Personal readiness of instructors in higher educational institutions to implementing dialogue into educational process

  • Halyna Radchuk Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Head of the Department of Developmental Psychology and Counselling of Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5809-544X
  • Zoryana Adamska PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor of the Department of Developmental Psychology and Counselling of Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8288-836X
Keywords: Educational dialogue, formal dialogue, content dialogue, personal readiness of teachers to implementing dialogue in educational process, facilitation ability.

Abstract

The article addresses theoretical substantiation and empirical research of personal readiness of teachers and instructors in higher educational institutions to implementing dialogue as a form of educational process. The essence of educational dialogue is viewed as an integrated procedural form of active learning, which is aimed at transformation of internal experiences of future specialist and acquiring new ones. The author states that a complete educational dialogue depends on three components: 1) the dialogism of a teacher; 2) the dialogic nature of educational material (as a fragment of given educational content); 3) student dialogue. The leading role of the instructor is being analyzed not only in the dialogic organization of educational process, but also in development of dialogical culture of students. Two aspects of the teacher's readiness are singled out: 1) how a teacher goes through self-realization and personality development (personal readiness); 2) how a teacher contributes to personal growth of students (professional readiness). The article analyzes facilitative abilities of a teacher, based on which the teacher develops personal readiness for implementing dialog as a form of educational process. It has been empirically proven, based on the questionnaires administered to both teachers and students, that teachers often focus on formal indicators, on the monotony and authoritarianism of teaching. Relations between teachers and students are often manipulative, and there is an alienation and indifference of the teaching staff towards students in pedagogical communication. At the same time, dogmatism, formalism, and closeness, and stereotypical role behavior of teachers and students constitute the greatest obstacle in transforming educational process into a dialogue.

References

Bekh, 2003 – Bekh I. D. Vykhovannia osobystosti : U 2 kn. Kn. 1 : Osobystisno oriientovanyi pidkhid: teoretyko-tekhnolohichni zasady : nauk. vydannia. Kyiv : Lybid, 2003. 280 s.
Bratchenko, 1997 – Bratchenko S. L. Mezhlichnostnyy dialog i ego osnovnyye atributy. Psikhologiya s chelovecheskim litsom: gumanisticheskaya perspektiva v postsovetskoj psikhologii / pod red. D. A. Leontyeva, V. G. Shchur. Moskva : Smysl, 1997. S. 201–222.
Lengle, 2004 – Lengle A. Zhizn, napolnennaya smyslom. Prikladnaya logoterapiya. Moskva : Genezis, 2004. 128 s.
Radchuk, 2014 – Radchuk H. K. Aksiopsykholohiia vyshchoi shkoly. Monohrafiia. Ternopil : TNPU im. V. Hnatiuka, 2014. 380 s.
Rodzhers, 2000 – Rodzhers Karl. Tvorchestvo kak usileniye sebya. Gumanisticheskaya i transpersonalnaya psikhologiya. Khrestomatiya / sost. K. V. Selchenyuk. Moskva : Kharvest, AST, 2000. S. 296–306.
Published
2019-09-24
How to Cite
Radchuk, H., & Adamska, Z. (2019). Personal readiness of instructors in higher educational institutions to implementing dialogue into educational process. HUMANITARIUM, 43(1), 122-130. https://doi.org/10.31470/2308-5126-2019-43-1-122-130
Section
Psychology