{"title":"The unity of subjective predictors of speech actions as an indicator of the subject’s agency in learning: An empirical study","authors":"T. S. Vershinina, N. Zhukova","doi":"10.15293/2658-6762.2306.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The article presents the results of an empirical study of subjective predictors of speech actions. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the indicators of students’ agency in learning on the basis of empirical research in subjective predictors of speech actions. Materials and Methods. The study follows A. N. Leontiev’s activity-based approach, A. A. Verbitsky’s theory of context education, and J. Kelly’s cognitive theory of personality. The research methods include the following: analysis, synthesis, generalization, classification, J. Kelly’s method of repertoire gratings, methods of mathematical statistics. Moreover, the author used co-therapeutic computer system «KELLI-98». Results. The empirical study on the unity of (connection between) subjective predictors of speech actions, which include significant roles, conjugations of the I-real/I-ideal, and the type of communication allowed to reveal four kinds of students’ agency in learning. The first one is a normal type of communication, characterized by manifested agency in interpersonal interaction with all subjects of the educational process, and speech action at the dialogue level. The second is a normal type of communication characterized by latent agency in interpersonal interaction with all subjects of the educational process; speech action at this level is an internal dialogue. The third type is a rigid type of communication distinguished by lack of objectivity in interpersonal interaction with all subjects of the educational process; speech action is characterized by opposition to others and resistance. The fourth type of communication is a rigid one. Its distinctive features include a poorly developed ability to solve problems in interpersonal interaction with all subjects of the educational process; speech actions include manipulation. Conclusions. Finally, relying on the empirical data analysis, the author concludes that the unity of subjective predictors of speech actions (significant roles, conjugation of the I-real/I-ideal, type of communication) is an indicator of ‘activity/inactivity’; on the basis of this indicator, four kinds of students’ learning behaviors are described.","PeriodicalId":21621,"journal":{"name":"Science for Education Today","volume":"123 42","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science for Education Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2306.09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction. The article presents the results of an empirical study of subjective predictors of speech actions. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the indicators of students’ agency in learning on the basis of empirical research in subjective predictors of speech actions. Materials and Methods. The study follows A. N. Leontiev’s activity-based approach, A. A. Verbitsky’s theory of context education, and J. Kelly’s cognitive theory of personality. The research methods include the following: analysis, synthesis, generalization, classification, J. Kelly’s method of repertoire gratings, methods of mathematical statistics. Moreover, the author used co-therapeutic computer system «KELLI-98». Results. The empirical study on the unity of (connection between) subjective predictors of speech actions, which include significant roles, conjugations of the I-real/I-ideal, and the type of communication allowed to reveal four kinds of students’ agency in learning. The first one is a normal type of communication, characterized by manifested agency in interpersonal interaction with all subjects of the educational process, and speech action at the dialogue level. The second is a normal type of communication characterized by latent agency in interpersonal interaction with all subjects of the educational process; speech action at this level is an internal dialogue. The third type is a rigid type of communication distinguished by lack of objectivity in interpersonal interaction with all subjects of the educational process; speech action is characterized by opposition to others and resistance. The fourth type of communication is a rigid one. Its distinctive features include a poorly developed ability to solve problems in interpersonal interaction with all subjects of the educational process; speech actions include manipulation. Conclusions. Finally, relying on the empirical data analysis, the author concludes that the unity of subjective predictors of speech actions (significant roles, conjugation of the I-real/I-ideal, type of communication) is an indicator of ‘activity/inactivity’; on the basis of this indicator, four kinds of students’ learning behaviors are described.
简介文章介绍了言语行为主观预测因素的实证研究结果。文章的目的是在言语行为主观预测因素实证研究的基础上,证实学生在学习中的能动性指标。材料和方法。研究遵循 A. N. 列昂季耶夫的基于活动的方法、A. A. 韦尔比茨基的情境教育理论和 J. 凯利的人格认知理论。研究方法包括以下几种:分析、综合、概括、分类、J.凯利的重奏光栅法、数理统计方法。此外,作者还使用了共同治疗计算机系统 "KELLI-98"。研究结果通过对言语行为主观预测因素(包括重要角色、"我"-"真实"/"我"-"理想 "的连接)和交流类型的统一性(之间的联系)进行实证研究,揭示了学生在学习中的四种能动性。第一种是正常类型的交流,其特点是在与教育过程的所有主体的人际互动中表现出能动性,并在对话层面上采取言语行动。第二种是正常类型的交流,其特点是在与教育过程中所有主体的人际交往中具有潜在的能动性;这一层次的言语行动是一种内部对话。第三种是僵化型交流,其特点是在与教育过程所有主体的人际交往中缺乏客观性;言语行为的特点是与他人对立和抵制。第四种是僵化型交流。其显著特点是在与教育过程的所有主体进行人际交往时,解决问题的能力较差;言语行为包括操纵。结论最后,根据实证数据分析,作者得出结论:言语行为的主观预测因素(重要角色、我-现实/我-理想的连接、交流类型)的统一是 "活动/非活动 "的指标;在此指标的基础上,描述了四种学生的学习行为。