabulary that is not in the vocabulary of the other, and in a number of other cases of lack of general language knowledge.

One of the most effective technologies group interaction, which has special capabilities in training, development and education is discussion.

Discussion (from lat.discussio - consideration, research) - a way of organizing joint activities in order to intensify the decision-making process in a group through discussion of any issue or problem.

Discussion ensures that students are actively involved in the search for truth; creates conditions for open expression their thoughts, positions, attitudes towards the topic under discussion and has a special ability to influence the attitudes of its participants in the process of group interaction.

Discussion can be considered as a method of interactive learning and as a special technology for problem-solving dialogical communication. As a method, discussion is actively used to organize intensive mental and value-oriented activity of students in other technologies and teaching methods: socio-psychological trainings, business games, analysis various situations and problem solving. As a unique technology, discussion itself includes other teaching methods and techniques: “brainstorming”, “synectics”, “situation analysis”, etc.

The educational effect of the discussion is determined by the opportunity provided to the participant to obtain a variety of information from interlocutors, demonstrate and improve their competence, test and clarify their ideas and views on the problem under discussion, and apply existing knowledge in the process of jointly solving educational problems.

The developmental function of discussion is associated with stimulating students’ creativity, developing their ability to analyze information and provide reasoned, logically constructed evidence of their ideas and views, increasing students’ communicative activity, and their emotional involvement in the educational process.

The influence of discussion on a student’s personal development is determined by its value-oriented orientation, the creation of favorable conditions for the manifestation of individuality, self-determination in existing points of view on a certain problem, and the choice of one’s position; to develop the ability to interact with others, listen and hear others, respect other people’s beliefs, accept an opponent, find common ground, correlate and coordinate one’s position with the positions of other participants in the discussion.

Discussion from a communicative point of view is always polylogical. But the nature of this polylogue can be different:

There are different points of view regarding the similarities and differences between dispute and discussion: from their opposition to considering the dispute as a necessary element of any discussion or as a separate type of discussion. Of course, the presence of opponents and opposing points of view always sharpens the discussion, increases its productivity, and allows them to create a constructive conflict for a more effective solution to the problems under discussion. It is important that the dispute is not conducted for the sake of argument, for the sake of the desire to defend your point of view at all costs and win.

The use of one or another type of discussion depends on the nature of the problem being discussed and the goals of the discussion.

Discussion-dialogue is most often used for joint discussion of educational problems, the solution of which can be achieved through mutual complementarity, group interaction on the principle of “individual contributions” or on the basis of coordination of different points of view, reaching consensus.

Discussion-dispute is used for a comprehensive consideration of complex problems that do not have a clear solution even in science and social and political life. It is built on the principle of “positional confrontation” and its goal is not so much to solve the problem as to encourage students to think about the problem, take an “inventory” of their ideas and beliefs, clarify and determine their position; teach you to defend your point of view with reason and at the same time realize the right of others to have their own view on this problem, to be an individual.

Conditions for effective discussion in general view the following:

Students’ awareness and preparedness for discussion, fluency in the material, involvement of various sources to argue the points being defended;

Correct use of the concepts used in the discussion, their uniform understanding;

Correct behavior, inadmissibility of statements that offend the opponent’s personality;

Establishment of regulations for participants’ performances;

Full inclusion of the group in the discussion, participation of each student in it, which requires:

Involve students in determining the topic of discussion, giving them the opportunity to choose a topic from several alternative ones,
- it is problematic to formulate the topic of discussion in such a way as to evoke a desire to discuss it,
- position the group in such a way as to remove barriers that impede communication,
- provide every student with the opportunity to speak;

Teaching students the ability to conduct a discussion, jointly developing rules and norms for group communication;

The special position of the teacher as a discussion leader, which is to stimulate discussion, consolidate opinions, and summarize the results of the work. The teacher’s personal position on the issue under discussion should not dominate, although he can act as an ordinary participant in the discussion without imposing his point of view on students.

Preparing teachers and students for discussion.

Based on the degree of control, a distinction is made between free discussions not controlled by the leader and guided discussions. Discussions used in the learning process are predominantly guided by the teacher or student (subject to his readiness to organize it).

Basic steps to prepare for a discussion:

Selecting a discussion topic, which is determined by learning objectives and content educational material. At the same time, topics that are problematic in nature, containing contradictory points of view, dilemmas that affect the usual attitudes of students are brought up for discussion among students. It is advisable to offer students a choice of several options for problems related to a specific educational topic. In a situation of choice, students accept the topic as significant for themselves, and motivation arises for its active discussion;

The topic is broken down into individual questions that are communicated to students. Literature and reference materials necessary to prepare for the discussion are indicated. Independent work of students is organized.

Conducting a discussion.

There are several stages of the discussion.

Stage 1, introduction to the discussion:

Formulating the problem and goals of the discussion;

Creating motivation for discussion - determining the significance of the problem, indicating the unresolved and contradictory nature of the issue, etc.

Establishment of rules of discussion and its main stages;

Joint development of discussion rules;

Determining the unambiguous understanding of the topic of discussion, the terms and concepts used in it.

Techniques for introducing discussion:

Presentation of a problem situation;
- demonstration of a video;
- demonstration of materials (articles, documents);
- role-playing a problem situation;
- analysis of contradictory statements - a clash of opposing points of view on the problem under discussion;
- raising problematic issues;
- alternative choice (participants are asked to choose one of several points of view or ways to solve the problem).

Stage 2, discussion of the problem:

Participants exchange views on each issue. The purpose of the stage is to collect a maximum of opinions, ideas, proposals, correlating them with each other;

Lead responsibilities:

Monitor compliance with regulations;
- provide everyone with the opportunity to speak out, support and stimulate the work of the least active participants with the help of questions (“What do you think?”, “Are you satisfied with this explanation?”, “Do you agree with this point of view?”, “We would really like to hear your opinion”, etc.);
- do not allow deviations from the topic of discussion;
- prevent the discussion from turning into a dispute for the sake of argument;
- ensure that the discussion does not move to the level of interpersonal confrontation and conflict;
- stimulate the activity of participants in case of a decline in the discussion.

Techniques that increase the effectiveness of group discussion:

Clarifying questions encourage you to more clearly formulate and argue your thoughts (“What do you mean when you say that ...?”, “How will you prove that this is true?”);

Paraphrase is the repetition of a statement by the presenter in order to stimulate rethinking and clarification of what was said (“Are you saying that ...?”, “Did I understand you?”);

Demonstration of misunderstanding - encouraging students to repeat, clarify the judgment (“I don’t quite understand what you mean. Please clarify.”);

“Doubt” – allows you to filter out weak and ill-considered statements (“Is this so?”, “Are you sure of what you are saying?”);

“Alternative” – the presenter offers a different point of view, focuses on the opposite approach;

“Reduction to the point of absurdity” – the presenter agrees with the statement made, and then draws absurd conclusions from it;

“Offensive statement” - the presenter expresses a judgment, knowing that it will cause a sharp reaction and disagreement from the participants, a desire to refute this judgment and state their point of view;

“No-strategy” - the presenter denies the statements of the participants without justifying his denial (“This cannot be”).

Stage 3, summing up the discussion:

Students develop a consensus opinion and make a group decision;

Indication by the presenter of aspects of positional confrontation and points of contact in a situation where the discussion did not lead to complete agreement on the positions of the participants. The mood of students to further understand the problem and search for ways to solve it;

Joint assessment of the effectiveness of the discussion in solving the problem under discussion and achieving pedagogical goals, the positive contribution of everyone to the overall work.

How to lead a class discussion?

Invite shy children to participate. For example, “What do you think, Sasha?”, “We need to listen to the other respondents. What do you think about this, Lena?”
Don’t ask shy people in “dead silence”; even self-confident children get lost in such a situation.
Be internally confident that anyone, even the most shy child, can easily answer the question.

Send comments and questions from one student to another. For example, “This is an interesting idea, Kolya. Igor, what do you think about this?”, “This is an important question, Olya. Kostya, how would you answer this?”
Encourage students, focus on communicating with each other, and not on waiting for your opinion.

If you are not sure that you understood what a student said, then other students also could not understand it.
Ask another student to comment on the first student's answer, and then the first student will explain if his statement was commented incorrectly.
Retell the student’s statement yourself and ask: “Did I understand you correctly or was I mistaken?”

Pull out more information. For example, “Today we are discussing... and Sergey made a proposal...”, “Before we continue, let’s summarize some results..”

Let's take some time to think about the answer. Some students express themselves more easily if they write down their thoughts first. For example, “What would our life be like if television had not been invented? Write down your thoughts, and we’ll discuss them in a minute.”

When the student finishes the answer, look around the class and evaluate the reaction of other children. For example, if children seem puzzled, ask them why if they nod in agreement, ask them to give examples and evidence of what they said.

When you participate in an argument, in a discussion, they want to hear a clear, informed opinion from you. You may seek to persuade or change your mind, or simply communicate your position.

To keep your speech short and clear, you can use the POPS formula:

P – position (what is your point of view) – I believe that...
O – justification (what you base your argument on, an argument in support of your position) - ... because ...
P - example (facts illustrating your argument) - ...for example...
C – consequence (conclusion, what needs to be done, a call to accept your position) -...therefore....

Your entire speech, therefore, can consist of two to four sentences and take 1-2 minutes.

For example, the question is being discussed: “Should latecomers be allowed into class?”
An example of a “for” speech:

“I believe that latecomers should be allowed into class because the reasons for being late are often valid. For example, today I was late for the first lesson because I was breaking up and reconciling fighting first-graders. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a rule that a latecomer has the right to enter the classroom and participate in the lesson.”

An example of a speech “against”:

“I believe that latecomers should not be allowed into class, because it disrupts the entire flow of the lesson. For example, I entered the classroom in the middle of the previous lesson and for several minutes distracted the attention of the teacher, all the students, and especially my neighbor. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a ban on entering the classroom after the start of the lesson.”

The POPS formula is often called the MOPS formula (Opinion-Explanation-Example-Consequence).

Rules of conduct in discussion

I criticize ideas, not people

My goal is not to “win”, but to come to the best decision

I encourage each participant to participate in the discussion

I listen to everyone's ideas, even if I don't agree with them

I first clarify all the ideas and facts relevant to both positions

I strive to comprehend and understand both views on the problem

I change my point of view when influenced by facts and convincing arguments.

Mistakes in the discussion

Monopoly of the class leader who knows the correct answer and others have to guess it

Participants have unconditional faith in their leader. In this case, truth is made dependent on authority

Incentive costs: the manager, having praised one participant, unwittingly upsets another

Passion for discussing abstract problems, deviation from the given topic

Often, some participants in the discussion (2-3 people) “kill” others, not allowing them to say a word

Consequences of the discussion

Demonstrating an attitude towards the points of view of other participants in the discussion as worthy of respect and understanding

Resolving constructive conflict and contradictions in a discussion helps to discover optimal strategies for solving problems

In a discussion on resolving a constructive conflict, participants develop an attitude towards the leader of the lesson not as the bearer of the only correct point of view, but as an experienced colleague in general work

Analysis of the discussion

An essential element of the discussion is its analysis. The results of the lesson are summed up, the conclusions reached by the discussion participants are analyzed, the main points of the correct understanding of the problem are emphasized, the logic, fallacy of statements, and the inconsistency of individual comments on specific issues of the topic of discussion are shown. Attention is paid to the content of speeches, the depth and scientific nature of the arguments, the accuracy of the expression of thoughts, and the correct use of concepts. The ability to answer questions, use methods of proof and refutation, and use various means of polemics is assessed.

For getting feedback It is advisable to use oral or written self-reports from discussion participants. There are two possible forms of self-reports: 1) free and 2) focused on the following questions: how did I feel during the discussion; what I wanted; what or who interfered; what new things did I learn for myself? whether I was interested in the discussion; if I felt carried away, then why, if I left indifferent, then how do I explain this; how can I use the experience gained in the discussion (positive and negative) in my future work and Everyday life?

Discussion participants' actions record card

When organizing a discussion, it is necessary to pay special attention to the placement of participants in the discussion, which depends on the type and type of discussion. Experimental studies prove that spatial location influences the positions of discussion participants. In one experiment, a group of subjects were invited to discuss a topic that was not very significant to them, and were placed in the space around a table according to the diagram shown. At the same time, the chairs were screwed to the floor to avoid movement. During the discussion, its participants behaved depending on the place they occupied: subject 1 served as a leader, subjects 2 and 3 accepted the same point of view in the dispute and argued with subjects 4, 5 and 6 sitting opposite, who also defended the same point vision. Participant number 7 practically did not participate in the discussion, but sometimes spoke against everyone, especially against the leader.

It has been experimentally established that for each type of discussion there is a certain scheme for the effective placement of its participants. Thus, for organizing a discussion-dialogue, during which it is necessary to make agreed decisions, the arrangement of participants in a circle (A) is more suitable. For a discussion based on positional opposition (for example, for debate), it will be more productive to place participants defending different points of view against each other (B). Discussions organized by discussing a problem step by step, first in small groups, then joint forces, require a different arrangement of participants (B).

Types of discussions

In modern pedagogical practice, many different options for organizing discussion have accumulated, since it is actively being developed not only as a teaching technology, but also as a way of organizing extracurricular collective creative activities of students. The variety of types of discussion is determined by its diverse target orientation, the content of the activities organized with its help, and the number of participants. So, in addition to discussions organized in the form of discussion of a problem by a small group, there are those that provide effective implementation discussions in a sufficiently large student group by dividing it into small groups and organizing discussions in them, and then coordinating the results of the activities of small groups.

"Round table"

The discussion is aimed at discussing any current topic that requires comprehensive analysis. As a rule, participants are not faced with the task of completely solving a problem; they are focused on the opportunity to consider it from different angles, collect as much information as possible, comprehend it, identify the main directions of development and solutions, coordinate their points of view, and learn constructive dialogue. Since the discussion is organized literally at a round table, 15-25 people can take part in it.

"Debate"

Discussion in the role-playing form of debate is a type of discussion-dispute and is used to discuss a complex and controversial problem on which there are sharply opposing points of view. The purpose of the discussion is to teach students to defend their point of view in a reasoned and calm manner and to try to convince opponents using available information on the issue.

Debate stages:

The presenter offers participants a choice of two or more possible points of view on the problem. Positions can have a role-based nature and imitate various approaches to solving a given problem by representatives of different professional and social groups, political parties, associations, etc.

students choose which point of view they will defend and unite in microgroups, the numerical composition of which may vary

the rules of discussion, the duration of discussion in groups and the rules for the group’s performance in debates are determined

a discussion of the problem is organized in microgroups: roles are distributed among the members of each group; a system of arguments is built to convince opponents; responses to possible questions; the question of how to manage the given time is being resolved

The presenter takes turns giving the groups the floor, defining the rules of performance

At the end of the debate, a joint analysis of the results of the discussion is carried out.

"Relay race"

The discussion is aimed at organizing a consistent discussion of proposed issues and aspects of one topic in small groups, followed by analysis and coordination of various approaches and making a collective decision.

Discussion algorithm:

groups are located in the audience space in a circle. Each group is given a piece of paper with a question, a problem and is given time to discuss this problem. The discussion in the microgroup ends with writing down the general solution on a piece of paper with a question (problem);

then each such sheet is passed clockwise to the next group, which discusses the new issue, also recording their opinion on this sheet. The procedure is repeated as many times as there are questions, problems, and groups created;

at the end of the work, each group is returned to the originally issued sheet and given time to analyze and consolidate (coordination) the points of view or decisions recorded on it;

groups voice the results of their work;

the results are summed up and the work of the groups by students and the teacher is analyzed.

"Aquarium"

This type of discussion is used to discuss controversial, controversial issues, to develop students’ ability to defend and argue their position. At the same time, it is actively used as a method of socio-psychological training, as it allows its participants to reflect on their behavior in the process of discussion communication, analyze the course of interaction between participants at the interpersonal level and correct it. The discussion includes the following stages:

preparatory - the leader presents the problem and divides the class into microgroups, which are located in a circle. Groups discuss the problem and determine their point of view on it. A representative is selected from each group who will reflect and defend the group’s position to other participants;

“aquarium” discussion of the problem - representatives of microgroups gather in the center of the audience and discuss the problem, representing and defending the interests of their group. The remaining participants observe the progress of the discussion, taking the position of analysts who evaluate the content and form of speeches, the degree of their persuasiveness, and the peculiarities of the communication style of the discussants, but they are prohibited from interfering in the course of the discussion. However, the teacher can allocate special time for questions to the participants in the “aquarium” discussion.

analysis of the progress and results of the discussion can be carried out in one or two stages, depending on the purpose of the discussion. If an analysis of the nature of interaction in the “aquarium” group is necessary, the teacher asks its participants to evaluate the degree of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Then the “analysts” are given the opportunity to evaluate the course and results of the discussion, the nature of the interaction of its participants. And finally, the teacher systematizes the students’ conclusions and sums up the overall result of the joint activity.

"Spinner"

The specificity of this discussion is that students discuss the problem in rotating groups, working at different stages of the discussion in different compositions and on different aspects of the problem. At the same time, at each stage the participant in the discussion takes a new position: he can be the moderator of the discussion, the 10th speaker, the 2nd speaker, etc. This ensures maximum activity and involvement of everyone in the discussion of all aspects of the problem, and develops communication and organizational skills. The stages of the discussion – “turntables” – are described below.

Stage 1, preparatory:

The presenter provides background information, defines the problem, or identifies the topic of discussion. There are 4 directions for solving a problem or aspect of the discussion topic;

the group is divided into 4 subgroups according to the principle of voluntariness or “lottery”, but in any case the groups must be the same in number of participants (possible options: 4/4; 4/5; 4/6);

4 tables are prepared for groups to work, on each table a sign is placed with one of the letters (“A”, “B”, “C”, “D”) and large sheets of paper are placed with one of the questions on the topic under discussion (sheet A, sheet B, sheet D, sheet B). Each participant is given a card with a number (A1, A2...; B1, B2....; B1, B2....; G1, G2...) and a route sheet (see table below).

The facilitator explains the rules of the discussion and directs the placement of participants at the tables.

Stage 2, discussion:

participants take a starting position and discuss the proposed issue or aspect of the topic for 5-10 minutes, with each person speaking in the order specified in the route sheet. The discussion ends with each student’s assessment of the participants’ work, which is recorded on the route sheet in the “Best Performance” column;

then the groups disperse to other tables in accordance with the route of movement of each participant. At the same time, the second round of discussion includes a discussion of another aspect of the topic and is carried out with a new composition of participants;

the next two rounds repeat the previous ones and are carried out according to the same algorithm as the first two.

Stage 3, summing up the discussion:

at the last, fourth, transition, the participants find themselves in their starting place, discuss and summarize the proposals and opinions of all groups on the aspect of the topic under discussion, draw up conclusions and prepare to speak in front of the whole group;

the presenter collects route sheets and determines those whose performances were noted by the majority of participants;

microgroups present their conclusions on each aspect of the topic. The teacher conducts a collective analysis of the results of the discussion and sums up its results, noting those students whose presentations were the most interesting and meaningful.

The “Spinner” discussion provides an intensive and versatile analysis of the problem being discussed by each student, expands the scope of communication, allowing the problem to be discussed among a variety of participants. The complexity of organizing such a discussion is associated with the development of a route for the movement of participants and the need to focus on a certain number of them. You can simplify the discussion algorithm by making microgroups permanent, but its effectiveness in this case is significantly reduced.

Sample itinerary for a group of 20 people

B4, B5

B1, B2, B3,

B4, B5

G1, G2, G3,

G4, G5

B1, B2, B5,

V2, G1

A1, A4, B3,

G2, G3

A2, A5, B4,

G4. G5

A3, B3, B5,

B1, B4

B3, B4, B4,

G5, G3

A2, A3, B1,

V2, G4

A4, B5, B2,

G1, G2

A5, A1, B1,

B5, B3

B5, B1, B3,

G2, G4

A5, B5, B4,

G5, G1

A3, A1, B1,

B3, G3

A2, A4, B2, B4, B2

Sample of an individual route sheet

Discussion-dispute

The presenter announces the topic and gives the floor to those who wish (sometimes to those who have specially prepared). The course of the dispute is partially determined by the leader, but is mostly unpredictable and has an emotional nature.

Conference

A type of discussion where discussion and argument are preceded by a short message about the state of the problem or the results of some work. The conference is characterized by a detailed argumentation of the theses put forward and a calm discussion of them.

Progressive debate

Its goal is to solve a problem in a group while simultaneously training participants in relevant communication skills. This type of discussion consists of 5 stages:

idea generation (participants are given time to put forward ideas about ways to solve a given problem);

all proposals are written on the board;

each proposed option is discussed;

The most suitable options are considered, then they are arranged in order of importance, i.e. ideas are verified;

The leader organizes a discussion, as a result of which the decisions that received the largest number of votes remain, and the final one is selected from them.

This form of discussion helps develop the ability to quickly and effectively make group decisions.

Discussion-competition

All participants are divided into teams. A jury is selected that determines the criteria for evaluating the proposed solutions: the depth of the solution, its evidence, logic, clarity, adequacy of the goal. The topic of discussion and the point system are agreed upon. At the end, there is a collective discussion of the proposed solutions to the problem or problem situation. Then the jury announces the results and comments on them.

Mosaic (openwork saw)

Preliminary:

Determine what tasks the problem to be solved in class is divided into (for example, when making a decision on criminal liability, it is necessary to establish the object, the objective side of the crime, therefore, four expert groups can work, but two more groups can be created, for example, to establish mitigating and aggravating circumstances).

When carrying out:

Describe the problem to be discussed.

Explain the rules of the game:

Participants are divided into groups called “home”;

Participants work in “home” groups, jointly solving the task assigned to the group;

Each group member is an “expert” on a specific topic;

After a short discussion in the group, the “experts” disperse into “expert” groups, in each of which experts in one field gather and discuss this side of the problem;

Then the “experts” return to their “home” groups and report to the groups on the work done in the expert group.

Identify experts within the groups - you can distribute multi-colored cards and use the same cards to mark the gathering places of the “expert” groups.

Inform the time for work of “home” groups and “expert” groups.

Repeat the task.

After finishing the work, representatives of the “home” groups present a group decision.

Summarize. Ask what was the contribution of the various “experts” to the overall decision? What is the difference between the work of “home” and “expert” groups?

Additional information: If a fairly complex problem is being considered, several rounds of “house” and “expert” groups can be done.

TV talk show style discussion
(Panel Debate)

This form of discussion combines the advantages of lecture and group discussion.

A group of 3-5 people conducts a discussion on a pre-selected topic in the presence of other participants.

Spectators enter the discussion later: they express their opinions or ask questions to the participants.

It should not be forgotten that the main participants in the discussion must be sufficiently competent in this area and well prepared for a specific conversation. It is also important that the personal qualities of the main characters do not distract attention from the topic of discussion and that all participants have equal opportunity express your point of view (the speech should not last more than 3-5 minutes).

The facilitator must ensure that the discussion participants do not deviate from the given topic. The duration of the discussion should not exceed 1.5 hours.

Preliminary:

Communicate the topic of the discussion to the participants (preferably in the form of a discussion question).

Invite experts or select them from among the students (2-3 experts in total).

Ask all students to prepare questions for the experts and think about their own position on the topic of discussion.

Ask the experts to prepare for a short presentation on the topic (2-3 minutes) and prepare background information.

Organize the audience like a studio: the audience is placed in a semicircle in relation to the experts.

When carrying out:

Introduce the topic of discussion (a video clip, a quote from the press, a short story can serve as motivation).

Introduce the experts.

Please tell us the rules for hosting a talk show:

First, the experts speak on the issue (2–3 minutes each);

To get the floor you have to raise your hand;

The presenter gives the floor to the audience;

Viewers can express their opinions or ask questions to individual or all experts (no longer than 1 minute);

The presenter has the right to ask questions;

The presenter has the right to interrupt a speaker who has exceeded the time limit;

Experts answer questions as specifically and briefly as possible;

Give the floor to the experts.

Encourage audience members to speak and ask questions. Keep track of the time.

Ask to write down questions that you didn't have time for and pass them on to the experts.

Thank the experts and the audience.

Summarize the content of the discussion and the manner in which it was conducted.

You can use “performance coupons” - everyone has the right to 1-2-3 performances, each time giving the presenter a special coupon.

Take a Stand (Opinion Scale)

Preliminary:

Formulate a discussion question that involves opposing answers (for example, “Are you for or against death penalty?”).

Prepare a “scale of opinions” - draw a line (scale) on the board on which write the answer options, for example:

For the death penalty / Rather for / Rather against / Against the death penalty

When carrying out:

Ask the audience a controversial question and give the audience time to think about the answer.

Ask individual or all participants to go to the “opinion scale” and take a position - that is, stand at the answer option that corresponds to their opinion.

Explain the rules of the game:

You need to explain why you took this position;

When answering, you can use the POPS formula;

Everyone can give one argument in defense of their position;

During the game, you can change your position if the arguments of other participants convince you;

Take turns asking students in different positions: Why did you take this position?

Also ask those who changed positions why?

Summarize. If not all students took a position, ask them to evaluate the arguments of active participants. Analyze quantitative ratio supporters of different positions, compare this ratio with public opinion. Discuss under what conditions a change of position is possible.

Organizational techniques used in conducting discussions

Question-answer technique. This technique is a type of simple interview, the difference is that it is used definite shape asking questions for interviews with participants in the discussion-dialogue. The dialogue strategy consists of moving from the interlocutor’s desire to talk to you to understanding his interests, states, relationships; from understanding the interlocutor to acceptance, and, if necessary, to convincing him.

Procedure “Discussion in a low voice.” The technique involves holding a closed discussion in microgroups, after which a general discussion is held, during which the leader of the microgroup proves the opinion of his microgroup and this opinion is discussed by all participants.

Clinic methodology. When using the “clinic method”, each participant develops his own version of the solution, having previously given open discussion their “diagnosis” of the presented problem situation, then this solution is assessed both by the manager and by a group of experts specially allocated for this purpose on a point scale or according to a pre-adopted “pleasant-unpleasant” system.

“Labyrinth” technique. This type of discussion is otherwise called the method of sequential discussion; it is a kind of step-by-step procedure in which each subsequent step is taken by another participant. All decisions, even incorrect (dead-end) decisions, are subject to discussion here.

Relay race technique. Each participant who finishes his speech can pass the floor to whoever he sees fit.

Free-floating discussion. The essence of this type of discussion is that the group does not come to a result, but the activity continues already in internally. This group work procedure is based on the “B.V. Zeigarnik effect”, characterized by high quality remembering unfinished actions, so participants continue to “think” in private about ideas that turned out to be unfinished.

IN Lately In science, increased interest arose in the problem of dialogic communication, which led to psychologists searching for new and original sources of ideas in areas related to psychology. In this regard, the ideas of the outstanding literary critic Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin about dialogue and dialogical relationships, which he outlined in his work “Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics,” attracted great attention.

Let's consider the main provisions of his work. MM. Bakhtin believed that the main condition for the emergence of dialogical relationships is the presence of communicative intention, an attitude towards a message, “to the word.” The objective meanings themselves (idea, thought, judgment) can be in a logical relationship with other objective meanings, points out M.M. Bakhtin. However, there is no dialogical relationship between them. And only when this objective meaning is endowed with a “voice”, expressed outwardly as a meaningful position of the individual in relation to others - “put into words”, then dialogical relationships arise. A communication situation arises. For M.M. According to Bakhtin, the communicative situation is a system-forming factor, a condition that makes possible the emergence of dialogical relationships.

MM. Bakhtin identifies the main elements of a communicative situation. The main element is the “word,” and the condition for the emergence of dialogical relations is “putting judgment into words.” It is the word that contains the impulse that causes a specific dialogic reaction. Therefore, it is necessary to understand Bakhtin's understanding of the word.

“Word” in the understanding of M.M. Bakhtin is a statement, an expression of the author’s position on any issue. Bakhtin especially emphasizes the personal aspect of every utterance. Becoming an author means expressing not only the substantive thought itself, but also your attitude towards it. This unity of thought and attitude towards it is that indivisible unit between which interaction is possible.

Dialogical relationships, from the point of view of M.M. Bakhtin, arise between the personal contents of communicating subjects, which are manifested in their relationships to any object. Thus, the whole situation can be described as follows: two subjects exchange information of an evaluative nature about some object that is significant for both of them, and on the basis of this information they enter into a relationship with each other.

In this regard, it is necessary to find out how these relationships are reflected in the statement, in the speech formulation of these ideas: whether such communicative orientation leaves an imprint on the structure of the statement and how two types of relationships to the subject and to the interlocutor are connected in the statement.

A convenient model for this can be the utterance scheme proposed by the Swiss linguist C. Bally. In the structure of an utterance, he identified two main elements: dictum and mode. The dictum of an utterance is the main content of the utterance, information about the object. Mode is a correlative operation performed by the subject, an expression of modality, the relationship of the subject to the content. It is given far from secondary importance in relation to the dictum. Bally argued that one cannot attach any meaning to an utterance if at least some modal meaning is not found in it. Modality is the expression of the target intention of an utterance. Mode and dictum complement each other in the description of the utterance.

If we consider the utterance as a psychological reality, then in it we can distinguish, on the one hand, the subject’s message with the help of linguistic signs about a certain idea that he has in his mind, and on the other hand, the active attitude of the subject to this content. An object is not just reported, but is always treated in some way: either they affirm it with confidence, or they doubt it, or they wish it, or they regret it, etc. This fact is associated with the nature of subjective reality, which, according to S.L. Rubinstein, is the unity of the subjective and objective, knowledge and attitude. Thus, we can talk about the existence in the statement of an initial unity of knowledge and attitude towards it.

Information by itself is not a complete statement. It only contains the value. Lexically it is expressed in a sentence. A sentence is an element sign system. If this judgment is accompanied by information about the speaker’s attitude towards it, then it thereby acquires meaning and, from an element of the sign system, becomes a unit of working communication and performs a communicative function. Expressing one’s attitude towards an object means determining one’s position in the system of socially significant relations in relation to other people, and therefore presupposes a communicative attitude. Outside of a communicative situation, expressing one’s attitude towards any object has no meaning. A holistic statement is always focused on the interlocutor.

Bally points out that the response can be directed either to the dictum or to the mode, but never to both. Therefore, the response can be divided into two types: dictal reactions (reactions “to the point”) and modal reactions – reactions to the speaker’s attitude to the topic. A simple example: in response to the statement “Do you think we need to hurry up?” you can answer in different ways: “No, there’s no need to rush” (dictal response) or “I don’t think, I’m sure” (modal response).

In the dialogue M.M. Bakhtin, information about the position of the author of the statement (modal information according to Bally) has greater motivating power than information about the subject of the dialogue itself. In reality, in a dialogue, everything depends on the context: if it serves a joint solution to a problem, objective information is of primary importance for developing a solution (in the structure of the utterance it corresponds to a dictum); if partners need to identify personal preferences, assert their position, attitude towards the subject, then modal stimuli are of paramount importance in such a situation. In this regard, there is a need to reveal the meaning of modal information in the general structure of a communicative event.

In the structure of the communication process there are the following elements:

1) communicator – a subject transmitting information;

2) communicator – a subject who receives information and interprets it;

3) communicative field - the situation as a whole about which information can be transmitted;

4) actual information about the communicative field;

5) communication channels - means of transmitting information.

§ cognitive information, which is associated with the actual meaning of the linguistic structures that carry it;

§ indexical information that informs about the psychological makeup of the communicator - his personality, properties, inclinations and emotional state and helping to outline his attitude towards himself and others and determine the role that he assigns to himself as a participant in the interaction;

§ regulatory information about the course of interaction, serves the purposes of beginning, continuing and ending the interaction itself.

The first type of information, cognitive, is usually more or less under the conscious control of the speaker and forms a major part of the process of verbal planning, while the other two types, indexical and regulative, remain virtually unconscious, at least by the speaker. The listener, on the contrary, is aware of all three types of information and is dependent on the latter two in his entry into the role of a communicator and in attributing meaning to what he hears. Information about personal preferences and subjective attitude towards the object of communication is crucial for a complete interpretation of the speaker’s statement.

Each subject, in order to develop a plan and strategy for behavior, needs to constantly receive information not only about changes in the state of the object of action. But also about all participants in the communicative process, about how their attitude changes in the communicative field, what are their motives, plans, etc. It is this information that is the content of modal information. In communication, each communicator, as T. Shibutani says, actually does two different things. On the one hand, he uses words as symbols for categories to which he wants to refer the listener, and on the other hand, to make it clear about his own attitude towards what he is talking about. we're talking about. It is necessary to distinguish between what a person says and how he says it. As a rule, preferences are not specifically communicated, but they are always revealed in various expressive movements, in intonation, in facial expressions, in the choice of different connotations of words. The channels for transmitting this information are much more diverse than those that can be used to transmit dictal (cognitive). Modal information is present as an integral component of any communication. Anticipating the behavior of another person makes it possible to adapt to it and develop further strategies in reaching agreement on the main points of activity. Modal information is of fundamental importance in organizing cooperative activities, and modal incentives, due to their importance for successful joint activities, have great motivating power. For the subject, what is often important is not what is being talked about, but how they talk about it, how they treat it. Therefore, the reaction in these cases is directed not at content, but at relation. for example, if you announce that somewhere nearby there was a fire in an indifferent or even dismissive tone, then most likely the reaction will follow not to a dictum (for example, “where did it happen?”), but to a mode: “How can you talk so indifferently about someone else’s grief ! This example gives an idea of ​​the numerous cases where the modal impulse is stronger than the dictal one.

In the dialogue explored by M.M. Bakhtin, a modal stimulus inevitably causes a response. Therefore, the exchange of modal stimuli resembles, in the words of M.M. Bakhtin, "perpetum mobile". This is why modal dialogue is “fundamentally never-ending.” Each modal stimulus causes a response, which entails the next reaction, etc.

Modal dialogue is a powerful means of personal cognition; the expression “dialogical comprehension of personality” can be meaningfully interpreted as a way of revealing the personal content of the interlocutor by constantly initiating it with modal stimuli.

The communicative process is actually carried out as a sequence of communicative acts, each of which performs a specific function in the communicative exchange and is linguistically formalized in the form of a statement. The function of requesting information is carried out by an interrogative statement; the development of a single fund of meanings (cognitions) is carried out in the form of a request for agreement or disagreement. The transfer of information is carried out by a narrative statement, and depending on the attitude of the communicator to transmitted information(for example, whether he considers it completely reliable or not) the statement can be in the form of a statement, belief, assumption. A communicative action can perform the function of inciting action, regulating the flow of information, expressing intention, etc.

Thus, each dialogue replica is characterized from a functional point of view: what function it performs in the communicative process. This characteristic of an utterance is embodied in the meaning of the utterance, which is not a simple sum lexical meanings words included in it. As M.M. said Bakhtin, “dialogical relations are extra-linguistic.” In each case, the meaning of the utterance is determined by a broad context in which only the function of the utterance can be determined unambiguously, and above all by the attitude to the partner’s statements. MM. Bakhtin noted that the semantics of a word is fundamentally changed by the focus on someone else’s word.

Summarizing the theoretical research of M.M. Bakhtin, one can formulate the following conclusions:

· psychological content of M.M.’s concept Bakhtin can be revealed in a system of concepts that describe the communicative process and its main components;

· dialogic relationships are interpersonal in psychological content and communicative in their form;

· the initial concepts for the analysis of dialogue are given by a structural representation of an individual utterance, the concepts of dictum and mode, as well as the concepts of dictal and modal information;

· dialogue, which is the main subject of consideration by M.M. Bakhtin, is a type of modal dialogue that develops on the basis of predominantly modal stimuli containing information about the personal characteristics of the subject.

LITERATURE

Psychological research communication / Answer. ed. B.F. Lomov, A.V. Belyaeva, V.N. Nosulenko. - M., Publishing house "Science", 1985. - 344 p.

Bodalev A.A. Personality and communication. – M. 1988.

Ananyev B.G. On the problems of modern human science. – St. Petersburg 2001.

Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. - M.: Publishing house "Fiction", 1979. - 470 p.

Dialogue in in the ordinary sense- a literary or theatrical form of oral or written exchange of statements (replicas) in a conversation between two or more people; - in philosophical and scientific senses- specific form and organization of communication.

Argumentation as a mechanism of rhetorical influence

Argumentation - (from Latin argumentatio - bringing arguments) - giving arguments with the intention of changing the beliefs of the other party (audience). Such arguments may include references to experience, to more general and apparently reliable principles, to an accepted belief system, to tradition or intuition, to common sense or taste, etc. The extremely varied and heterogeneous methods by which beliefs can be formed and changed are studied by argumentation theory. These techniques depend on the specific field of knowledge, on the audience, on social groups and society as a whole, on the uniqueness of the culture or civilization within which they are developed and applied.
In art, there is a distinction between a thesis - a statement (or system of statements) that the arguing party considers necessary to instill in the audience, and an argument, or argument - one or more interconnected statements intended to support the thesis.

A. is always expressed in language, in the form of spoken or written statements; A. theory examines the relationships between these statements, and not the thoughts, ideas and motives that stand behind them;
A. is a purposeful activity: its task is to strengthen or weaken someone’s beliefs;

A. is social activities, since it is directed at another person or other people, it presupposes dialogue and an active reaction of the other party to the arguments presented;

A. assumes the reasonableness of those who perceive it, their ability to rationally weigh arguments, accept them or challenge them.
The goal of A. is the acceptance of the proposed provisions by the opponent or the audience. Truth and goodness may be the implied goals of A., but its direct goal is always to convince the audience of the justice of the position offered to their attention, to incline them to accept this position and, possibly, to take the action proposed by it. This means that the oppositions truth - falsehood and good - evil are not central either in A., or, accordingly, in its theory. Arguments can be given not only in support of theses that appear to be true, but also in support of false or vague theses. Not only good and justice can be defended with reason, but also what seems or later turns out to be evil.

Just as the ability to speak grammatically correctly existed even before the grammar describing this process, so the art of persuasion, which lies at the basis of human cooperation and activity, existed long before the emergence of theory A. The overwhelming majority of people even now, with varying degrees of success, convince others without asking for help from a special science and not counting on this help. Although spontaneously developed skills to convince others are sufficient in many areas of human activity, there are types of activities and professions that require special study of theory A. In democratic societies, these are politics and law, philosophy and psychology, history and theology, etc.