ISSN : 2241-4665

Αρχική σελίδα περιοδικού C.V.P. Παιδαγωγικής & Εκπαίδευσης

Σύντομη βιογραφία των συγγραφέων

Κριτικές του άρθρου

C.V.P. Παιδαγωγικής & Εκπαίδευσης ISSN: 2241-4665

Ημερομηνία έκδοσης: Αθήνα 18 Ιανουαρίου 2022

VERBAL EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATION

Randjel Stosic, PhD

Academy of Professional Studies South Serbia

Department for Preschool Teacher Training Studies

Aleksandra Jankovic, PhD

Academy of Professional Studies South Serbia

Department for Preschool Teacher Training Studies

Simona Spalcevska, PhD

Academy of Professional Studies South Serbia

Department for Preschool Teacher Training Studies

Maja Filipovic,

Academy of Professional Studies South Serbia

Department for Preschool Teacher Training Studies

Caslav Stoiljkovic,

Academy of Professional Studies South Serbia

Department for Preschool Teacher Training Studies

Abstract: Communication is a prerequisite for more efficient realization of educational goals. Children come to school with developmental communication skills as potentials which, by being planned and acted upon, turn into a living communication process through which the whole process of growing up takes place: intellectual, emotional, moral and social. Communication is the goal of educational work because it strives to develop students' ability to express thoughts more clearly, fosters relative independence of thought and behavior, as well as moral initiative.

Introduction

Communication is the exchange of information between two or more persons through signs that convey ideas, knowledge, messages and experiences. A sign is a charm that points to an object, a person's condition, and a general phenomenon. The sign, therefore, implies a certain meaning. We distinguish two types of signs: symbols and signals. Symbols are signs that communicate a meaning to other people. Symbols are used by man and they are, first and foremost, spoken and written language. Signals are unintentionally produced signs, which also indicate some meaning. Laughter, facial expressions, and crying are signals that spontaneously express certain states, which other people interpret as an expression of states and moods (Χατηδήμου, 2000).

We find a systematic description of communicative unity in Martin Buber, in his conception of the "ontology between", the problem of the I-YOU community. According to Buber, the ontology Between, the I-YOU relationship, exists not only among people, but also towards creatures and things in nature, as well as towards spiritual beings, and this relationship is characterized by: immediacy, reciprocity, origin from the between sphere. Between is the metaphysical and metapsychic fact, the pre-category of human reality which sets the existence of man as a man, the homeland of the original facts of spirit and love (Graorac, 1995).

Communication has become a legitimate perspective from which we answer the question of what a person is. The relationship with others determines and characterizes the individual. The quality and nature of that relationship also determines our individuality, and distinguishes us from everyone else (Queiroz, 2000). In the educational process, communication is defined as the process of creating knowledge between two or more persons, students - teachers, students - students (Fontan, 1996).

Verbal communication and educational system

The sources of inequality of communication between teachers and students and between students are numerous and complex (Abercrombie, 1986). One of the reasons for the inequality of communication between teachers and students is the length of a school lesson. Some students constantly raise their hand and initiate communication, some speak only when called, while a number of students remain almost out of the teacher's attention. Therefore, we have a situation where some students communicate with the teacher every five to ten minutes, while others do not even have a single exchange of words during one school lesson. If the teacher wanted to communicate with each student in an optimal way, he could manage a class with only 12 to 15 students (Καλαϊτζοπούλου, 2001).

These facts lead to a serious re-examination of the assumption of the equal position of students in teaching. In that sense, the number of students in a class shows only the physical presence, and not the moral and intellectual structure of the children's psychological world.

The results of numerous research studies in the field of analysis of verbal communication between teachers and students in our country and in the world have indicated various problems present in this field. The results show that teachers do not know enough about the developmental and other needs of students or different forms and models of communication with them (Μπασέτας, 1999).

The fact that educational communication is typically asymmetric, that is dependent on the teacher, is somewhat understandable, because the teacher defines the situation and determines the rules, which derives from his status of the authority of knowledge (two thirds of teacher statements and one third of all students in the class).

The subject of our special interest is Popović's clear observation about the existence of a direct and indirect model of communicative behavior of teachers.

A direct (dominant, authoritarian, directed teacher) model of communication implies directing students' behavior by teachers, with frequent criticism and prohibitions, and pointing out the teachers' authority while ignoring students’ interests during class as well as their feelings and initiatives. The teacher determines the goals and tasks, methods and stages of work, all actions and initiatives.

An indirect (integrative, democratic, student-centered) model of communication is one in which prevail praise and encouragement by teachers, respect for students' interests, acceptance of their suggestions and ideas, as well as encouragement of student initiative. Through non-directive communication, teachers show interest in the feelings of students and encourage them, and are also prone to express their own feelings (Popović, 2007).

According to the successful definition of Bisera Jevtić (2012), conversation is interpreted in the pedagogical tradition as a revelation of the causal connection of everything, the totality of which serves part of the students' activities. Conversation / dialogue / in the educational process is a very important tool that encourages the overall development of students, the building of their independence, development of cooperation, and development of student identity in the following directions: from negative, through diffuse to positive identity "(Jevtić, 2012, p. 171).

Etymologically, the dialogue (δια + λόγος) arises from the verb "δια-λέγομαι", which indicates the energy and power of speech (Πλάτωνος, Μένων 75d), speech with oneself and speech with others.

Special importance in Greek philosophy is attributed to the verb διαλέγεσθαι as a way of finding the reason or cause of things (Λάππας, 2000). According to the same writer, dialogue gives birth to the ability of perseverance and honesty, participation of the personal experience of the partner, closeness and overcoming the degree of inequality (Ibidem).

Justin Popović finds the source of true dialogue in the very communion with God. Not an impersonal, virtual or abstract supreme deity, but a living and life-giving, energetic and omnipotent personal moral God. God is not something neutral, without consciousness, but freedom, reason and love. Dialogue in God moves at two levels, as a dialogue between the persons of the Holy Trinity and as a dialogue between God and a man, a God-man dialogue. Also, it is interesting how Popović emphasizes that when a person meets God, he does not only listen to His voice, but responds energetically (Popović, 1983).

In order for the dialogue itself to become a fertile environment for every cooperation and dignity of not only teachers but also students, it is necessary to provide art - the skill of dialogue as well as its canons (Jevtić, Mikanović, 2012). The main pillar of a successful dialogue according to Justin Popovic is respect, which is expressed at all times and determines the value equality and energy of each member, creating a positive climate and developing cognitive spirit, removing collective insecurity and distrust of one's own authority.

In Popovic’s letter to St. Arch. Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church we find the scheme and canons of subjective and objective conditions of the empirical dialogue of teachers-students, as well as students-students:

– understanding (each speaker critically expresses the opinion of the previous speaker showing the need for totality),

– pleasure (speech of a sincere and quiet voice creates creative and critical thought, while the atmosphere of shouting and noise instills restlessness and ambiguity),

– influence on attitudes and beliefs (having respect during the presentation of thoughts and attitudes, interruption of the speaker is not allowed and is not justified even in the case of the need of explanation of some important elements),

– improving the cooperation with everyone (there is no antagonism-competition. Dialogue based on cooperation, not antagonism, requires skill and art. This skill is acquired by knowing and respecting others in free and clear expression. In such a school climate even shy students manage to develop their hidden critical abilities),

– absence of submission and rejection of anyone. A positive approach to the problem should always be created, no one's opinion should be subordinated, despite the mutual difference,

– active and attentive listening, because listening requires responsibility,

– developed empathy - acceptance of the persons as they are,

– motivation for mutual connection (Popović, 2007).

Of course, we must not forget that Justin's works reveal to us that in his pedagogical understanding of dialogue there is also a "dialogue of lies". The dialogue of lies is characteristic of the father of lies, the devil, a dialogue without morals, without love, without truth, unnatural and false, a dialogue that contains frivolity, vulgarity, cowardice and aggression. The dialogue of lies creates the loss of key moral elements that make up a person, the alienation of man from his nature, from the moral ego and his own moral energies, isolation and, above all, anonymity (Stošić, 2018/2019).

Justin's synthesis of school dialogue finds its source in liturgical dialogue, because with such a dialogue the student raises his gaze towards the Creator and His Holiness, which creates understanding, satisfaction and moral rise of a free person. According to Ava Justin Popović, what is of great importance during the language communication in a class is not the exchange of information, but the energetic initiation of each participant. And that is why Popović, as a modern pedagogue, points out the need for freedom of speech of every student in the educational process (Popović, 2007).

In order for free dialogue to function, it is necessary to provide a social and cultural environment free from external pressure and authoritarianism that harm the student himself. Free dialogue indicates free and fruitful cooperation between teachers and students (Κογκούλης, 2003). Free dialogue is also a problem, the danger of deviating from the "right path" is a very complex and serious process that requires great attention and vigilance (Krulj, Kacapor, Kulic, 2002).

The content and goal of free dialogue is the ability of students to correctly formulate questions, emphasize the main points of research, to kindly criticize the answers of others and gracefully defend their views. Students are called to reasonably find a balance between freedom and discipline, to realize the meaning of creative, internal and external, moral and social freedom, which fights against lawlessness and anarchy, against moral slavery (Wilson, 1990).

Questions play a crucial role in the conversation. Questions as a form of communication are as old as the word itself (Rogers, 1961). The function of the question exists in Socrates himself, the "maieutic method", where Socrates mysteriously asked his student questions in order to help him understand the essence of truth. The questions direct the students' thinking, they are connected with cognitive, emotional, social and moral expressive development (Κωττούλα, 2000).

A teacher who possesses the art of questioning properly develops communication with students and creates the path to success. Nikos Petroulakis writes in his book Διδακτικά προβλήματα (Didactic Problem): "The art of questioning is still one of the main methods used by the teacher to achieve success in his work" (Πετρουλάκης, 1976, p. 43).

Conidiciotis Vasiliu (1961, Κονιδιτσιώτη Βασιλείου) emphasizes "If a teacher has the opportunity to ask appropriate questions at the right time, he really encourages a student, and the educational process of energetic development of the student follows." The same author emphasizes the importance of the role of questions in the communication process, because the teacher:

1. gains students' interest,

2. motivates indecisive and timid students to participate in the discussion,

3. checks and confirms students' understanding,

4. notices the difficulties of students in acquiring cultural goods and takes appropriate

didactic measures,

5. creates conditions for active participation of students in the teaching process,

6. develops critical thinking and research spirit,

7. develops in students the correct formulation of questions (Κονιδιτσιώτη, 1961, p. 126-onwards).

The teacher is aware that questions create dialogue and develop different cognitive and moral functions of students. Therefore, the questions require a classification that depends on the age of the students and the topic itself.

The simplest classification of questions is found in the work of Spiros Evagelopoulos (1998, Ευαγγελόπουλος Σπύρος), who distinguishes between open and closed questions.

Closed questions require one, concrete answer. The questions begin with the words: who, when, where, what, etc.

Open questions give students the opportunity to express their opinions and feelings on a certain topic. The answer is not one word.

Theses questions usually begin with the words: what is your opinion, how to approach the problem, how can we apply the solution to the problem in today's society (Ευαγγελόπουλος, 1998, p. 59). Therefore, it is obvious that closed questions refer to memory, while the open ones refer to the development of a critical opinion, which, according to Radovan Grandić (2001), influences personality development through:

– critical identifications in different areas,

– critical verification of all values before their acceptance and adoption,

– developing criticism in choosing ideals and role models,

– critical re-examination of certain values and assessment of people's behavior (Grandić, 2001, p. 59).

By analyzing the educational work of the teacher, Popović notices that by not knowing the art and technique of the question, the teacher looks for the proof of passive listening, not thinking of the students. Prohibitory questions that aim to correct and direct students' communicative behavior are often uttered in an underestimating and sharp tone and very often aim to emphasize the authority of the teacher. In addition, the emotional dimension of communication is reduced to a minimum, because teachers spend time ignoring and inhibiting the expression of emotions by students (Popović, 1923).

Conclusion

Communication of today's society is characterized by egopathy and selfishness, lack of understanding and the development of antagonism. The consequence of such a situation is morbid morality, which occurs in the forms of subordination, hypocrisy and flattery. The destruction of morals, the loss of moral consciousness and attitudes, the loss of true communication and cooperation are the elements that characterize the modern community.

Verbal school communication needs and is reflected in the following characteristics:

a) meaningful communication comfort - the right to similarity, but also to diversity of opinions, ideas and proposals.

b) spatial communication comfort - the right to distance of all participants in communication.

c) time communication comfort - the right of all participants in communication to determine the beginning and end, as well as the duration of communication.

d) work communication comfort - the right of communication participants to the activity or passivity of their behavior during communication.

d) emotional communication comfort - satisfaction during the communication process.

References

Abercrombie, M. (1986). Δημιουργική διδασκαλία και μάθηση. Αθήνα.

Грандић, Р. (2001). Прилози естетском васпитању. Нови Сад: Савез педагошких друштава Војводине.

Граорац , И. (1995). Васпитање и комуникација. Нови Сад: Матица српска.

Ευαγγελόπουλος, Σπ. (1998). Η Λεκτική επικοινωνία στην Σχολική Τάξη. Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα.

Јевтић, Б. (2012). Педагогија моралности. Ниш: Филозофски факултет.

Jevtić, B., Mikanović, B. (2012). Interkulturalnost u očima nastavnika - problemi i perspective. Zbornik radova Pedagogija i kultura, 139-150. Zagreb: Hrvatsko pedagogijsko društvo.

Καλαϊτζοπούλου, Μ. (2001). Ο εκπαιδευτικός ως στοχαζόμενος επαγγελματίας. Αθήνα: Τυπωθήτω.

Κογκούλης, Ι. (2003). Διδακτική των θρησκευτικών στη πρωτοβάθμια και δευτεροβάθμια εκπαίδευση. Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοί Κυριακίδη.

Κονιδιτσιώτη, Β. (1961). Μαιευτική παιδαγωγική. Αθήνα.

Круљ, Р., Качапор, С., Кулић, Р. (2002). Педагогија. Београд: Свет књиге.

Κωττούλα, Μ. (2000). Ενιαίο σχολείο και εκπαιδευτικοί. Αθήνα:Τυπωθήτω.

Λάππας, Δ. (2000). Ο διαλογος και το μαθημα θρησκευτικων στη δευτεροβαθμια εκπαιδευση. Θεσσαλονίκη: Πουρναράς.

Μπασέτας, Κ. (1999). Οι προσδοκίες των δασκάλων και οι επιδράσεις τους στους μαθητές. Αθήνα: Γρηγόρη.

Πετρουλάκης, Ν. (1976). Διδακτικά προβλήματα. Αθήνα.

Поповић, Ј. (1923). О духу времене. Хришћански живот бр.4, 145-150. Сремски Карловци.

Поповић, Ј. (1938). О православној саборности. Преглед Епархије жичке бр. 8, 3-12. Краљево: Свештеничко удружење.

Поповић, Ј. (1983). Тумачење посланица Прве и Друге Коринћанима светог апостола Павла. Београд: Манастир Ћелије.

Поповић, Ј. (2007). Сетве и жетве. Ваљево: Наследници Оца Јустина и Манастир Ћелије. [Напомињемо да се на првој страни наводи као место издавања Београд].

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Стошић, Р. (2018/2019). Морал опраштања код деце (педагошки приступ др Јустина Поповића). Зборник радова, 4/5. Бујановац: Висока школа за васпитаче струковних студија Гњилане-Бујановац, 119-130.

Fontan, D. (1996). Ο εκπαιδευτικός στην τάξη. Αθήνα: Σαββάλας.

Χατηδήμου, Δ. (2000). Εισαγωγή στην Παιδαγωγική. Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοί Κυριακίδη.

Wilson, J. (1990). A new introduction to Moral Education. London: Vassell.

Queiroz, J. (2000). Το σχολείο & οι Κοινωνιολογίες του.Αθήνα: Gutenberg.

© Copyright-VIPAPHARM. All rights reserved