Natalia Blahun. Content Factors of Language Component in the System of School Students Socialisation.

(2016) Science and education, 10, 131-135. Odessa.

Natalia Blahun,
Doctor of Pedagogy, professor,
Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University,
57, Shevchenka Str., Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine


CONTENT FACTORS OF LANGUAGE COMPONENT IN THE SYSTEM OF SCHOOL STUDENTS’ SOCIALISATION 


SUMMARY:

Any changes in social life are highlighted by means of a language, which is regarded as the fundamental tool of socialisation – the transformation of a human being into a personality, part of society. It is obvious that such a process is based on the coherence of social conditions, namely political, economic and cultural factors, which exist in dialectal motion. It is the so-called “socio-system” which presupposes a complex of notions such as “culture”, “socio-culture”, “sociocultural competence”. The priorities of the latter are schoolers’ willingness and ability to co-exist comfortably in a multicultural world and to gain knowledge for developing worldview and civic awareness. The linguistic component has the following major functions: communication, socio-cultural awareness, and activity. It should be noted that “the sociocultural line” plays a significant role since its function is to develop socio-cultural competence by learning new values and norms which regulate socio-communicative relations between genders, generations, nations and which are conducive to schoolers’ aesthetic, moral and ethical development. The teacher is responsible for eliciting the students’ views by means of certain methods, techniques and forms of teaching. Regardless of age and learning bias, the following activities are essential at native language classes: silent reading and reading aloud, listening comprehension, summary, essay (in oral or written form), working with textbooks, tests, situational exercises, etc. It contributes to perfecting the skills of analysis, synthesis, comparison, perception, concretisation and generalisation. Experimental work is considered to be very efficient, as it implements a number of changes into the traditional approach to preparing schoolchildren for oral and written creative tasks. It certainly concerns problematic situational assignments on moral, ethical, social and political issues, which contribute to personality development at Ukrainian language lessons. The content and communicative line of the Ukrainian language curriculum is based on relevant information on sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, country studies, and ethnolinguistics – it reflects native culture and the eternal values of world culture. Additionally, it should be emphasised that materials on regional culture studies are significant for a modern person, and especially for a child. In this respect, national cultural values are regarded as the most significant, because a language reflects the spiritual bases of life. In socialisation, the major spheres of adapting schoolers to society (family, school, society, native land, state) are regarded as the most powerful determinants; materials on country studies play the main role. 


KEYWORDS:

socialisation, self-development, Ukrainian language, curriculum materials, experimental work, moral and ethical subject matter of literary works.


FULL TEXT:

 


REFERENCES:

1. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning – A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change. (pp. 13-25) [in English].
2. Burnard, P. (1999). Carl Rogers and postmodernism: Challenged in nursing and health sciences. Nursing and Health Sciences, 1, 241-247 [in English].
3. Milanovic, M. (Ed.). (2002). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Language examining and test development. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division [in English].
4. Edmondson, W., House, J. (2000). Einführung in die Sprachlehrforschung. Tübingen: Franke [in German].
5. Fried-Booth, D. L. (1990). Project Work. Oxford Uni
versity Press [in English].
6. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon [in English].
7. Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics conceptions of teaching. Learning and instruction, 7(3), 255-275 [in English].
8. Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Trinity College [in English].
9. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [in English].
10. O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Studentcentered learning: What does it mean for students and lectures? University College Dublin. Retrieved from: http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/oneill-mcmahonTues_19th_Oct_SCL.pdf [in English].
11. O’Sullivan, M. (2004). The reconceptualisation of learner-centred approaches: A Nambian case study. International Journal of Educational Development, 24 (6), 585-602 [in English].
12. Ribe, R. (1993). Project Work. Macmillan Heinemann English Language Teaching [in English].
13. Roger, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80’s. 2 nd ed., rev. Merrill: [in English].
14. Rogoff, B. (1999). Cognitive development through social interaction: Vygotsky and Piaget. Learners, learning and assessment. P. Murphy (Ed.). London: Open University Press [in English].
15. Simon, B. (1999). Why no pedagogy in England? Learners and Pedagogy. J. Leach and B. Moon (Eds.). London: Sage Publications [in English].
16. Tarnopolsky, O. B. (2001). The scale of learner autonomy: Three levels in an intensive English programme. Independence. Newsletter of the IATEFL Learner Independence Special Interest Group, 29, 1-5 [in English].
17. Taylor, P. G. (2000). Changing Expectations: Preparing students for Flexible Learning. The International Journal of Academic Development, 5(2), 107-115 [in English].

         

       
   
   
         

 

©2020 Університет Ушинського. Всі права захищені, мабуть.