|
SEMIOTIC POTENTIAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION
DOI: 10.23951/2782-2575-2022-1-13-22
Abstract. Despite the considerable number of studies dealing with the semiotic aspects of education, none show the full semiotic potential of pedagogical education. This study presents the hierarchies of sign systems and their application in the training and development of future teachers. The use of A.B. Solomonik’s pyramid of sign systems to determine the semiotic potential of pedagogical education is particularly relevant. In this context, two goals of pedagogical training are considered. The first one is to use the sign systems of the given classification to identify the contents of the subject mastered by future teachers and use them for pedagogical interaction. In this case, semiotic research is developed in three directions: the semiotics of visualization of the content of school subjects; semiotics of visualization of the teaching process based on modern possibilities of technical means of education and information and communication technologies; and semiotics of pedagogical communication (internal and external). The second goal defines the prospects for using the presented semiotic pyramid for cultivating a general professional culture for student teachers. However, as a science, education does not have formalized first and second-order systems within the given classification. In this study, stereotypes (perceptions, images, behaviors) that determine the dynamics of a future teacher’s education and development function as units of sign systems. The development of stereotypes of pedagogical culture in future teachers determines their professional and personal progress, and the emergence and dynamics of innovative solutions. The characteristics of the four-level sign systems are given 1) Natural Sign Systems. These are elementary representations of interaction between student and teacher, reflecting life experiences made before the beginning of professional education. 2) Image Systems. These are stereotypes about the school education system held by applicants to the pedagogical universities. Stereotypes have both positive and negative characteristics. 3) Linguistic Systems. Verbal texts contain theoretical information about a particular area of professional culture and presuppose that each student acquires it individually (lecture material, traditional learning assignments, homework). A semiotic model of learning is manifested. The teacher gives a theoretical introduction to pedagogical paradigms – meta stereotypes of pedagogical perceptions and behaviors through language systems. 4) Writing systems. This level of sign systems includes written texts (documents) reflecting pedagogical systems and technologies, educational programs, and standards. A certain role in the formation of stereotypes among teachers is played at this level by the lists of competencies and professional functions defined by educational and professional standards. A different approach to personal and professional development implies a practice-oriented educational system developed through the continuous exercise of job-related tasks. In this sense, teacher training should reflect professional activity with the broader perspectives of synergy.
Keywords: sign systems, training of teachers, semiotics of pedagogy, image of professional future, general professional culture of teachers, stereotype
References:
1. Korshunova O.V., Shkalikov E.V. Semiotic competence of a future teacher: problem statement, diagnostics, development prospects. Prospects of science and education. 2019. No. 5 (41). pp. 452–467. (In Russian). DOI: 10.32744/pse.2019.5.32
2. Melik-Gaykazyan I. V. Semiotics of education or “keys” and “lock picks” to the modelling of educational systems. Idei i Idealy – Ideas and Ideals, 2014, 4 (1), pp. 14–27. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2014-4.1-14-27
3. Sebeok T.A., Lamb S.M., & Regan J.O. Semiotics in education: A dialogue (=Issues of Communication 10). Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate School. 1988.
4. Danesi M. Foreword: Edusemiotics. In I. Semetsky (Ed.), Semiotics education experience. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2010. Pp. vii-xi. (In Netherlands)
5. Solomonick A.B. Semiotics and its pedagogical continuations. Problems of modern education. 2010. 2. Pp. 41–48. (In Russian).
6. Solomonik A. Essay on general semiotics. Minsk, 2009. 191 p. (In Russian).
7. Danielsson K., Selander S. Semiotic Modes and Representations of Knowledge Multimodal Texts in Disciplinary Education. 2021. Pp 17–23
8. Vozzhennikov A.P., Golubev V.O. Technology of visualization of mathematical objects and concepts. Applied Informatics. № 4. 2008. С. 22–26. (In Russian).
9. Dalinger V.A. Teaching mathematics on the basis of cognitive visual approach. The Bryansk state university herald. 2011. 1. Pp. 297–303. (In Russian).
10. Petrov Yu.A., Stolyar A.A. On the pedagogical aspect of the semiotical analysis of issues. The logic and problems of learning: a collection of articles. Compiled by V.G. Farber. Ed. by B.V. Biryukov, V.G. Farber. Moscow, 1977. Pp. 63–87. (In Russian).
11. Chervonnyy M.A. Visualization in teaching mathematics and physics for schoolchildren and in training future teachers. ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics. 2018. 4. P. 235–250. (In Russian). DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2018-4-235-250
12. Shenshev L.V. The experience of a semiotic approach to the problem of interrelationships among school subjects. The logic and problems of learning: a collection of articles. Compiled by V.G. Farber. Ed. by B.V. Biryukov, V.G. Farber. Moscow, 1977. Pp. 185–214. (In Russian).
13. Isaykin O.A., Shabashev A.V. From the chalk one to interactive one. The education and science journal. 2005. 4 (34). Pp. 128–130. (In Russian).
14. Galaktionova T.G. Pedagogics of text: semiotical solution experience. Comp. and ed. by T.G. Galaktionova. St. Petersburg, 2013. 379 p. (In Russian).
15. Shirshov V.D. Introduction to pedagogical semiotics. Scientific digital Library portalus.ru. URL: https://portalus.ru/modules/shkola/rus_readme.php?subaction=showfull&id=1192625861&archive=1196815384&start_from=&ucat=& (In Russian).
16. Arnheim R. Visual Thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1969. (In USA).
17. Arnheim R. Art and Visual Perception. New version. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974. (In USA).
18. Arnheim R. New essays on the psychology of art. Translated from English by Kreidlin. Moscow, 1994. 352 p. (In Russian).
19. Zalesskiy M.L. Visualization of physics teaching as a means of increasing the effectiveness of its study by schoolchildren. School technologies, 2020, no. 4, pp. 79–86. (In Russian).
20. Kon I.S. Psychology of prejudice (on the socio-psychological roots of ethnic prejudice). New world, 1966, 9, pp. 187–205. (In Russian).
21. Yadov V.A. Self-regulation and forecasting of social behavior of the person: Dispositional concept. Moscow, 2013. 376 p. (In Russian).
22. Sergeev I.S. Basics of pedagogical activity: textbook. St. Petersburg, 2004. 316 p. (In Russian).
23. Verbitskiy A.A., Il›yazova M.D. Professionalism invariants: problems of their development: monograph. Moscow, 2011. 288 p. (In Russian).
24. Chaplygina Yu.S. Pedagogical stereotypes as form of collective consciousness in teaching process. Izvestia of Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2010, 3 (3), pp. 678–682. (In Russian).
25. Chervonnyy M.A., Gazizov T.T, Borisova E.E. Organization of higher education institutions students teaching practice based at the centre for supplementary education. Pedagogika, 2017, 9, pp. 103–107. (In Russian).
26. Sorokin Yu.A. Stereotype, stamp, cliche: to the problem of the concepts definition. Communication: theoretical and pragmatic problems. Moscow, 1998. (In Russian).
27. Finchenko S.N., Sartakova E.E. Stages of the formation of contemporary ideas about the concept of stereotype in professional pedagogical activities Psychology, sociology and pedagogy, 2017, 12. URL: http://psychology.snauka.ru/2017/12/8438 (In Russian).
28. Sorokin P.A. Human. Civilization. Society. Moscow, 1992. (In Russian).
29. Kharlanova E.M. The development of higher education institution students› social activity development in the process of formal and non-formal education integration. Dr. Sci. in Pedagogy dissertation. Chelyabinsk, 2015. 435 p. (In Russian).
30. Toisteva O.S. System-activity approach in the professional training of social and pedagogical personnel in the university. Dr. Sci. in Pedagogy dissertation. Yekaterinburg, 2015. 368 p. (In Russian).
31. Kharlanova E.M. The conception of students› social activity development in the process of formal and non-formal education integration. Chelyabinsk, 2014. 380 p. (In Russian).
32. Avanesov L.E., Akopyan K.A. Educational attractors in the synergy as the phase attractiveness of the education system. Scientific notes of the Russian state social university, 2016, 2, pp. 137–144. (In Russian).
33. Verbitskiy A.A. Active learning at higher school: context approach. Moscow, 2015. 207 p. (In Russian).
34. Ostashkov V.N., Smirnov E.I., Belonogova E.A. Education Sinergy in Research of Attractors and Basins of Nonlinear Mapping Attraction. Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin, 2016, 6, pp. 146–156. (In Russian).
( 769.99 kB ) 
( 740.35 kB )
Issue: 1, 2022
Series of issue: Issue 1
Rubric:
Pages: 13 — 22
Downloads: 483