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

O. and interaction between people, a cut is carried out according to principles, laws and mechanisms of psychology of dialogue. If the traditional idea of ​​D. o. comes down to a conversation between two people, an alternate exchange of statements and remarks (actions, gestures, etc.), then in modern. fatherly psychology D. o. is understood as an intersubjective (intersubjective) phenomenon of O. and interaction that occurs only under certain conditions. Before. implements true mutual understanding and mutual disclosure of O subjects. It reveals the uniqueness of human individuality, affirms the dignity (self-worth) and self-sufficiency of each, contributes to the development of the individual 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 Krom "dialogue" can literally be translated as "different logos", as "various words", "different logics (different positions, etc.). )". D. o. is such a verbal-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 "dialogue" does not come from the prefix "di-" (two), but from gr. prefix "dia-", which means "different", "between", "through". Consequently, the content of the concept of "dialogue" is not so much that two individuals participate in a conversation (as in a "dyad" consisting of two people), but that the points of view (logic, semantic positions) of two or more. communicating people are different, but necessary and complementary. In the twentieth century foreign thinkers M. Buber, F. Rosenzweig, F. Ebner, E. Levinas, O. Rosenstock-Hussy and others carried out philosophical research, in which the true depth and versatility of the phenomenon of dialogue is revealed. Original and fundamental ideas about the dialogical nature of interhuman relations and the essence of human existence were also developed in the works of Russian philosophers M. M. Bakhtin, S. L. Frank, P. A. Florensky, N. A. Berdyaev, V. S. Bibler and other Philos. and psychol. researches show that D. about. differs in a number of features and creates a special relationship between people, where the relationship I and YOU are their ontological-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, far from every O. is a dialogue. O. can be not only dialogic, but also monologue. Various intermediate forms of speech are also possible, for example, dialogized monologues and monologized dialogues. There are many mediated and transformed forms of D. O., understanding of which requires a broader view of the nature and forms of human O. Linguistically, dialogue is a form of speech activity, that is, dialogical speech, the essence and content of differs from the features of monologue speech. For example, L.P. Yakubinsky understands dialogue as a sequence of alternating forms of interaction carried out through a relatively quick change in actions and reactions of interacting individuals. In terms of content, the 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 predetermined and thoughtful replicas, and there is no deliberate 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 a developing, educating and creative potential both in the O. of adults with children and in the O. of the adults themselves. According to G. A. Kovalev, D. o. and dialogic relations are distinguished by the equality of the subjects of O., their a priori unconditional acceptance of each other, and the orientation towards the individual uniqueness of each. Standards and principles of the organization D. about. are the emotional and personal openness of partners in O., the mood for each other's states, non-estimation, trust and sincerity in expressing feelings and states. Despite the comparative novelty of the dialogical approach to the study of language and the need for further development and study of the language itself. its main provisions are applicable to the analysis of mass communication, intergroup O. and O. cultures. Def. psychol. mechanisms and effects of disruption of these types of communication, which indicate that it is the "failure" of the dialogic component that leads to such violations. Lit .: Bakhtin M. M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979; Dyakonov GV Fundamentals of dialogic approach in psychological science and practice. Kirovograd, 2007; Kovalev A.G. Active social learning as a method for correcting the subject's psychological characteristics. M., 1980; Kuchinsky G. M. Psychology of internal dialogue. Minsk, 1988; Fasmer M. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 vols., Vol. 1. M., 2003. G. V. Dyakonov, T. I. Pashukova

There are two classes of dialogues: informational and interpretive. Informational dialog typical for situations where by the beginning of communication between partners there is a gap in knowledge; interpretive dialog - for situations where the knowledge of the partners is approximately equal, but receive a different interpretation.

Consequently, one of the main conditions for dialogue communication is the initial (at least small) gap in knowledge. This means that if the partners do not communicate new (more precisely, unknown) information related to the subject of the dialogue, but begin to exchange well-known truths (color TV allows you to get a color image; it is difficult for disabled people who are deprived of legs to move around etc.), then the dialogue will not take place. Moreover, communication as speech communication will not take place.

Extremely uninformative was, for example, the teacher of geography and history Ippolit Ippolitich from the story of A.P. Chekhov "Teacher of Literature". Being a taciturn person, if he entered into a conversation, it was only to say another common truth:

In winter, you need to heat the stove, and in summer it is warm even without stoves. In the summer you open the windows at night and it's still warm, but in the winter you open the windows and it's still cold.

Even in his deathbed 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 being reported, but also due to linguistic means that emphasize a new aspect in the perception of well-known information. From this point of view, it is impossible not to note the exceptional informativeness of the songs of B.C. Vysotsky, which allows them to still 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 (in fact, who loves when their letters are read), but the second literally transforms the first, recreating a specific situation and drawing them into a dialogue.

However, excessive information content is just as harmful to verbal communication as the lack of information content: a message containing a complete description of the external world contradicts normal communication, because it is almost impossible to extract meaningful 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 unwillingness of the partner to enter into a dialogue. This, by the way, explains the formal meaning of those verbal clichés that people exchange during a chance meeting: Hey! What's up? How are you?– they are not aimed at dialogue.

Another important condition for dialogue is need for communication. It occurs in a situation where the subject's knowledge about the subject of communication is 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 probable.

This also determines the next condition of the dialogue - determinism, i.e. observance of causal relationships: there must be reasons for the occurrence of any events; moreover, causes and effects must be related and not arbitrary. Breaking these bonds disrupts normal communication. Everyone knows the phrases that characterize a meaningless conversation:

Elderberry in the garden, and uncle in Kyiv; I would go for you, but I have a trough.

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

The next condition for normal communication in general and dialogic communication in particular is the requirement shared memory. The participants in the dialogue should 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 of junior schoolchildren of the Mytishchi district will not make sense, since elementary information in this areas are missing.

Another condition for dialogue as a specific language 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 lexical stock of the other, and in a number of other cases of lack of common language knowledge.

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

Discussion (from Latin discussio - consideration, research) is a way of organizing joint activities in order to intensify the decision-making process in a group by discussing an issue or problem.

The discussion ensures the active inclusion of students in the search for truth; creates conditions for them to openly express their thoughts, positions, attitudes to the topic under discussion and has a special opportunity to influence the attitudes of its participants in the process of group interaction.

The discussion can be considered as a method of interactive learning and as a special technology of problem-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 of various situations and problem solving. As a kind of technology, the discussion itself includes other teaching methods and techniques: brainstorming, synectics, situation analysis, etc.

The learning 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, apply existing knowledge in the process of jointly solving learning problems.

The developing function of the discussion is associated with stimulating the creativity of students, developing their ability to analyze information and reasoned, logically structured proof of their ideas and views, with an increase in the communicative activity of students, their emotional involvement in the educational process.

The influence of the discussion on the student's personal development is due to its value-oriented orientation, the creation of favorable conditions for the manifestation of individuality, self-determination in existing points of view on a particular problem, the choice of one's position; to form 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.

A 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 on the similarities and differences between the dispute and the discussion: from their opposition to the consideration of the dispute as a necessary element of any discussion or as a separate type of discussion. Of course, the presence of opponents, opposing points of view always aggravates the discussion, increases its productivity, allows you to create a constructive conflict with their help for a more effective solution of the problems under discussion. It is important that the dispute is not conducted for the sake of the dispute, for the sake of striving to defend one's point of view at all costs and win.

The use of one or another type of discussion depends on the nature of the problem under discussion 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 complementarity, group interaction on the principle of “individual contributions” or on the basis of agreeing on different points of view, reaching consensus.

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

In general, the conditions for an effective discussion are as follows:

Awareness and preparedness of students for discussion, fluency in the material, involvement of various sources to argue the defended positions;

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

The correctness of behavior, the inadmissibility of statements that offend the personality of the opponent;

Establishing the rules for the performance of participants;

Full inclusion of the group in the discussion, the participation of each student in it, for which it is necessary:

Involve students in determining the topic of discussion by 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 arouse a desire to discuss it,
- arrange the group so as to remove barriers that impede communication,
- give each student the opportunity to speak;

Teaching students the ability to lead a discussion, joint development of rules and norms of group communication;

The special position of the teacher as the leader of the discussion, which consists in stimulating discussion, consolidating opinions, summing up the results of the work. The personal position of the teacher on the problem 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 the teacher and students for discussion.

According to the degree of control, free, not controlled by the leader and guided discussions are distinguished. The discussions used in the learning process are predominantly managed by the teacher or the student (provided that he is ready to organize it).

The main steps in preparing for the discussion:

The choice of the topic of discussion, which is determined by the objectives of the training and the content of the educational material. At the same time, topics that are problematic in nature, containing conflicting points of view, dilemmas that affect the usual attitudes of students, are brought up for discussion by students. It is advisable to offer students a choice of several options for problems related to a particular 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 divided into separate questions that are communicated to students. Literature, reference materials necessary to prepare for the discussion are indicated. Independent work of students is organized.

Conducting a discussion.

There are several stages of discussion.

Stage 1, introduction to the discussion:

Formulation of the problem and objectives of the discussion;

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

Establishing the rules of discussion and its main stages;

Joint development of discussion rules;

Clarification of the unambiguity of understanding the topic of discussion, the terms and concepts used in it.

Techniques for introducing the discussion:

Presentation of a problem situation;
- video presentation;
- demonstration of materials (articles, documents);
- role play of a problem situation;
- analysis of conflicting statements - a clash of opposing points of view on the problem under discussion;
- setting problematic issues;
- alternative choice (participants are invited 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, suggestions, 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 very much like to hear your opinion”, etc.);
- avoid deviations from the topic of discussion;
- prevent the transition of the discussion into an argument for the sake of an argument;
- make sure that the discussion does not move to the level of interpersonal confrontation and conflict;
- to stimulate the activity of the 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 thoughts (“What do you mean when you say that ...?”, “How will you prove that this is true?”);

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

Demonstration of misunderstanding - prompting students to repeat, clarify the judgment (“I do not quite understand what you mean. Please clarify”);

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

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

“Bringing to the point of absurdity ”- the host agrees with the statement made, and then draws absurd conclusions from it;

“A touching statement” - the facilitator expresses a judgment, knowing that it will cause a sharp reaction and disagreement of the participants, the desire to refute this judgment and state his point of view;

“No-strategy” - the facilitator denies the statements of the participants, without substantiating his denial (“This cannot be”).

Stage 3, summarizing the discussion:

Development by students of an agreed opinion and the adoption of a group decision;

Designation by the leading aspects of positional confrontation and points of contact in a situation where the discussion did not lead to a complete agreement on the positions of the participants. The attitude of students to further understanding the problem and finding ways to solve it;

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

How to lead a class discussion?

Invite shy children to participate. For example, “What do you think, Sasha?”, “We need to listen to other respondents. What do you think about this, Lena?
Do not ask the shy in "dead silence", even self-confident children are lost in such a situation.
Be internally confident that anyone, even the most shy child, will easily answer the question.

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

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

Pull out more information. For example, “Today we are discussing… and Sergey made an offer…”, “Before continuing, let’s sum up 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 the television had not been invented? Write down your thoughts and we'll discuss them in a minute."

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

When you participate in a dispute, in a discussion, they want to hear a clear, well-founded opinion from you. You can seek to convince or convince, or simply communicate your position.

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

P - position (what is your point of view) - I believe that ...
O - justification (on what you are based, 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 presentation, therefore, can consist of two to four sentences and take 1-2 minutes.

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

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

Example of a speech against:

“I believe that latecomers should not be allowed into the class, because it breaks the whole course of the lesson. For example, I entered the classroom in the middle of the previous lesson and for a few 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 referred to as the MOPS formula (Opinion-Explanation-Example-Consequence).

Rules of conduct in the discussion

I criticize ideas, not people

My goal is not to “win”, but to come up with the best solution.

I encourage each participant to participate in the discussion

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

I first find out all the ideas and facts related to both positions

I strive to comprehend and understand both views on the problem

I change my point of view under the influence of facts and persuasive arguments

Mistakes in discussion

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

Unconditional faith of the participants in their leader. In this case, truth is dependent on authority.

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

Passion for discussing abstract problems, deviation from a given topic

Often, some participants in the discussion (2–3 people) “beat” others without letting them say a word

Consequences of the discussion

Demonstration of attitude to the points of view of other participants in the discussion as worthy of respect and understanding

The resolution of a constructive conflict, contradictions in the discussion contributes to the discovery of optimal strategies for solving problems

In a discussion on resolving a constructive conflict, the participants form an attitude towards the leader of the lesson not as a bearer of the only correct point of view, but as an experienced colleague in common 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 participants in the discussion are analyzed, the main points of a correct understanding of the problem are emphasized, the logicality, fallacy of statements, and the inconsistency of individual comments on specific issues of the discussion topic are shown. Attention is drawn to the content of speeches, the depth and scientific nature of the arguments, the accuracy of the expression of thoughts, the correctness of the use of concepts. The ability to answer questions, use methods of evidence and refutation, and use various means of polemics is assessed.

To obtain feedback, it is advisable to use oral or written self-reports of the participants in the discussion. Two forms of self-reports are possible: 1) arbitrary and 2) focused on the following questions: what did I feel during the discussion; what I wanted; what or who interfered; what new things have I learned for myself; did I get carried away by the discussion; if I felt enthusiastic, then why, if I left indifferent, then how do I explain it; How can I use the experience gained in the discussion (positive and negative) in my future work and everyday life?

Card for recording the actions of the participants in the discussion

When organizing a discussion, it is necessary to pay special attention to the placement of the participants in the discussion communication, which depends on the type and type of discussion. Experimental studies prove that the location in space affects the positions of the participants in the discussion. In one experiment, a group of subjects were invited to discuss a topic that was not very important to them, and they were placed in a space around a table according to the diagram shown. At the same time, the chairs were bolted 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 took the same point of view in the dispute and argued with subjects 4, 5 and 6 sitting opposite, who also defended one 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. So, 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 confrontation (for example, for a debate), it will be more productive to position participants defending different points of view against each other (B). Discussions organized through a phased discussion of the problem, first in small groups, then jointly, require a different disposition of the participants (B).

Types of discussions

In modern pedagogical practice, many different options for organizing discussion have accumulated, since it is being actively developed not only as a learning 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 a discussion of a problem by a small group, there are those that ensure effective discussion in a sufficiently large student group by dividing it into small groups and organizing discussions in them, and then coordinating the results of small groups.

"Round table"

The discussion is aimed at discussing some topical topic that requires a comprehensive analysis. As a rule, the participants are not faced with the task of completely solving the 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, agree on their points of view, and learn constructive dialogue. Since the discussion is organized in the literal sense of the round table, 15-25 people can take part in it.

"Debate"

A role-playing debate is a type of discussion-argument and is used to discuss a complex and controversial issue on which there are sharply opposing points of view. The purpose of the discussion is to teach students to reasonably and calmly defend their point of view and try to convince opponents using the available information on the problem.

Stages of debate:

The facilitator offers the participants two or more possible points of view on the problem to choose from. Positions can have a role-playing character and imitate various approaches to solving this problem by representatives of various professional and social groups, political parties, associations, etc.

students choose which point of view they will defend and unite in microgroups, the size of which may be different

the rules of the discussion, the duration of the discussion in groups and the rules for the group's performance in the debate 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; thought out answers to possible questions; the question of how to manage the time allotted

the facilitator in turn gives the floor to the groups, determining the time limit for the speech

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 the proposed issues and aspects of one topic in small groups, followed by analysis and coordination of various approaches and the adoption of 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 a record of the general decision on a piece of paper with a question (problem);

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

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

groups present the results of their work;

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

"Aquarium"

This type of discussion is used to discuss controversial, controversial issues, to form the ability of students to defend and argue their position. At the same time, it is actively used as a method of socio-psychological education, 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 steps:

preparatory - the leader presents the problem and divides the class into microgroups, which are arranged 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 position of the group in front of 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 rest of the participants observe the course of the discussion, taking the position of analysts who evaluate the content and form of speeches, the degree of their persuasiveness, and the particular style of communication of the discussants, but they are forbidden to interfere in the course of the discussion. However, the teacher can set aside special time for questions to the participants of the “aquarium” discussion.

analysis of the course and results of the discussion can be carried out in one or two stages, depending on the purpose of the discussion. If it is necessary to analyze the nature of the interaction in the "aquarium" group, the teacher asks its participants to assess 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 conclusions of the students and sums up the overall result of the joint activity.

"Pinwheel"

The specificity of this discussion lies in the fact that students discuss the problem in shift groups, working at different stages of the discussion in different composition 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 leader of the discussion, the 10th speaker, the 2nd speaker, etc. Thus, maximum activity and involvement of everyone in the discussion of all aspects of the problem is ensured, communicative and organizational skills are formed. The stages of the discussion - "turntables" are described below.

Stage 1, preparatory:

The facilitator provides background information, identifies a problem, or indicates a topic for discussion. 4 directions for solving the problem or aspect of the topic of discussion are proposed;

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 terms of the number of participants (options are possible: 4/4; 4/5; 4/6);

4 tables are being prepared for the work of groups, a plate with one of the letters (“A”, “B”, “C”, “D”) is placed on each and large sheets of paper are placed with one of the questions of the topic under discussion (sheet A, sheet B, sheet D, sheet C). Each participant is given a card with a number (A1, A2 ...; B1, B2 ....; C1, B2 ....; G1, G2 ...) and a route sheet (see table below).

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

Stage 2, holding a discussion:

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

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 the discussion includes a discussion of another aspect of the topic and is held in 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, summarizing the discussion:

at the last, fourth, transition, the participants find themselves in their original 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 to the whole group;

the moderator collects route lists and determines those whose performances were noted by the majority of participants;

microgroups present their findings on each aspect of the topic. The teacher conducts a collective analysis of the results of the discussion and sums it up, notes those students whose speeches were the most interesting and meaningful.

The discussion "Pinwheel" provides an intensive and versatile analysis of the problem under discussion by each student, expands the scope of communication, allowing you to discuss the problem in a different composition of its participants. The complexity of organizing such a discussion is associated with the development of a route for the movement of participants, the need to focus on a certain number of them. It is possible to simplify the discussion algorithm by making the 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, V1, V3,

G2, G4

A5, B5, B4,

G5, G1

A3, A1, B1,

B3, G3

A2, A4, B2, B4, B2

Sample of an individual route sheet

Debate discussion

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

Conference

A type of discussion where discussion and dispute 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, their calm discussion.

progressive discussion

Its goal is a group problem solving while training participants in the relevant communication skills and abilities. This type of discussion consists of 5 stages:

idea generation (participants are given time to come up with ideas on how to solve this 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 head 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 to develop the ability to quickly and effectively make a group decision.

Discussion-competition

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

Mosaic (openwork saw)

Preliminary:

Determine what tasks the problem to be solved in the class is decomposed 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, which are called "home";

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

Each member of the group is an “expert” on a particular topic;

After a short discussion in the group, the "experts" break up into "expert" groups, each of which brings together experts in one area and discusses 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.

Within the groups, identify experts - you can distribute multi-colored cards and designate with the same cards the places where the “expert” groups gather.

Inform the time for work of "house" groups and "expert" groups.

Repeat the task.

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

Summarize. Ask what was the contribution of different "experts" to the overall solution? What is the difference between the work of "home" and "expert" groups?

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

TV talk show style discussion
(Panel Debate)

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

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

The audience enters the discussion later: they express their opinion or ask the participants questions.

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

The facilitator should ensure that the participants in the discussion 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 its 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 of their own position on the topic of discussion.

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

Organize the audience according to the type of studio: the audience is placed in a semicircle in relation to the experts.

When carrying out:

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

Introduce experts.

Tell the rules of the talk show:

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

To receive the floor, one must raise one's hand;

The host gives the floor to the audience;

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

The host has the right to ask questions;

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

Experts answer questions as specifically and briefly as possible;

Let the experts speak.

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

Ask them to write down the questions they didn't have time to answer and pass them on to the experts.

Thank the experts and viewers.

Conduct a debriefing on the content of the discussion and the manner in which it was conducted.

You can use "speech coupons" - everyone has the right to 1-2-3 performances, each time giving the leader a special coupon.

Take a stand (Scale of opinions)

Preliminary:

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

Prepare an “opinion scale” - on the board, draw a line (scale) 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 discussion question and give them time to think about the answer.

Ask some or all of the participants to come up 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:

It is necessary to explain why you have taken 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 the position if the arguments of other participants have convinced you;

Ask questions in turn to the students who took different positions: why did you take this position?

Ask also those who have changed position, why?

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

Organizational techniques used in the discussion

Methodology "question-answer". This technique is a kind of simple interview, the difference is that a certain form of asking questions is used for an interview with participants in a discussion-dialogue. The dialogue strategy consists in the transition from the interlocutor's desire to talk with you to understanding his interests, states, relationships; from understanding the interlocutor to acceptance, and, if necessary, to his conviction.

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

Clinical methodology. When using the “clinic methodology”, each of the participants develops their own version of the solution, having previously given their “diagnosis” of the presented problem situation in an open discussion, then this solution is evaluated both by the leader and by a group of experts specially allocated for this purpose on a point scale or according to a pre-adopted "pleasant-unpleasant" system.

The 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 done by a different participant. All decisions are subject to discussion here, even incorrect ones (dead ends).

relay method. Each participant who finishes his speech can pass the floor to the one he considers necessary.

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

Recently, an increased interest in the problem of dialogic communication has arisen in science, which has led psychologists to search 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 on dialogue and dialogic relations, which were outlined by him in his work "Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics", attracted much attention.

Consider the main provisions of his work. MM. Bakhtin believed that the main condition for the emergence of dialogical relations is the presence of a communicative intention, an attitude towards a message, “on a word”. The subject meanings themselves (idea, thought, judgment) can be in a logical relationship with other subject values, M.M. Bakhtin. However, there is no dialogic relationship between them. And only when this objective meaning is endowed with a “voice”, expressed outside as a meaningful position of the individual in relation to others - “clothed in a word”, then dialogic relations arise. There is a communicative situation. For M.M. Bakhtin, the communicative situation is a system-forming factor, a condition that makes possible the emergence of dialogic relations.

MM. Bakhtin singles out the main elements of the communicative situation. The main such element is the “word”, and the condition for the emergence of dialogic relations is “clothing the judgment into the word.” 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 any utterance. To become an author means to express not only the subject matter itself, but also one's attitude towards it. This unity of thought and attitude to it is the indivisible unit between which interaction is possible.

Dialogical relations, from the point of view of M.M. Bakhtin, arise between the personal contents of communicating subjects, which are manifested in their relationship 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 enter into a relationship with each other.

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

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

If we consider the statement as a psychological reality, then in it we can single out, on the one hand, the message of the subject with the help of linguistic signs about a certain representation that he has in his mind, and on the other hand, the active attitude of the subject to this content. The object is not just reported, but always related to it in some way: either they assert with certainty, or they doubt it, or they wish it, or they regret it, etc. This fact is connected with the nature of subjective reality, which, according to S.L. Rubinstein, is the unity of subjective and objective, knowledge and attitude. Thus, we can talk about the existence in the statement of the initial unity of knowledge and attitude to it.

The information itself is not a complete statement. It contains only the value. Lexically, it is expressed in a sentence. A sentence is an element of a 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 a sign system becomes a unit of working communication, performs a communicative function. Expressing one's attitude to an object means determining one's position in the system of socially significant relations in relation to other people, and, therefore, implies a communicative attitude. Outside the communicative situation, the expression of one's attitude to any object has no meaning. A holistic statement is always focused on the interlocutor.

Balli points out that the response can be directed either to the dictum or to the modus, but never to both. Therefore, the response can be divided into two types: dictal reactions (reactions "on the merits") and modal - reactions to the speaker's attitude to the topic. A simple example: to the statement "Do you think we need to hurry?" you can answer in different ways: “No, there is no need to hurry” (dictal reaction) or “I don’t think, I’m sure” (modal reaction).

In the dialogue M.M. Bakhtin, information about the position of the author of the utterance (modal information according to Bally) has a greater motivating force than information about the very subject of the dialogue. In reality, in a dialogue, everything depends on the context: if it serves the joint solution of the problem, objective information is of primary importance for the development of the solution (in the structure of the utterance, it corresponds to the dictum); if partners need to identify personal preferences, assert their position, attitude to 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 overall structure of a communicative event.

The following elements are distinguished in the structure of the communicative process:

1) communicator - a subject that transmits information;

2) communicant - 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 information transfer.

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

§ index information that informs about the psychological nature of the communicator - his personality, properties, inclinations and emotional state and helps to describe 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 verbal planning process, while the other two types, indexical and regulative, remain virtually unconscious, at least to the speaker. The listener, on the contrary, is aware of all three types of information and is dependent on the last two in his entry into the role of a communicant and in attributing meaning to what he hears. Information about personal preferences, subjective attitude to the object of communication is of decisive importance for the complete interpretation of the speaker's statement.

To develop a plan and strategy for behavior, each subject 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 the 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 the categories to which he wants to refer the listener, and on the other hand, to make clear his own attitude to what is being said. A distinction must be made between what a person says and how he says it. As a rule, preferences are not specifically communicated, but they are always found in various expressive movements, in intonation, in facial expressions, in the choice of different tint meanings of words. The channels for transmitting this information are much more diverse than those that can be used to transmit dictal (cognitive) information. Modal information is present as an integral component of any communication. Foreseeing the behavior of another person makes it possible to adapt to it, develop a further strategy in reaching agreement on the main points of activity. Modal information is of fundamental importance in the organization of 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 discussed, but how they talk about it, how they relate to it. Therefore, the reaction in these cases is directed not at the content, but at the relation. for example, if you announce that a fire has broken out somewhere nearby in an indifferent or even dismissive tone, then most likely the reaction will not be to a dictum (for example, “where did it happen?”), But to a modus: “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 that M.M. Bakhtin, a modal stimulus inevitably causes a response. Therefore, the exchange of modal stimuli resembles, according to M.M. Bakhtin, "perpetum mobile". That is why the modal dialogue is “fundamentally endless”. Each modal stimulus elicits a response that leads to the next response, and so on.

Modal dialogue is a powerful means of personal cognition; the expression "dialogical comprehension of the 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 an utterance. 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 the transmitted information (for example, whether he considers it completely reliable or not), the statement can be in the form of an assertion, belief, assumption. A communicative action can perform the function of stimulating action, regulating the flow of information, expressing intention, etc.

Thus, each replica of the dialogue is characterized from a functional point of view: what function it performs in the communicative process. This characteristic of the utterance is embodied in the sense of the utterance, which is not a simple sum of the lexical meanings of the words that make up it. As M.M. Bakhtin, "dialogical relations are extra-linguistic". In each case, the meaning of the utterance is determined by the broad context in which only the function of the utterance can be unambiguously determined, and above all by the attitude towards the partner's utterances. MM. Bakhtin noted that the semantics of a word changes radically by focusing on someone else's word.

Summing up the theoretical studies of M.M. Bakhtin, we can formulate the following conclusions:

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

Dialogic relations in psychological content are interpersonal, in the form of flow - communicative;

· the initial concepts for the analysis of the dialogue gives a structural representation of a separate statement, the concepts of dictum and modus, 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 studies of communication / Ed. ed. B.F. Lomov, A.V. Belyaeva, V.N. Nosulenko.- M., Publishing House "Nauka", 1985. - 344 p.

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

Ananiev B.G. On the problems of modern human knowledge. - St. Petersburg. 2001.

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

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

Argumentation as a mechanism of rhetorical influence

Argumentation - (from Latin argumentatio - bringing arguments) - bringing arguments with the intention of changing the beliefs of the other party (audience). Such arguments may include references to experience, to more general and seemingly reliable principles, to an accepted belief system, to tradition or intuition, to common sense or taste, and so on. The extremely diverse and heterogeneous ways in 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 in which they are formed and applied.
In A., a thesis is distinguished - a statement (or a system of statements) that the arguing party considers it necessary to inspire 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; theory A. explores the relationship of these statements, and not the thoughts, ideas and motives that stand behind them;
A. is a purposeful activity: it has as its task the strengthening or weakening of someone's beliefs;

A. is a social activity, since it is directed at another person or other people, it involves a dialogue and an active reaction of the other side to the arguments presented;

A. assumes the reasonableness of those who perceive it, their ability to rationally weigh the arguments, accept them or challenge them.
The purpose 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 fairness of the position offered to attention, to incline to accept this position and, possibly, to the action offered by it. This means that the oppositions truth - lies and good - evil are not central either in A. or, accordingly, in her theory. Arguments can be given not only in support of claims that appear to be true, but also in support of false or vague claims. Not only goodness and justice, but also what seems or later turns out to be evil can be defended with reason.

Just as the ability to speak grammatically correct existed even before the grammar describing this process, so the art of persuasion, which is the basis of human cooperation and activity, existed long before the emergence of theory A. The vast majority of people still persuade others with some degree of success without resorting for help to 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 such 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.