UDC

81՚271:811.111

DOI

https://doi.org/10.37482/2687-1505-V131

Authors

Irina P. Khоutyz
Kuban State University; ul. Stavropol’skaya 149, Krasnodar, 350040, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4141-5395 e-mail: ir_khoutyz@hotmail.com

Abstract

This article dwells on the construction of active learning discourse. The material is comprised of six videos in English, which demonstrate how the active learning format can be applied to a university lecture. These videos were chosen due to their popularity on YouTube and because they present fragments of real university classes accompanied by lecturers’ explanations. The discourse analysis applied found a correlation between lecturers’ linguistic choices and their communicative aim. In addition, the methods of systematization and classification were used. Prior to the analysis, all the videos were transcribed. As a result of the research, typical features of active learning discourse were identified and communicative means of its construction were determined. It was established that this type of discourse can be described as academic and institutional. Frequent use of means of dialogicity and high level of emotionality are among its distinctive features. The study found that when constructing the discourse of active learning, lecturers use factual information, questions, direct address to the audience, repetitions, as well as discourse markers of encouragement and solidarity. As this type of discourse is aimed at motivating students to actively participate in the process of learning, а conclusion is made that active learning discourse can also be described as motivational.

For citation: Khоutyz I.P. Active Learning Discourse: Specifics of Construction (Illustrated by Academic Discourse in English). Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Ser.: Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki, 2021, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 48–58. DOI: 10.37482/2687-1505-V131

Keywords

academic discourse in English, active learning discourse, dialogicity means, communicative tools, communicative behaviour

References

1. Al’suleyman M.I., Yakovleva S.I. Aktivnye metody obucheniya v vysshey shkole [Active Teaching Methods at High School]. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Geografiya i geoekologiya, 2019, no. 4, pp. 73–83.
2. Creekmore J., Deaton S. The Active Learning Classroom: Strategies for Practical Educators. New Forums Press, 2015. 92 p.
3. Kosslyn S.M. Active Learning Online: Five Principles That Make Online Courses Come Alive. Boston, 2020. 167 p.
4. Suleymanova O.A. Akademicheskiy dialog: diskursivnaya interpretatsiya [Academic Dialogue: Discourse Interpretation]. Kontsept i kul’tura: dialogovoe prostranstvo kul’tury: Yazykovaya lichnost’. Tekst. Diskurs [Concept and Culture: Dialogue Space of Culture: Linguistic Personality. Text. Discourse]. Kemerovo, 2016, pp. 519–524.
5. Khutyz I.P. Akademicheskiy diskurs: kul’turno-spetsifichnaya sistema konstruirovaniya i translyatsii znaniy [Academic Discourse: A Culture-Specific System for Constructing and Transmitting Knowledge]. Moscow, 2015. 176 p.
6. Karamova A.A. Ideologemy: opredelenie ponyatiya i tipologiya [Ideologemes: Notion Definition and Typology]. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya, 2015, no. 2-1. Available at: http://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=20815 (accessed: 5 April 2021).
7. Mayr A. Discourses of Higher Education: Enterprise and Institutional Change in the University. Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London, 2008, pp. 26–45.
8. Polyankina S.Yu. Potentsial semiotiki obrazovaniya v poiske novoy kontseptual’noy metafory obrazovaniya [The Potential of Edusemiotics in Search for the New “Root-Metaphor” of Education]. Filosofiya obrazovaniya, 2018, no. 1, pp. 166–174. DOI: 10.15372/PHE2018018
9. Burmakina N.G., Kulikova L.V. Akademicheskiy diskurs. Institutsional’nost’, stil’, zhanry [Academic Discourse. Institutionality, Style, Genres]. Moscow, 2019. 200 p.
10. Chernyavskaya V.E. Nauchnyy diskurs. Vydvizhenie rezul’tata kak kommunikativnaya i yazykovaya problema [Scientific Discourse. Presentation of the Result as a Communicative and Linguistic Problem]. Moscow, 2017. 144 p.
11. Sundin A. Make You Science Sticky – Storytelling as a Science Communication Tool. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2018. Available at: https://www.sei.org/perspectives/make-science-sticky-storytelling-science-communication-tool/ (accessed: 6 April 2021).
12. Koveshnikova M.N. Rechevaya manipulyatsiya i priemy rechevogo manipulirovaniya [Speech Manipulation and Its Methods]. Skvortsov V.N. (ed.). XVIII Tsarskosel’skie chteniya [18th Tsarskoye Selo Readings]. St. Petersburg, 2014. Vol. 1, pp. 387–394.
13. Kurganova E.B. Keys-stadi kak metod obucheniya studentov napravleniya “Reklama i SO” [Case Study as a Method of Teaching Students Majoring in Advertising and Public Relations]. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Filologiya. Zhurnalistika, 2014, no. 3, pp. 117–120.
14. Hyland K. What Do They Mean? Questions in Academic Writing. Text, 2020, no. 22, pp. 529–557.
15. Querol-Julián M. The Role of Questions in English Academic Lectures. Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics. School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics. Newcastle University, 2008. Vol. 14, pp. 100–111.
16. Thompson S. Why Ask Questions in Monologue? Language Choice at Work in Scientific and Linguistic Talk. Hunston S. (ed.). Language at Work. Clevedon, 1998, pp. 137–150.
17. Miklyaeva A.V., Panferov V.N., Bezgodova S.A., Vasil’eva S.V. Strategii samoprezentatsii prepodavateley kak faktor vospriyatiya ikh lichnosti studentami v onlayn-vzaimodeystvii (na primere medialektsii) [Self-Presentation Strategies as a Factor of Lecturer’s Personality Perception by Students in Online Interaction at a Media Lecture]. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2020, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 175–184. DOI: 10.21603/2078-8975-2020-22-1-175-184
18. Sorokina Yu.V. Sposoby realizatsii strategii samoprezentatsii v rossiyskom lektsionnom diskurse [Tactics of Self-Presentation Strategy in the Russian Lecture Discourse]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2015, no. 27, pp. 165–169.
19. Khutyz I.P. Signaly interaktivnosti v akademicheskom diskurse: inklyuzivnye mestoimeniya [Interactivity Signals in Academic Discourse: Inclusive Pronouns]. Vestnik Maykopskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnologicheskogo universiteta, 2012, no. 3, pp. 64–68.
20. Eng N. Teaching College: The Ultimate Guide to Lecturing, Presenting, and Engaging Students. Norman Eng Publisher, 2017. 317 p.
21. Tyuleneva N.A. Issledovanie osobennostey aktualizatsii obraza adresata v angloyazychnoy reklame turizma [Research of the Features of the Addressee Image Verbalization in English Tourism Advertising]. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2015, no. 4-1, pp. 175–179.
22. Hyland K. Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. New York, 2009. 256 p.
23. Gatsalova L.B., Parsieva L.K. Povtor kak vyrazitel’noe sredstvo yazyka khudozhestvennogo proizvedeniya [Repetition as an Expressive Means of the Literary Work Language]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2016, no. 11, pp. 101–104.
24. Khutyz I.P. Narushenie maksim kommunikatsii P. Graysa kak strategiya effektivnogo lektsionnogo diskursa [Flouting P. Grice’s Communication Maxims as a Strategy of Efficient Lecture Discourse]. Kommunikativnye issledovaniya, 2019, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 451–464. DOI: 10.25513/2413-6182.2019.6(2).451-464