UDC 37.01
Yulia V. Verminenko, Dr. of Sociology, Docent, Head of the Department of Public Relations and Advertising of the A.I. Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University, St. Petersburg, e-mail: verminenko@yandex.ru
Sergey E. Zverev*, Cand. Sci. (Pedagogy), Docent, Associate Professor of the Department of Pedagogical Competencies of the Empress Catherine II Mining University, St. Petersburg, e-mail: ser86979392@yandex.ru
The Federal Educational Program of General Secondary Education mentions the use of discussion in the educational process occasionally. Communication is considered as a means of ensuring the formation of universal educational actions (UES). Communicative activity differs from communicative actions on the basis of a motive, which is based on the need for communication, which is more developed in modern youth than the cognitive need. The article substantiates the necessity of transferring the communicative activity of students to the classroom (classroom) and filling its content with educational information. This approach dictates the need for work based on discussion, in which the communicative activity of the participants reaches a maximum. Based on the concept of discourses of J. Lacan (Master’s discourse, university discourse, hysteric discourse, analyst’s discourse) and the practice of debating in modern American university culture, the possibilities of using different forms of discourse in various kinds of discussions and options for their use in the educational process are analyzed. The materials are accompanied by a brief retrospective of the use of discussion in state and military policy and the conclusion is made about the need for a wider introduction of discussion (debating) to form the ability to communicate within the framework of the UES.
Keywords: universal educational communicative actions, communicative activity, discourse, discussion, training, education.
References
1. Karaulov, Yu.N., Filippovich, Yu.N. Linguocultural consciousness of the Russian linguistic personality: modeling of the state and functioning. Moscow: Azbukovnik, 2009. 354 p.
2. Klarin, M.V. Discussion in the educational process. Narodnoe obrazovanie. 2015. No. 5. P. 139–151.
3. Klarin, M.V. Live and virtual discussion. School technologies. 2015. No. 1. P. 59–77.
4. Klingberg, L. Problems of the Theory of Learning: Transl. with German. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1984. 256 p.
5. Kozharinova, A.R. Mass communication as the interaction of discourses: analytical potential of the theory of four discourses of J. Lacan. Culture and Society. 2019. No. 2. P. 157–165.
6. Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and Plenums of the Central Committee (1898–1986). Vol. 2. 1917–1922. 9th ed., supplement. and revision. Moscow: Politizdat, 1983.
7. Krasnykh, V.V. Ethnopsycholinguistics and linguocultural science: A course of lectures. Moscow: Gnosis, 2002. 284 p.
8. Makarenko, A.S. Collected Works in 8 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow: Pedagogy, 1984. P. 117.
9. Pozdeeva, S.I. Educational discussion in elementary school as a form of development of communicative universal learning actions. Human and Education. 2019. No. 1 (58). P. 81–85.
10. Order of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation from 23.11.2022 No. 1014 “On approval of the federal educational program of secondary general education”. URL: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru'Document/View/ (accessed on: 27.11.2023).
11. Sukhomlinsky, V.A. I give my heart to children. Kiev: Radyanska shkola, 1974. 288 p.
12. Presidential Decree of November 9, 2022, No. 809 “On Approval of the Fundamentals of State Policy for the Preservation and Strengthening of Traditional Russian Spiritual and Moral Values” dated November 10, 2022. URL: http://kremlin.ru'acts/bank/48502 (accessed on: 27.11.2023).
13. Frunze, M.V. Selected Works. Moscow: Voenizdat, 1984.
14. Griffin, Em. Communication: theories and practices / transl. from Engl. Kharkiv: Humanitarian Center, 2015. P. 270–282.
15. |”Winter War”: work on errors (April-May 1940). Materials of the commissions of the Main Military Council of the Red Army to generalize the experience of the Finnish campaign. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Summer Garden, 2004.
16. Fink, B. The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997.
17. Llano, Stephen. The Relationship between Facts, Debate, and Educa-tion. Academia Letters, 2021. URL: http://academia.edu›44990751/The_Relationship_between_ (accessed on: 27.11.2023).
18. Three discourses of American debate (with a glimpse toward a fourth) Stephen M. Llano. URL: http://stjohns.academia.edu/Stephenllano (accessed on: 27.11.2023).