кунанбаева жауап


1. Present, in the form of a diagram, the development of‘ MFL teaching methodology’ and indicate the reasons for change.
1. 1930s prevailed which understood ‘MFL teaching method’ as (1) the ‘practical application of comparative linguistics’ (E. M. Reid);
(2) ‘applied linguistics’ (A.V. Shcherba);
During the first half of the twentieth century, the MFL teaching method was defined as being ‘applied linguistics’ which emphasized the linguistic foundation of MFL teaching methods.The distinguishing features of MFL teaching methods in this period (L.V. Shcherba, E. M. Ryt) was the organization of the MFL teaching process of according to the dominating‘ principle of consciousness’ which was understood as a technique of linguistic analysis and the comparative study of different languages with an emphasis on translation and the theorization of foreign-language material by means of the learning of rules and a devotion to the methodical techniques of the grammar-translation method.
(3) its scientific status was subsequently brought into question since it did not have its own specific laws of progression but borrowed them from other academic disciplines with which it overlapped(l. V. Rakhmanov);
(4) applied psychology’(B. V. Beliaev);
(5) only at the turn of the 1950s did there emerge a view defining its method through the prism of pedagogical science, though without acknowledging MFL as an independent, scientific sub-branch of pedagogy.
(6) The mid 1960s are seen as a crucial phase in the evolution of MFL teaching methods. In this period the latter became accepted as a branch of pedagogical science.
- there was a change in emphasis away from the linguistic bias of MFL teaching towards a psychological theory of ac­ tivity;
- the practical nature and aims of MFL teaching was proclaimed. The main MFL teaching units became patterns of speech;
(7) During the 1970s and 80s, the broadening of international contacts created a social demand for a practical knowledge
of MFL. This, in turn, inspired the search for communicative MFL teaching methods.
- As pedagogues have noted, even in the 1980s, MFL were acknowledged as having a multi-competency- based structure. A whole range of competencies were introduced in MFL learning: linguistic, communicative, ethno-cultural, country-specific linguistics and so forth.
Thus, in the development of CLT communicative lang. teaching, two phases may be observed: the functional-pragmatic (I970s-80s) and the culturological (1990s)
(8) Towards the 1990s the communicative approach of MFL teaching began to acquire the form of a conceptual system based on the application of the ideas of functional and pragmatic linguists (M. K. Halliday, H.Widdowson,V. Allen, R. H. Robins, V. A. BukhbindenV. L. Skalkin, I. L.Bim),
- According to A. N. Shchukin, the virtue of the communicative method is its attempt to unite within the learning process the idea of learning language through culture and culture through language. This also allows MFL teaching to be presented as a transfer of foreign-language culture. In the modern method, this idea has received further development within the parameters of linguocultural teaching and the development of the intercultural competence of students.
Thus, in the development of CLT communicative lang.teaching, two phases may be ob­ served: the functional-pragmatic (I970s-80s) and the cul­turological (1990s)
The first, which was characteristic of its time( 1970s-80s) and based on the integration of pragmatic linguistic and teaching empirical evidence, fulfilled its task only insofar as it was a partial systemization and description of the speech intentions, pat­ terns, situations and behaviour of the participants in the speech act. The development of second term began in the 1990s when the socio-cultural conceptual base of the com­ municative approach began to be intensively worked on. The communicative-orientated model of MFL teaching became viewed as allowing both the possibility of, and providing the means for, intercultural communication. The teaching of foreign language communication required organization from the position of being it representing a dialogue of culture. The term ‘intercultural communicative competence’ began to displace that of‘ communicative competence’,which emphasized the fact that the intercultural component was becoming the most important aspect of MFL teaching content and, therefore, that the authenticity of MFL teaching resources was now an ex­ tremely important requirement.
2. Whether the changes in the demands of society for the teaching quality were the only sufficient explanation for the necessity of changes in educational methodology and concepts?.(i) During the firs t half of the twentieth century, the MFL teaching method was defined as being ‘applied linguistics’ which emphasized the linguistic foundation of MFL teaching methods. The distinguishing features of MFL teaching methods in this period (L.V. Shcherba, E. M. Ryt) was the organization of the MFL teaching process of according to the dominating‘ principle of consciousness’ which was understood as a technique of linguistic analysis and the comparative study of different languages with an emphasis on translation and the theorization of foreign language material by means of the learning of rules and a devotion to the methodical techniques of the grammar-translation method.(16 стр.). (ii) During the I930s-40s, parallel to the dominate theory and practice of the ‘MFL teaching method’ as ‘applied linguistics’, ‘scientific views’ entered the arena of scholarly debate claiming that ‘method’ should be understood as ‘applied didacticism’ since it has many features in common with general pedagogy: an object (the process of teaching and educating in general), aims, content and so on. This view was held by many academics up to the 1960s (E. I. Perovskii, lu. K. Babanskii, V. S. Tsetlin, E. P. Shubin and others).
(iii) The intensive study of the psychology of speech through the study of the mechanisms of speech production, the development of human psychophysical functions and the study of cognitive speech and cognitive mnemonic mechanisms (P. P. Blonskii, B. G. Anan’ev, S. L. Rubinstein, N. I. Zhinkin and others) did not so much offer any future potential fo r the development o f‘MFL teaching methods’ as did it constitute an attempt to dilute the ‘long suffering’ MFL method in a different academic subject, in this case, psychology. The idea o f defining the ‘MFL teaching method’ as ‘applied
psychology’ belongs to the psychologist B.V. Beliaev who argued that teaching methods were based on and, predetermined by, the individual psychological features of students and who formulated the concept of the conscious-practical m e t h od of MFL teaching. This view was at one time very popular and has steadfastly maintained its position.
(iv) In the 1950s,L.V. Shcherba continued to develop the idea within Soviet pedagogy of the applied linguistic status o f the ‘MFL teaching method’(P.A. Rakhmanov, lu.V. Rozentsveig, O. S. Akhmanova and others). In this period, the so-called ‘systemic-structural’ approach of MFL learning was widely circulated in academic community as the functional interpretation of discrete subsystems of language.This approach is found in the dominating pedagogical idea of teaching MFL as an integrated system of language with the inclusion of corresponding language sub-systems and units. This approach determined the predominance of gram m atical modeling, exercises on paradigm transformations, the choice of the main grammatical constructions to be studied and the types of sentences used in textbook exercises. It also strengthened the influence of the study of bilingualism and the interfered with the preparation of textbook teaching materials. In other words, structural linguistics and linguistic systematization had now confidently entered the o rb it of actual MFL teaching.
(v) Until the 1960s, the idea of linguistic systematization firmly maintained its position in actual MFL teaching. It took the form of the leveling model of MFL teaching and the prime objective of teaching became the mastery of the language system and its use (A. L. Karlin, A. S. Lur’e, L. M. Uman, G. A. Bogin and others). The mid 1960s are seen as a crucial phase in the evolution of
MFL teaching methods. In this period the latter became accepted as a branch of pedagogical science.Within the confines of the dominant ‘conscious-practical method’ (Beliaev) a whole range
of significant changes occurred.
- there was a change in emphasis away from the linguistic bias of MFL teaching towards a psychological th eo ry of activity;
- the practical nature and aims of MFL teaching was proclaimed. The main MFL teaching units became patterns of speech;
- psycholinguistic methods possessed many algorithmic models concerning the formation of oral skills (P. la Galperin’s psycholinguists theory of the formation in stages of cognitive processes and theory of the assimilation’s management). Although educational aims were now directed toward the process o f improving oral skills through activities, the main achievement was the idea that oral skills should be developed with a view to their reproduction in certain concrete contexts. The MFL teaching method was now orientated around linguists’ understanding of language not as an inherently isolated system but as a means for human communication.
(vi) During the 1970s and 80s, the broadening of international contacts created a social demand for a practical knowledge of MFL. This, in turn, inspired the search for communicative MFL teaching methods. As pedagogues have noted, even in the 1980s, MFL were acknowledged as having a multi-competency- based structure. A whole range of competencies were introduced in MFL learning: linguistic, communicative, ethno-cultural, country-specific linguistics and so forth. This gave MFL methods an important task - to secure the integrity and hegemony of MFL content,
to overcome the discrete nature of its latter’s constituent parts and to establish a type of teaching that could be considered ‘communicative’ and still adequately fulfilled the said aims and
content.
The 1970s turn in linguistics towards a socio-functional application of spoken language facilitated a parallel development in the psycholinguistic paradigm of the ‘theory of speech activity’ with its isolation of operational units of ‘speech acts’(as known as the ‘theory of speech acts’). This is turn, accounted fo r the changes in MFL teaching methods during the 1980s and the appearance on the educational scene of different methods such as the com m unicative m ethod (E. I. PassovJ.L. Bim),the intensive m ethod and its offshoots (G.A. Kitaigorodskaia, G. Lozanov), function-orientated approaches (M.A. K. Halliday) and
psychological models based on conceptual-cognitive approach (D.A. Wilkins). Thus, despite the declared priority of the ‘activity-based approach’, the so-called ‘communicative method’ during MFL teaching in this period was established solely as a ‘com m uni­
cation-orientated approach’ since its communicative-based (20 stranica) teaching system had not been outlined (selection, organization of academic categories and units such as communicative spheres, intentions, functions, social roles etc.). It follows that the above-mentioned list of skills could not be formed into a body of communicative-based skills based upon disparate and regimented types of speech (not communicative) intentions within the context of artificially-created motives for communication. The social demand fo r MFL communicative-oral ability, the concept of an integrated understanding of MFL as a means for communication and the emphasis on its basic function (communication) as an area for development caused, in the I970s-80s, intensive research into the psychological and didactic foundations of spoken communication, the function-activity basis of the structural process of verbal communication, concept-spoken and functional-code transformations and the reworking of information during the communication process and so forth.The structural essence of verbal communication required system-function research and a description for the MFL teaching method in at least tw o directions:
(i) the functional-productive register of verbal communication:
(ii) the cognitive mechanisms behind the speech processes of functional language as a means of communication. In this period, the introduction of the concept of activity into theoretical ideas concerning spoken communication to o k the direction of the functional modeling of spoken communication, which began w ith the Soviet theory of Speech Activity and the so called ‘third period’ of psycholinguistic development (J. Sear- le, D.Wunderlich) and took into account the processes governing the formation and functioning of speech in real-life situations
from an ‘activity-based’ viewpoint.There arose an immediate need to come to terms with the cross-disciplinary body of empirical evidence which objectively required a new foreshortening of the study of verbal communication to reveal the complex nature of this phenomenon and to raise to a higher level the complexity of the tasks facing the ‘MFL teaching method’ as a science, if it indeed was one. For even the synthesis of the various scientific achievements (verbal communication, model of code transformations, cognitive
structures etc.) appeared to be a quite difficult process for MFL methodology.
3.How did the forces hindering the development of MLT teaching manifest themselves at the turn of the millennium?
G.V. Elizarova’s idea o f ‘communication’ as a purpose was echoed by lu. M. Lotman (communication is an event ‘during which inform ation grows and is transform ed’). M. S. Kogan likewise defines communication as a ‘process of working out new information amongst people who are in communication with each oth er and the creation of th eir com monality’. E. I. Passov, who emphasizes the polemical character of communication, considers it to be the ‘clash’ of tw o positions which creates something new - new knowledge, thoughts, emotions, intentions.
The aforementioned reasons hindering the development of the ‘communicative method’ as a scientific-practical enterprise also caused the Lipetsk methodical school to limit itself to the issuing of instructions fo r the definition of the composition of the categories of the ‘communicative method’ and models which might bring to life the opportunities offered by various basic individual parts and concepts.
The communicative approach, even if it remained on the level of being ‘co m m unic ativ e-orie n tated’, was nevertheless a signature period in the evolution of methodology, in that it made a serious attempt toward the creation of real communication within artificial conditions outside the usual environment
of a language. Based solely on the evidence of communicative linguistics, the com m unic ativ e approach developed the aims and content of MFL teaching as oral-language system based on the objective needs of society, in ord er to serve as an instrument for real communication. In doing so, it correctly highlighted, as regards typology, the diversity of the types of situation. Communicative intentions (which E.l. Passov and others te rm as ‘speech intentions’) are the means by which communication is regulated andset in motion.
One cannot disagree with the basic methodical principles of the communicative approach: the teaching emphasis on speech, differentiation according to the individual psychological characteristics of the students (the personalized approach), speech-thought activity, a functional approach toward the selection of resources, the situational process of teaching and the organization and presentation of teaching resources by topic. According to A. N. Shchukin, the virtu e of the communicative method is its attempt to unite within the learning process, the idea of learning language through culture and culture through language. This also allows MFL teaching to be presented as a transfer o f foreign-language culture. In the modern method, this idea has received fu rth er development within the parameters of linguocultural teaching and the development of the intercultural competence of students.
These factors inevitably require the review not only of teaching aims but all the conceptual and structure components of the MFL teaching method. Global socio-econom ic change in the new millennium has brought on an evolutional leap as regards the level and quality of MFL knowledge that is now demanded.This demands a significant review of educational policy on MFL teaching and a cardinal restructuring of its method and technology and a transition towards a new educational model. This offers an escape from the present crisis and the gulf separating the level of social demand fo r quality MFL teaching from the existing state of affairs in the world of teaching which been caused by the preservation of traditional educational and theoretical-methodological ideas centred on a strictly-regulated and managed teaching process as opposed to a student-centred model of MFL learning as a means of
The paradoxical nature of this situation was that the communicative method, even before it had a chance to realize its potential fully at any educational level, was already being displaced by a new approach, dictated by the social demand of the tw enty-first century, namely, M FL te achin g as a means fo r in te rcultural com m unic atio n.In the final decade of the twentieth century it was corre ct to establish merely the orientation of teaching fo r the development of students’ communicative competency and that, w ith out running to o far ahead, it was corre ct to conceptualize this o rientation as com municative-orientated M FL teaching.
4.Define 'intercultural communication'. What are the existing approaches to the definition of intercultural competencies?
Our analysis of the historical development of ‘intercultural communication’ demonstrates that during this period the latter developed as an academic discipline with its own methodological base and integrated research field based on the idea of ‘language-consciousness-culture’. Thanks to this development, psycholinguistics also began to focus on intercultural communication (M.Cole, U.Lee, Lu.S.Sorokin, E.F.Tarasov, I.V.Privalova) as did other branches of various academic disciplines. As a result, the idea of a pedagogical modeling of ‘intercultural communication’ for the purposes of MFL teaching without a prior-existing clear definition of intercultural communication significantly complicated the process of organizing the latter as the foundation for MFL education. The resulting over-generalization found in the definitions of ‘intercultural communication’ meant that it was subject to interpretations ranging from (i) a social-philosophical understanding of cultural interaction (G.V. Gundenaf, A. Wallace - cognitive approach to linguistic anthology ; K. Girts - semiotic anthropology; E.V.Vesner - cultural relativism) (ii) to a multi-faceted interpretation of the interaction between language and culture as a means for fulfilling three functions: a social function of communication, a semiotic function of representing objects, phenomena and relationships and a cognitive function of forming thought (iii) to that of a usage -behavioural theory of speech stereotypes. This state of affairs could not but be reflected in the aims underpinning the training of new specialists who have been called upon to provide international co-operation.
Studies in ‘intercultural communication’ have established that one must bear in mind two groups of defining characteristics when considering the process of intercultural communication:
firstly, intercultural communication is complicated by a range of factors, namely, (i) communicative factors (situation, style and genre of language, form of communication, the presence of non-verbal means of communication, forms of behaviour) (ii) psychological factors (type of reception, reac tion, stereotyping, empathy; various types of reaction to a foreign culture such as alienation, assimilation, acculturation) (iii) cultural factors(basic outlook, norms, values, experience); secondly, different circumstances, situations and types of con­ tact create different types of intercultural communication. Some basic models of the latter are needed in order to develop the ability in intercultural communication (P. N. Donets):
(i) conditions of intercultural borrowing (one culture borrows from another);
(ii) conditions of intercultural co-existence (the bearer of one culture lives in another);
(iii) conditions of intercultural activity (co-operation between bearers of different cultures for work or intellectual activity);
(iv) conditions of inter-generational communication (a bearer of a culture interacts with and, gains knowledge of, a culture through historical sources etc.).
During the last decades of the twentieth century, the question of global communication became a priority in education. In the 1970s, the question of intercultural communication became highly topical within the various academic disciplines of many countries concerned with society and culture.
During this period, there were attempts made to:
(i) describe and research the relationship between culture, language (as a formal construct) and speech as a dynamic phenomenon. (D. Katz, C. Berger, R.W. Brislin) (ii) establish the defining features of interpersonal and intercultural relations (C. Berger, H. Gardner, M. Parks) (iii) establish the psychological foundations of cross-cultural communication (K. H. Pribram, N. Quin, D. Holland) (iv) create specialized university courses on intercultural and cross-cultural communication.
The most widely-accepted academic definition of ‘intercultural communication’ is: ‘an adequate mutual-understanding achieved during a communicative act between two participants from different national cultures’ (E. M.Vereshchagin,V. G. Kosto­ marov).
There are two approaches regarding the understanding of the nature o f ‘intercultural communication’: (i) some researchers understand the terms obshchenie and kommunikatsia as having equivalent meanings (A. A. Leont’ev, B. F. Lomov, I. A. Zimniaia, S. G.Ter-Minasova).Their equivalence is grounded in their common functional purpose of providing a connection since the participants require a common code in order to create a direct and reciprocal connection.
For in the structure of communication there must necessarily be present: a source of communication, the message itself, a technique for conveying the message, a channel of transmission and a common system of meanings for coding and decoding messages, that is to say, a common system of speech and communication;
(ii) other researchers consider that only obshchenie, especially in an intercultural context, entails to creation of a new common meaning, whereas kommunikatsia refers specifically to the transmission of meaning (G. B. Elizarova, E.I.Passov, M. S. Kagan).This is cited as the important difference between ob­ shchenie and kommunikatsia hence the two are not considered coterminous.
If one were to accept the second viewpoint and introduce the term ‘intercultural obshchenie’ (in this context, it would probably be best translated into English as ‘intercultural social interaction’)then it would be defined as the process of a collective working out of a common new meaning for all the participants relating to all actions and motives that have been produced or perceived.
G.B. Elizarova considers the advantages of making such a distinction between obshchenie (henceforth ‘social interaction’) and kommun/kois/o(henceforth ‘communication’) to be:
- only ‘social interaction’ is capable of creating‘commonality’ amongst the participants (these two words/concepts are etymologically connected in Russian: obshchenie and obshnost’)
- this ‘commonality’ specifically relates to the participants as being ‘culture mediators’;
- ‘social interaction’ is characterized by the unique ability of the mediators to comprehend action through the prism of two or three cultures simultaneously;
- this interaction takes the form of a personal contact between communicators from different cultures; - most importantly, thanks to its intercultural nature, this type of interaction is culturally-dependent in that its principles, models and styles vary from culture to culture.
As O.A. Leontovich has noted, researchers have not attempted to define precisely either the very concept ‘intercultural communication’ itself, the nature of its subject content or present the whole range of its functions. On a backdrop of tempestuous development, the field o f ‘intercultural communication’ is growing ever wider and it has become an interdisciplinary field covering the humanities and social sciences.
Although there are no precise definitions of ‘intercultural communication’ as a theoretical-applied scientific field, perhaps, in view of its multifaceted nature and dependence upon inter-related academic disciplines, we can, at the present time, note of the existence of only a single classification of intercultural communication, namely, as being a stratified typology of existing approaches to communication and cultural studies (W. Hart):
(i) traditional approach - as a social science researching intercultural communication;
(ii) interpretative approach - as an ethnographically-based analytical method;
(iii) critical approach - as research into the components which collectively influence the development of intercultural communication (history, role of context, chronological periodization, relations between communicators);
(iv) dialectical approach - as a dialectical understanding of the integrated development of the interdependent aspects of knowledge (the dialectic of culture and the individual, the dialectic of the personality and context etc.)..
5. Why does G.V.Elizarova’s theory maintain the necessity of distinguishing between “intercultural social interaction” and “intercultural communication”? Do you agree with the theory?
G.B. Elizarova considers the advantages of making such a distinction between obshchenie (‘social interaction’) and kommunikatsiya (‘communication’) to be:
- only‘social interaction’ is capable of creating “commonality” amongst the participants (these two words/concepts are etymologically connected in Russian: obshchenie and obshnost’)
- this ‘commonality’ specifically relates to the participants as being‘culture mediators’;
- ‘social interaction’ is characterized by the unique ability of the mediators to comprehend action through the prism of two or three cultures simultaneously;
- this interaction takes the form of a personal contact between communicators from different cultures;
- most importantly, thanks to its intercultural nature, this type of interaction is culturally-dependent in that its principles, models and styles vary from culture to culture. It is difficult to agree with the conclusion of this approach concerning the definition o f ‘intercultural social interaction’ for the following reasons:
(i) how significant can the difference between the terms ‘communication’ and ‘social interaction’ be if all the components of both concepts coincide with one another (addresser, addressee, message, channel, code, co-operation etc.)? According to G.V.EIizarova, in ‘communication’ there is necessarily a union of a ‘common code’ and a ‘common meaning’ whereas in ‘social interaction’, even whilst a ‘common code’ is present, the native speaker and foreigner will each have a different ‘system of meanings’;
(ii) to a certain degree one may agree with the details of the conclusions since during the formation of a ‘second language personality’, the well-known situation of constantly encountering differences in the cultural component will stubbornly accompany the process of interaction;
(iii) However, without denying the aim that a future ‘intermediator of intercultural communication’ should not only comprehend, but reflect in their speech, features and concepts of a different culture, in a teaching context, it is essential to preserve the term ‘intercultural communication’ since:
(a) firstly, in a teaching context, it is necessary to collate common meanings in different languages and to consciously develop new cognito-linguocultural complexes within an individual’s general cognitive mechanism that are appropriate to their level of assimilation;
(b) secondly, if, during the course of teaching,‘new meanings’ have not yet developed as ‘common and general’, then, during communication, a process of mutual-adaptation will occur. That is why MFL education places great significance on derivations of the lexeme ‘communication’. A long list of pedagogically-established intercultural-communicative categories and concepts exist in MFL teaching methodology and are of key significance in
the modern intercultural-communicative theory of MFL education, for example: intercultural-communicative conception, paradigm, competency, concept, approach, principle, system, intermediator of intercultural communication and so forth;
(c) thirdly, the students’ progression to the level of ‘intermediator of intercultural communication’ or ‘cultural mediator’ and the change in the object of study from one of the quest for ‘common, general meaning’ to that of a ‘common, general yet new meaning’ is gradually achieved during the teaching process, although, in our opinion, it is barely possible to form a ‘second language personality’ within the artificial confines of a teaching context. Some researchers, however, consider this to be precisely the ultimate aim. It is for this reason that the introduction of the term ‘intercultural social interaction’ is supported, where the learning outcome is defined as the creation of a ‘second language personality’. Researchers within this interdisciplinary field of knowledge who have marked their arrival into the scientific-research arena with an eruption of research in existing interdisciplinary fields of knowledge as well as with the creation of a whole range of new fields of knowledge (discourse analysis, communication studies,
linguoculturology, inter-language pragmatics, language-area studies etc.) have noted the stagnation as regards the practical results and full development of intercultural communication as a field of knowledge which reveals itself even at the level of the conceptual apparatus. As O.A. Leontovich has noted, researchers have not attempted to define precisely either the very concept ‘intercultural communication’ itself, the nature of its subject content or present the whole range of its functions. On a backdrop of tempestuous development, the field o f ‘intercultural communication’ is growing ever wider and it has become an interdisciplinary field covering the humanities and social sciences. Although there are no precise definitions of ‘intercultural
communication’ as a theoretical-applied scientific field, perhaps, in view of its multifaceted nature and dependence upon inter-related academic disciplines, we can, at the present time, note of the existence of only a single classification of intercultural communication, namely, as being a stratified typology of existing approaches to communication and cultural studies (W.Hart):
(i) traditional approach - as a social science researching intercultural communication;
(ii) interpretative approach - as an ethnographically-based analytical method;
(iii) critical approach - as research into the components which collectively influence the development of intercultural
communication (history, role of context, chronological periodization, relations between communicators);
(iv) dialectical approach - as a dialectical understanding of the integrated development of the interdependent aspects of knowledge (the dialectic of culture and the individual, the
dialectic of the personality and context etc.). As researchers in this field have noted, the majority of attempts to define ‘intercultural communication’ have resulted, as previously, in the presentation of differing definitions united only
by the idea of a juxtaposition of the two discrete concepts ‘culture’ and ‘communication’ with one or the other being assigned
a leading role. Bearing in mind both our rejection of G.V.EIizarova’s definition on the grounds that it neither reflects nor facilitates the accomplishment of the goals of MFL education and the current crisis surrounding the definition of intercultural communication, it is necessary to accept a very generalized definition which integrates all its main features and emphasizes in particular the presence of different cultures and languages.‘In this case, intercultural communication can be defined as the process of verbal
and non-verbal communication between communicators who are the bearers of different cultures and languages’ (or, in other words, as the sum total of the processes specific to the interaction between people from different cultures and language backgrounds) N. I. Khaleeva.
For the remainder of this work, we shall keep to this presently most widely-accepted definition of intercultural communication. The theory of intercultural communication is the conceptual-practical approach behind the modern MFL education paradigm. It is based on a cognito-linguoculturological methodology that is adequate for providing the formation o f ‘intermeditor of intercultural communication’, capable of intercultural communication in differing professional and everyday situations.
‘Competency’ is the key foundation of the activity-based learning structure of a ‘intermediator of intercultural communication’. This demands a change in the knowledge-based model of education in the direction of a competency-based one and a definition of the latter’s role in the modern MFL educational
paradigm.
6.Define the ‘philosophy of education’. What influence might it have on the selection of an educational model?
Nowadays we can see the change of educational models. The former ‘knowledge’ model gives way to a new ‘competence’ model. This change is defined by the following two terms:
1) change of paradigm
2) new philosophy of education
In order to understand both terms it is necessary to clarify these two concepts.
First, let us refer to the term ‘philosophy of education’. It has a number of interpretations, for example:
educational paradigm that is universal for certain time
educational policyindependent branch of knowledgemeta theory for pedagogical branch of knowledge to ‘philosophy of education’ as a part of anthropology, ontology.
What is common in all the definitions is that they are oriented at the social processes which, in their turn, influence education and lead to new ideas, values and goals in the social sphere.
Therefore, Philosophy of education as social knowledge predetermines the direction of educational vector development. Philosophy of education is based on the social processes. It also works out philosophical conceptions of education as the landmarks for new educational models.
The concept ‘paradigm’ is referred to the Methodology of scientific cognition. Paradigm is the main principle of cognitive activity. It is defined as “generally accepted type of problems’ setting and solution”. In this regard, paradigm is a source of methods and standards for problem situations’ solution.
7. How does the term ‘philosophy of education’ differ from ‘paradigm of education’?
‘Competency’ is the key foundation of the activity-based learning structure of a ‘intermediator of intercultural communication’. This demands a change in the knowledge-based model of education in the direction of a competency-based one and a definition of the latter’s role in the modern MFL educational paradigm. The change from a ‘knowledge-based’ education model to that of a ‘competency-based’ one that is currently taklrg place may be viewed as a change in ‘paradigm’ or as a new philosophy of education. It is therefore first necessary to define more precisely these two concepts. There are many different interpretations of the term ‘philosophy of education’, ranging from it as: (i) a universal within the specific chronological parameters of an educational paradigm (ii) government educational policy; (iii) an independent branch of knowledge; (iv) a meta-theory for the pedagogical branches of knowledge up to the idea of ‘philosophy of education’ as a field of philosophical anthropology (culturology, ontology, praxeology etc.). All these interpretations are orientated around the social processes which have a direct influence upon the field of education and which are predicated upon the appearance of new ideas, values and goals within the social sphere. It follows that, since ‘philosophy of education’ belongs to the field of social science knowledge, this should predetermine the direction of its development. Based on the development of social processes, it should, in the near future, formulate philosophical conceptions of education
in the shape of new educational models. The concept ‘paradigm’, as regards the methodology
of epistemology, constitutes the basic principle behind the process of gathering knowledge and serves as the source for the methods and standards needed for resolving problematic situations i.e. it is understood as being the ‘widely-accepted type of formulating and resolving
a problem’. In this respect, researchers, who have noted in pedagogical works the existence of ‘multiple paradigms’ (knowledge- based, competency-based, reproductive, humanities-based, culturally-orientated, anthropological and so forth) are attempting to ascertain whether this state of affairs is due to (i) a change in the scientific model of epistemology (ii) a change in pedagogical science (iii) a change in pedagogical theory. Researchers have used T. Kuhn’s idea that a new paradigm, inrejecting old theories. As regards the hierarchy of paradigm types (general scientific, specialized - relating to a certain branches of knowledge, localized - relating to specific
civilizations, regions), they have noted that since all these types are interconnected, the general scientific paradigm must have the dominant role. If the scientific development of an academic field is centred on a ‘knowledge of humankind’ then it is correct that the ‘anthropological educational paradigm’ should be considered the most general, as opposed to the other, more specific, paradigm types such as the humanities-based, culturological, personality-centred and so forth. The contemporary abundance of pedagogical paradigms is due the appearance of innovative ideas in pedagogical theory and practice and changes in the pedagogical/theoretical models of education (for example, the technocratic model has been replaced by the liberal arts model and the authoritative-reproduction by the creative-production). These latter changes in educational models are frequently and incorrectly, understood as constituting changes in the pedagogical paradigm. In reality,the model of pedagogical science comes first and it determines the methodology of pedagogical theory and constructs the educational model - not the other way round (V.V. Kraevskii, N. L. Korshunov, V. Nurgaliev, L. Baranovskaia and others). In recent years, within pedagogy, the te rm ‘pedagogical paradigm’ has been widely used and linked to the structure and
aims of the educational model. An educational model may be defined as a general conceptual model representing the structure and function of a concrete type of means for
implementing the educational process. Assuming that any pedagogical paradigm will be represented within its own educational model, then a pedagogical paradigm may be understood as being the sum total of the stable, permanent, conceptual characteristics which determine the essential features of a scheme of pedagogical theory and practice and its interaction with education regardless of the degree and forms of its reflexes. Researchers have proposed a typology of so-called ‘paradigm models of education’ which distinguish, for example, between the authoritative-imperative, cognitive- pedagogical and personality-based pedagogical
paradigms (E. A. lamburgskii, M. A. Amonashvili and others). Typologies of pedagogical models are usually based on two ‘philosophies of education’ - the cognitive and the personality- centred - which determine the strategic aims of education, thought paradigms and the nature of the resolution of general pedagogical problems. The cognitive pedagogical paradigm
is said to be centred on the intellectual (cognitive) development of a child and that the tactics and strategy for solving educational issues should be viewed through this lens.The personality-centred pedagogical paradigm shifts emphasis away from intellectual to emotional and character development.The question therefore arises as to the degree to which these‘pedagogical paradigms’ are a reflection of a global theory/model of pedagogical science which have brought to life corresponding pedagogical theories based on the construction of educational models reflecting these scientific ideas. If one were to use this scientific-applied or methodological interpretation of the concept ‘paradigm’ which emphasizes the rejection of old scientific theories as its defining characteristic, then, of all the above-mentioned ‘paradigms’, only the ‘anthropological’
may be truly considered a paradigm. It is sometimes used interchangeably with th e ‘humanist paradigm’, although researchers consider that they are in fact ‘two sides of the same phenomenon - the knowledge of one form or another of the life and consciousness of the individual’. It should be noted that the humanist paradigm is centred on the value of a rounded personality and its ethical values whereas the anthropological paradigm, in all its main directions (psychological, culturological, social etc.) considers individual development as a harmonious whole and reflects all aspects of human life and an individual’s interconnection with society, nature and culture.The anthropological paradigm emphasizes an individual’s right to express their abilities, allows a presentation of the essence of being human in all its variety and complexity and allows this essence to serve as the methodological basis for a range of modern pedagogical theories. Thus only the anthropological can be considered a ‘scientific paradigm’, since, in this case,‘knowledge of humankind’ is the field of pedagogical science. How justified is it to speak of the existence of paradigms such as the ‘knowledge-based’ or ‘competency-based’ or, more precisely, how correct it is to consider these two educational models to be ‘scientific paradigms of education’?
We consider the use of term ‘paradigm’, even in the sense of a ‘pedagogical paradigm’, to be most unhelpful, as regards the definition of innovative models or pedagogical theories for this
only serves to introduce ambiguity and conceptual uncertainly into the term, the semantic dominant of which is the model and basic principles of scientific activity as a reflection of the methodology
of epistemology. Instead, it is more justifiable to speak of the change from a ‘knowledge-based’ pedagogical theory to a competency-based’ one.
8. What are the main characteristics of the ‘competence-based pedagogical theory and technology’?
A competency-based pedagogical theory aims to unite into a whole the educational process which develops a student’s personality and attitude to activity. The dominant feature of the competency-based approach is its concern not only with ‘building up’ knowledge but the acquisition of varied practical experience. The fundamental characteristics of the pedagogical theory of competency are as follows:
- its learning outcomes correspond, to a very large degree, to the overall goals of education, namely, the preparation of citizens who are capable of active social adaptation, an independent choice of lifestyle and are prepared for the onset of
working life, professional training and future self-improvement:
- it is aimed at developing the students’ self-assessment of their possibilities and‘impossibilities’ and a self-awareness of the present limits of their competencies;
- it combines within itself the intellectual, skill-based and character-based(emotions and values) aspects of modern educational ideas;
- its educational content, including its standards, should be results-orientated, thus departing from the limits of the aforementioned ZUN system;
- the idea of creating competent school-leavers and graduates, grounded in educational standards will undoubtedly lead to a cardinal change in both in the content and methods of education. This approach possesses a clearly expressed integrative principle, uniting in a single whole all the necessary skills and knowledge required in many spheres of activity as well as the character traits for providing the most effective utilization of the ZUN system. This approach possesses a clearly expressed integrative principle, uniting in a single whole all the necessary skills and knowledge required in many spheres of activity as well as the
character traits for providing the most effective utilization of the ZUN system.
There also exist various theories which integrate the competency-based approach with the culturological. Its supporters maintain that such an integration is justified since a character-based aspect (emotions and values) has always been included in the content structure of the latter. Researchers believe that the culturological approach of M. N. Skatkin, I.Y. Lerner and V.V. Kraevesky provides an understanding of educational content as a pedagogically-adapted cultural-social experience which provides a mechanism for forming the content and structure of a learning process which is targeted towards the student’s gaining experience of different types of activity and relations.This is precisely the founding idea behind the competency-based approach. However, in our opinion, the idea that these two approaches are identical is unjustified. This is revealed in the question of the educational learning outcome. In the culturological approach,
it is to become acquainted with culture as an aspect of social experience. In the competency-based approach it is, as already stated, is to acquire a personal experience of various forms of activity which are also drawn from human experience. Moreover, the assimilation of any aspect of culture is achieved through the individual, subjective prism of the student. On the basis of our analysis of the defining features of innovative pedagogical approaches as a new ‘pedagogical paradigm’, it has been established that the competency-based approach may only be defined as a pedagogical theory if it alone constitutes the innovative aspect of an educational model.
9. On what grounds might one argue for the existence of an independent ‘modern paradigm of MFL education’?
One of the indicators of the radical reappraisal (радикальная переоценка) of the status of ‘language’ within working life and the overcoming of the hitherto (до сих пор) passive approaches to ‘language’ as being simply an academic discipline has been the change in its research area and aims. MFL education is an academic discipline which sufficiently conforms (соответствовать) to contemporary standards of scientific development and is an independent sub-branch of ‘education’ with its own scientific orientation.
Correspondingly, the understanding of ‘MFL education’ as being a multifaceted (многогранный) and complex whole has allowed it to be defined as a general pedagogical category concerned with the formation of personality through a unified process of learning and education.
It follows that MFL teaching should be formulated as an independent educational paradigm with the following scientific foundations: (I) its own methodology; 2) a body of inherent indicative characteristics; (3) a scientific systemization of knowledge and research; (4) a common theoretical base categories and concepts which reflect this system. The system of MFL education, like any system, functions and develops in the light of its predefined aims and planned outcomes and this governs the delimitation () of a whole range of sub-systems within the parameters of an overall system - in this case, the system of MFL education.
The system of MFL education, like any system, functions and develops in the light of its predefined aims and planned outcomes and this governs the delimitation of a whole range of sub-systems within the parameters of an overall system - in this case, the system of MFL education
The necessity of moving away from a narrow bookish understanding of ‘foreign languages’ toward a common system of MFL education as a multifaceted research field has become obvious in modern times. What then, in general outline, has been the evolution of the modern theory of MFL education?
The emergence o f‘MFL education’ as an independent scientific-pedagogical system has afforded it the opportunity of presenting itself as a dynamically-developing research and teaching field and places a whole range of interconnected issues on the agenda of the day. As regards scientific theory and applied practice, every educational system rests upon a ‘teaching method’, which, traditionally, has been variously defined as a: (I) ‘science concerned with the aims, content, logical progression, means, techniques, methods and systems of pedagogy’ (A.A. Klimentenko,A.A Mi- roliubov); (2) ‘branch of pedagogic science concerned with the logical progression of teaching in any academic subject’(A. N. Shchukin); (3) ‘independent pedagogical science, having its own progression and research methods though also having characteristics in common with every other branch of science: a theoretical base, an experimental field to test various working hypotheses, an inherent and specific research field based on the nature of MFL as a teaching objective (G.V. Fokina); (4) system of teaching MFL based on a synthesis of the general field of methodology and the interaction between two sub-systems: ‘MFL’ as an academic subject and methodology as a science, which, in large measure, facilitates the successful functioning of the first sub-system (I. L. Bim); (5) science of the teaching and study of MFL which establishes the logical progression laying at the heart of the educational activity of teacher and student which is directed toward the ability to perform a special form of practical activity, namely the ability for oral communication in a MFL (M. K. Borodulina,A. L. Carling and others); (6) science concerned with the logical progression and specific characteristics of the process of teaching of MFL, regardless of the precise language in question; a science concerned with the aims, content, methods and means of teaching as well as the m ethods for teaching and educating based on foreign-language materials (N. I. Gez, M.V. Liakhovitskii,A.A. Miroliubov and others); (7) theoretical and applied science having scientifically-based educational aims and contentwhich formulate the most effective methods, techniques and forms of teaching within the context of the aims, content and specific conditions of the teaching environment’ (N. D. Gal’skova).
The above-mentioned definitions concerning the status and academic independence o f‘MFL pedagogy’ are essential for understanding our own position regarding these theoretical and methodology issues. Whilst there is now a clear unanimity amongst academics that ‘MFL pedagogy’ belongs to the general science of pedagogy, only a few are ready to acknowledge it as a fully self-contained and independent branch of science, with the majority considering it but not as a part of general science of pedagogy. In the main, researchers are divided over the question of its parameters as an academic discipline as well the number of components within its theoretical and applied structure. The obvious technological, applied and results-orientated nature of the ‘MFL teaching method’, which forms the foundations of its functional purpose as well the complexity and inter-disciplinary nature of its research area: - on one hand, allows researchers to combine its functional characteristics as an academic discipline with its basic scientific categories; - yet, on the other hand, this hinders the search for intra- and inter-systemic mechanisms for its self-development, an escape from then narrowly-specialized confines of linguo didactics and the possibility of establishing itself as independent branch of science. In all probability, the above explains the much wider acknowledgement of the ‘MFL teaching method’ as an academic discipline, representing the totality of the empirical evidence on the theory and practice of MFL teaching (much of this empirical base is derived from inter-disciplinary sources). Conversely, this also explains its far lesser acknowledgement and recognition as an independent branch of science possessing all the characteristic and requirements of a separate scientific identity and constituting a self-contained science which studies the processes by which MFL are learnt and mastered and formulates scientific technologies for the most effective study of MFL There is also an intermediate position which considers the ‘MFL teaching method’ to be purely an applied teaching discipline concerned with the technological aspects of language teaching and reflecting within itself the totality of modern teaching techniques.10. How have socio-historical forces affected the development of MFL teaching methods?
During the first half of the twentieth century, the MFL teaching method was defined as being ‘applied linguistics’ which emphasized the linguistic foundation of MFL teaching methods.The distinguishing features of MFL teaching methods in this period (L.V. Shcherba, E. M. Ryt) was the organization of the MFL teaching process of according to the dominating‘prin­ ciple of consciousness’ which was understood as a technique of linguistic analysis and the comparative study of different lan­ guages with an emphasis on translation and the theorization of foreign-language material by means of the learning of rules and a devotion to the methodical techniques of the grammar-trans- lation method. (ii) During the I930s-40s, parallel to the dominate theory and practice of the ‘MFL teaching method’ as ‘applied linguis­ tics’,‘scientific views’ entered the arena of scholarly debate claiming that ‘method’ should be understood as ‘applied di­ dacticism’ since it has many features in common with general pedagogy: an object (the process of teaching and educating in general), aims, content and so on. This view was held by many academics up to the 1960s (E. I. Perovskii, lu. K. Babanskii, V. S. Tsetlin, E. P. Shubin and others). (iii) The intensive study of the psychology of speech through the study of the mechanisms of speech production, the develop­ ment of human psychophysical functions and the study of cog­ nitive speech and cognitive mnemonic mechanisms (P. P. Blonskii, B. G. Anan’ev, S. L. Rubinstein, N. I. Zhinkin and others) did not so much offer any future potential for the development o f‘MFL teaching methods’ as did it constitute an attempt to dilute the ‘long suffering’ MFL method in a different academic subject, in this case, psychology. The idea of defining the ‘MFL teaching method’ as ‘applied psychology’ belongs to the psychologist B.V. Beliaev who ar­ gued that teaching methods were based on and, predetermined by, the individual psychological features of students and who formulated the concept of the conscious-practical m eth­ od of MFL teaching.This view was at one time very popular and has steadfastly maintained its position. (iv) In the 1950s,L.V. Shcherba continued to develop the idea within Soviet pedagogy of the applied linguistic status of the ‘MFL teaching method’(P.A. Rakhmanov, lu.V. Rozentsveig, O. S. Akhmanova and others). In this period, the so-called ‘systemic-structural’ approach of MFL learning was widely circulated in academic community as the functional interpretation of discrete subsystems of language.This approach is found in the dominating pedagogical idea of teaching MFL as an integrated system of language with the inclusion of corresponding language sub-sys­ tems and units.This approach determined the predominance of grammatical modeling, exercises on paradigm transfor­ mations, the choice of the main grammatical constructions to be studied and the types of sentences used in textbook exercis­ es. It also strengthened the influence of the study of bilingualism and the interfered with the preparation of textbook teaching materials. In other words, structural linguistics and linguis­ tic systematization had now confidently entered the orbit of actual MFL teaching. (v) Until the 1960s, the idea of linguistic systematization firmly maintained its position in actual MFL teaching. It took the form of the leveling model of MFL teaching and the prime ob­ jective of teaching became the mastery of the language system and its use (A. L. Karlin, A. S. Lur’e, L. M. Uman, G. A. Bogin and others). The mid 1960s are seen as a crucial phase in the evolution of MFL teaching methods. In this period the latter became accept­ ed as a branch of pedagogical science.Within the confines of the dominant ‘conscious-practical method’ (Beliaev) a whole range of significant changes occurred. - there was a change in emphasis away from the linguistic bias of MFL teaching towards a psychological theory of ac­ tivity; - the practical nature and aims of MFL teaching was proclaimed. The main MFL teaching units became patterns of speech; - psycholinguistic methods possessed many algorithmic models concerning the formation of oral skills (P. la Galperin’s psy­ cholinguists theory of the formation in stages of cognitive pro­ cesses and theory of the assimilation’s management).
11.

12. Outline the reasons behind the idea that the established of ‘MFL education’ an independent scientific-applied educational field is justified and has future potential.
The system of MFL education, like any system, functions and develops in the light of its predefined aims and planned out­comes and this governs the delimitation of a whole range of sub-systems within the parameters of an overall system - in this case, the system of MFL education. The necessity of moving away from a narrow bookish understanding of ‘foreign languages’ toward a common system of MFL education as an multifaceted research field has become obvious in modern times. W hat then, in general outline, has been the evolution of the modern theory of MFL education? The emergence o f‘MFL education’ as an independent scientific-pedagogical system has afforded it the opportunity of presenting itself as a dynamically-developing research and teaching field and places a whole range of interconnected issues on the agenda of the day.
As regards scientific theory and applied practice, every educational system rests upon a ‘teaching method’, which, traditionally, has been variously defined as a: ( I) ‘science concerned with the aims, content, logical progression, means, techniques, methods and systems of pedagogy’ (A.A. Klimentenko,A.A Miroliubov); (2) ‘branch of pedagogic science concerned with the logical progression of teaching in any academic subject’(A. N. Shchukin); (3) ‘independent pedagogical science, having its own progression and research methods though also having characteristics in common with every other branch of science: a theoretical base, an experimental field to test various working hypotheses, an inherent and specific research field based on the nature of MFL as a teaching objective (G.V. Fokina); (4) system of teaching MFL based on a synthesis of the general field of methodology and the interaction between two sub-systems: ‘MFL’ as an academic subject and methodology as a science, which, in large measure, facilitates the successful functioning of the first sub-system (I. L. Bim); (5) science of the teaching and study of MFL which establishes the logical progression laying at the heart of the educational activity of teacher and student which is directed toward the ability to perform a special form of practical activity, namely the ability for oral communication in a MFL (M. K. Borodulina,A. L. Carling and others); (6) science concerned with the logical progression and specific characteristics of the process of teaching of MFL, regardless of the precise language in question; a science concerned with the aims, content, methods and means of teaching as well as the methods for teaching and educating based on foreign-language materials (N. I. Gez, M.V. Liakhovitskii,A.A. Miroliubov and others); (7) theoretic al and applied science having scientifically-based educational aims and content which formulate the most effective methods, techniques and forms of teaching within the context of the aims, content and specific conditions of the teaching environment’ (N. D. Gal’skova)13. Defend the modern interpretation of the place and role of the ‘general MFL teaching method’ within the new MFL educational paradigm.
Russian theorists consider ‘linguodidactics’ to mean a necessary general scientific theory which formulates the general and particular processes governing the assimilation and command of a MFL, though they disagree as to the scope of its field. Some define it as a science, absorbing, collectively, the ‘theo ry of MFL teaching’, a general m ethod o f teaching and specific methods for teaching particular MFLs (N.M.Shanskii, R. K. Min’iar-Beloruchev). Others consider ‘linguodidactics’ to be a common scientific method and sub-branch of ‘general pedagogy’ concerned with theory 0f MFL teaching’ that forms the basis of the separate, more applied discipline o f ‘MFL teaching method’ which deals with the organization and technology of MFL teaching (N.D.Gal’skova, NI. Gez, L.V. Moskvin and others). Thus the term ‘M FL teaching m e th o d ’, as it has been traditionally conceived in its academic and applied sense, is viewed by modern academics as having the following definitions:
- a theory of MFL teaching;
- a scientific method;
- linguodidactics;
- MFL teaching method;
- the pedagogy of MFL teaching.
Thus, they have succeeded in dividing up both the term and its academic field into ‘invented’ scientific and applied research areas (N.D.Gal’skova, N.D.Gez,L.V.Moskvin, R.K.Min’iar-Belo­
ruchev and others).Russian theorists have likewise proposed their own function-based division of spheres within the field and have defined linguodidactics as (i) a general teaching theory concerning the assimilation and command of MFL (ii) a scientific method ,in the sense of a th e o ry fo r formulating the methodological foundation of the study and teaching of MFL (an interdisciplinary field) (iii) a general m ethod studying how language is taught outside specific teaching conditions (iv) a specific m e t h o d studying MFL teaching in particular teaching conditions (G. K- Rogin, N.D.Gal’skova, R.K. Min’iar-Beloruchev, L.V.Moskvin and others). Special mention should be made of N.D.Gal’skova’s ideas ,regarding the component structure of the scientific method as well as the division a n d nature of its constituent parts. N.Galskova considers all other scientific components to be part of the general scientific method , whereas its compenents form an understanding of (a) linguodidactics as a description of a model for intercultural communication ability based on evidence from the philosophy of language, linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology etc.; (b) method as a description of a model o f the development of intercultural communication ability, based on evidence from linguistics, comparative linguistics, pedagogy, pedagogical psychology. This raises the logical question - how justified is the inclusion of‘ linguodidactics’ as a part of the scientific method when the latter, according to N.D.Gal’skova herself, is concerned with the description of a model for developing ability in intercultural communication? In this case, the study of language ability (including that of thought speech) becomes the concern of psychology, psycholinguistics, the psychology o f speech and sociolinguistics and, without any direction from theory and practice of MFL teaching, the evidence acquired from these studies would have not just didactic purposes but could be used by many other academic disciplines. Based on this above-mentioned division of the MFL academic field into linguodidactics and a specific method, it is wholly justified and logical to consider that the method and technology of teaching are in fact equal since, according to N.D.Gal’skova, Method is assigned the function of developing ability in a particular MFL. Moreover, no place has been found in this structure for the ‘general MFL teaching method’ which provides scientific research into the general ‘laws’ of MFL teaching. These researchers, apart from attempting to divide up the single field of knowledge known as ‘MFL teaching method’, have also tried to secure the status of ‘linguodidactics’ as a general scientific theory within the field of pedagogy concerned with all questions o f language education’, concentrating on the specifics and mechanisms of developing thought-speech ability as well as the processes for assimilating language both naturally within a native-language environment and within an artificial teaching one. As already noted, the formation of thought- speech ability lays within the field of the psychological sciences. Moreover,N.D. Gal’skova, limits this ability to only one function, namely, the ability for intercultural communication. Thus, the attempts to construct a unified scientific theory capable of being method-based and generalizing all aspects o f M FL teaching into a single, systematic academic and pedagogical field as a scientific method capable of permanent development did not prove successful.
14) Which factors held back the provision of the competency based education and what are the main social and education expectations regarding its introduction? What is the main difference between knowledge based and competency based education?
The fundamental defining features of ‘competency-based education’:
- student/personality-centred learning; allowing students to select courses based on their interests;
- a developing organizational educational structure ;
- the development of students’ ability to solve social and personal issues independently;
- the development of creative thought; the use of creativity and non-standard means for problem-solving;
- an orientation towards individual self-development, the acknowledgement of the uniqueness of each individual personality, creative self-development etc.
For all the future potential that these educational aims possess, the creation of an integrated conceptual-methodological platform for the competency-based model has been a slow process and this explains why it still remains a ‘methodical direction’ in education. There are different views regarding the details of the conceptual-categorical apparatus of this type of education and this accounts for its delayed introduction.

The synonymous use of the concepts kompetentnost’ and kompetentsiia however has complicated the development of the theory and practice of the competency-based approach. Their distinction may be summarised thus:kompetentnost’-kompe- tentsiia, potential - real, given - acquired.
The public and social expectations of the competency-based education are that - it will provide higher quality education as a result of the introduction of personalized learning, - the interaction of educational system with the surrounding environment and a diversification of educational paths. The development of fundamental professional competencies is, however, the main priority for the formation of a multi-tiered system of higher education. The latter’s development need not necessarily follow a single pattern and one should allow freedom of choice and the development of the individuality and competency of students in higher education. The competency-based approach pushes to the forefront the idea that education is not simply about the acquisition of information but the ability to solve problems which arise during the study and explanation of natural phenomena.
One of its basic differences between competency-based approach and the knowledge-based approach is the former’s aim of developing in students a reflexive assessment of their ability and a consciousness of the limits of their competency. The competency-based approach supposes the unification of the educational process around its ideas, during which the student gains personal development and a relationship with a chosen sphere of activity. The competency-based approach is concerned not simply with students’ increasing their ‘amount of knowledge’ but with gaining a diverse experience of activity.
The main difference
lefttop
The relevance of the competency-based approach and the difference compared the knowledge-based one is as follows :
- the learning outcome of ‘competency’ conforms to the highest degree with the overall aim of education: to prepare members of society for active social adaptation, an independent choice of lifestyle, for the onset of working life and continuing professional education, independent study and self-development;
- jt unites the intellectual, skill-based and values-based apects of education;
-its educational content and standards should be results-orientated (which, in fact, is not the case in the ZUN system);
- the ‘competency’ of a graduate is grounded in educational standards and this inevitably leads to a real change not only in educational content but in the means for its assimilation and thus, by extension, in the overall organization of the educational process;
- the approach clearly possesses an integrative nature which unites skills and knowledge in a single entity and involves a wide range of activities and personal qualities which allow for the most effective use of the ZUN method.
15. Analyze the existing interpretation regarding the relationship between kompetentnost and kompetentsiia. Give a full definition for each one and their relationship. Which set of proposed of competency-based education outlined by D.N.Kulibaeva are the most indicative of this type of education?
The competency-based approach, which personifies today’s innovative educational process, corresponds to the general conception of educational standards found in the majority of countries and is directly connected to the transition towards a competency-based system of constructing educational content and as its quality-assurance mechanisms. Moreover, the topical nature of the competency-based approach, however one might interpret the term, reflects various cultural and educational tendencies presently found in CIS:
- the loss of a common, unified educational system; the formation of a free labour market and the resulting appearance of an educational services market;
-the appearance of different and alternative types of educational programme; the growth of competition and commercial factors in the educational system;
- a change in the role of the state in education. It no longer has a monopoly over control and planning and now provides the general legal regulation for the educational market;- the prospect of integrating the CIS educational system into the international one;
Modern’ competency-based education’, which is grounded in a humanistic and culturally-orientated methodology, establishes a ‘system of competencies’ which serve as educational aims and learning outcomes. This educational model involves the selection and organization of a range of ‘key competencies’ (kompetentsii) for the content of every field of knowledge. They may be grouped under three main types of ‘competencies’ (kompetentnosti) (I.A.Zimniaia) . This is based on the idea that the kompetentnost’ of an individual is an element of acmeological development 2) whereas the various kompetentsii are certain new inner, potential, latent psychological formations (knowledge, appearance, algorithms of activity, a system of values and relations) which manifest themselves as the kompentnosti of an individual and so define kompetentsii as concrete kompetentnosti. This is the basis of the author’s idea that kompetentnosti are the sum total of their characteristics or kompetentsii.There is a different point of view based on the premise is that kompetentnost’ is a complex set of characteristics which unite the intellectual and skills-based parts of education and which determine the formation of educational content. This brings into question the viability of uniting the terms kompetentnosti and kompetentsii in the sense of their having a relationship of potential whole’ and realized individual part’ (these are my definitions). We agree with the view that kompetentnost’ cannot be reduced to simply being a collection of individual kompetentsii (E. F. Zeer).Modern sociological and psychological works are noted for their numerous differing interpretations of the concept‘competency’ (and in Russian kompetentnost’ and kompetenziia) where ‘communicative competency’ is understood to be the ability establish contacts whereas in the activity theory it is defined by I.A.Zimniaia as a ‘system of internal resources essential for the construction of effective communicative action within a specific range of situations involving interpersonal interaction’.With this development of competency-based education, the field of pedagogy began to work on the latter’s system of characteristic features and its educational process was defined as an environment where individuals are prepared for continuous independent learning. The fundamental defining features o f ‘competency-based education ‘were also established:
- student/personality-centred learning; allowing students to select courses based on their interests;
- a developing organizational educational structure ;
- the development of students’ ability to solve social and personal issues independently;
- the development of creative thought; the use of creativity and non-standard means for problem-solving;
- an orientation towards individual self-development, the acknowledgement of the uniqueness of each individual personality,creative self-development etc.
The competency-based approach (V. A. Bolotov, A. V.Vishniakova, S. G.Vorovshchikov, E. la. Kogan.A.A. Pinskii, V.V. Serikov,A.V. Khutorskoi, I. D. Frumin, B. D. El’konin) proposes an ‘integrated experience of solving the problems of everyday life and the use of key functions, social roles and competencies’.The competency-based approach pushes to the forefront the idea that education is not simply about the acquisition of information but the ability to solve problems which arise during the study and explanation of natural phenomena. Thus, ‘competency’ is the complex synthesis of one’s cognitive, educational and personal experience and it is impossible to form just by giving a student an academic piece of work or through ‘activity’ exercises. The student must, in incremental steps, be exposed to different situations which approximate real life and demand ever higher degrees of competency as regards action, assessment and reflex. The most widely-accepted understanding of the concepts kompetentnost’ and kompetentsiia is that the former is an acmeological category and denotes the potential for intellectual and professional development. The features of kompetentnost’ are called kompetentsii and should be developed as a system of new skills during the educational process.
- Kompetentsiia is an integrated description of educational qualities and the preparation of graduates.That is, kompetentnost’ / kompetentsiia can be understood as forming a single whole reflecting a relationship of a ‘potential whole’ (the final learning outcome of education) and a ‘realized individual part’ (the development of individual competencies during teaching).
In her research monograph on the educational management of international schools, D. N. Kulibaeva proposed the following set of principles for a competency-based model of education which is applicable not only to school pupils:
- the systemization and logical progression of educational content;
- the integration of acquired knowledge, its applied use, the practical nature of skills and competencies;
- the principle of differentiated and alternative types of education;
- the principle of creative stimulation in education achieved through setting creative tasks and projects; differentiation acc o rd in g to competency;
- the principle of using problem-focused and results-orientated tasks in the teaching process;
- the principle of innovative, information-orientated, content-based teaching;
- the principle of the academic, information-based foundation of educational content in order to form the intellectual-creative competency;
- the principle of an activity-based stimulation of thought and inquiry amongst students;
- the principle of providing a developmental-reflexive educational content and technology (self-management, self-assessment, self-development).
The competency-based theory/approach is an attempt to make education relate to the demands of the labour market and potential employers.
International research on this issue is of great interest and utility. Authors such asT. Hoffman, M. Linard, D. McClelland and B. Mansfield consider that‘competency’ serves as an inner motivation for individuals for improved professional activity and to relate to the values of their chosen sphere. Competent specialists are able to transcend the limits of their profession and possess a certain creative potential for self-development. The competency-based approach allows the measurement of a worker’s suitability at the workplace. This is very useful for educational planning and allows the creation of the most optimal and cost-effective means for training/retraining workers when they move from one workplace to another.
The synonymous use of the concepts kompetentnost’ and kompetentsiia however has complicated the development of the theory and practice of the competency-based approach. Their distinction may be summarised thus:kompetentnost’-kompetentsiia,potential - real, given - acquired.Kompetentsiia involves a range of purposes, responsibilities, roles and multitasks which the individual should complete and can be defined as the sum total of knowledge, skills and abilities, formed during the educational process of any discipline as well the ability to execute a given activity on the basis of acquired knowledge, skills and abilities (N.V. Bagramova, 2004).In other words, kompetentsiia relates to the content of kompetentnost’ which must be assimilated in order to be considered ‘competent’. However, kompetentnost’ is not to be understood as simply being the sum of its parts. Rather, it is an integrated system of a c q u i r e d knowledge, abilities and values which are directed to wards putting the various kompetentsii into practice. We should emphasise that kompetentnost’ is the experience of successful activity during the execution of particular form of activity.
16. What are the different intercultural- communicative competencies (ICC) upon which existing ICC models ( as a means for MFL education) are based. Give a full definition of ‘intercultural- communicative competency’ and its set of sub-competencies.
Intercultural communicative competence can be represented as idealized conceptual model. The basis for the construction of the conceptual model was the theory of integral social and professional competence of the expert, I.A. Zimnyaya developed in which the competence of cooperation and communication with representative of native and other cultures are included in the social block of competencies. The concept of "communicative competence" was first introduced by N. Chomsky to refer to the ability of a multi-component of effective communication in the target foreign language. Modern Russian and Western researchers, developing the idea of N. Chomsky, isolated as components constituting the communicative competence, linguistic (grammatical and lexical), discursive, sociolinguistic, socio-cultural and strategic components.
There is an indisputable common view that the knowledge of the culture, values and national characteristics of a foreign- language conversational partner allows language to be fully used as a means for intercultural communication and that this is a precondition for mutual-understanding between individuals and societies from different cultures generally. The question of the interrelationship between language, society and culture has not only pedagogical interest but, during the last century, has been central to the studies of philosophy, history, culturology, ethno-linguistics, anthropology, linguistics and other academic disciplines. Their views on this issue are, however, far from unanimous and a whole series of problems have been left open and unresolved, especially as regards the applied aspects of intercultural communication. The topic of intercultural competence became more and more important during the past years: globalisation and worldwide contacts between companies, organizations and individuals need the ability to communicate in a successful way.
Intercultural communication competence (ICC) is the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in various cultural contexts. There are numerous components of ICC. Some key components include motivation, self- and other knowledge, and tolerance for uncertainty.
Michael Byram’s Definition “Briefly, intercultural competence involves five elements: Attitudes: curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one's own.
Knowledge: of social groups and their products and practices in one's own and in one's interlocutor's country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction.
Skills of interpreting and relating: ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents from one's own.
Skills of discovery and interaction: ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and the ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real-time communication and interaction.
Critical cultural awareness/political education: an ability to evaluate critically and on the basis of explicit criteria perspectives, practices and products in one's own and other cultures and countries.
The Components of ICC ICC is a complex phenomenon with multiple components. These components include:
• a variety of characteristics or traits; • three areas or domains; • four dimensions; • proficiency in a second language; • and various levels of a longitudinal and developmental process.
Despite the different approaches to the interpretation of the concept of "intercultural communication", almost all the experts in the field of foreign language teaching is unequivocally accepted as adequately concentrating the elements of the theoretical model of foreign language communicative competence, Jan Van Eck offers. Differences in the interpretation of the structure of the ICC. The following competence and sub-competence of ICC: sociolinguistic competence (D. Himes, L. Bachman, Jan Van Eck, C. Sauvignon), discursive competence (D.N. Kulibayev, D. Hymes, Jan Van Eck, L. Bachmann), strategic competence (D. Himes, Jan Van Eck, D.N. Kulibayev, L. Bachmann), socio-cultural competence (Jan Van Eck, DN Kulibayev), linguistic competence (D.N. Kulibayev, D. Hymes, Jan Van Eck).
18.Which set of methodological principles reflect the ‘cognito-linguoculturological methodology’?
- a set of methodological principles for the cognito-lin- guoculturological methodology of MFL education has been established: the cognitive, communicative, sociocultural, linguocultural, conceptual and reflexive developmental. The latter fully and systematically represent this methodology through the leading cognitive principle and allow the development of a concept of a different language world; The modern psycholinguistic and methodological conception behind personality development and the ability of an individual to attain the level of intermediator of ICC’ is based on: - a MFL educational process involving conscious (cognitive-based) and target-based activity for the formation of new cognito-linguoculturological processes which: - are included in an individual’s general cognitive processes according to their level of assimilation of a MFL; - broaden an individual’s knowledge and consciousness of a new linguoculture; - create a ‘secondary cognitive consciousness’; - gradually re-socialize an individual through the socializing concepts of a different linguoculture; -define the aims and learning outcome of MFL education, namely, the development of the intercultural-communicative competency of a ‘intermediator of ICC’; - demonstrate the justification of identifying ‘linguoculture’ as a fundamental and methodologically-significant category which synthesizes into a single organic whole the form u la ‘language-culture-personality’; - demonstrate the methodological adequateness of the theory of intercultural communication’ as the modern conception of MFL education which is focused on a system of combined methodological principles which integratively put into practice the subject-specific and professional aspects of MFL educational content via a system of methodological concepts and categories; - confirm the justification of the selection of a cognitolin- guoculturological epistemology as the methodology of modern MFL education which is based on the humanistic educational philosophy of developing the personality of a prospective‘intermediator of intercultural communication’ through the latter’s cognitive-governed activity and targeted towards a linguoculturological reconceptualization of the world during contact with a different linguoculture.19. What is meant by “the integrative concept of the compenecy-based model “intermediator of intercultural communication” (субъект межкультурной коммуникации)?
By personality, ”intermediator of intercultural communication” it is advisable to understand the personality with high level of formation of cognito-knowledge and activity-communicative bases of intercultural communication, reflecting the presence of “secondary cognitive consciousness “ of the subject and providing the ability of a person to adequately carry out intercultural communication, reacting flexibly to the variable changeability of situations of communication, showing at the same time a strong tightness of socio-linguacultural components of intercultural communication, communicative and behavioral culture, that meet the standards of linguarum.The characteristics of the integrated activity structure of the theory of intercultural-communicative teaching should be viewed as an integrative concept of the competency-based model of the ‘intermediator of intercultural communication' which is reflected in and, provided by, the set of methodological principles of the cognito-linguoculturological methodology of MFL education. We have defined the ‘intermediator of intercultural communication’ as an individual with a ‘secondary cognitive consciousness’ based on the integrative potential of the above-mentioned methodological principles which form the core of the ‘intercultural competency’.This competency, however, may be developed to different degrees, ranging from that of allowing adequate Participation in communication to that approaching the level of a native speaker. As regards the creation of a linguo-didactic model for forming this competency, it has yet to be sufficient formulated, as demonstrated by:
(i) the existence of theories for the identification and forma tion of discrete parts/competencies within the overall intercultural competency (such as the socio-cultural, cognitive, communicative
etc.);
(ii) the pairing of the constituent parts of this complex competency in the form of distinct or conjoined principles (cognitive, cognito-social);
(iiii) the identification of the competency as a synthesis of methods and approaches (communicative-cognitive, linguo-culturological etc.);
(iv) its identification as a synthesis of various aspects of the structure of language personality which must be formed separately.
‘Intercultural competency’, in the sense of being both the aim and learning outcome of intercultural-communicative teaching, should be integratively expressed as the concept o f the competency-based model ‘intermediator of intercultural communication’ and as the ‘result of the interconnected display’ within the theory and practice of MFL education of methodological principles, the most fundamental of which are the communicative, social, linguocultural, socio-cultural, conceptual, personality-centred and the cognitive, which constitutes the leading principle.the methodological principles for the cognito-linguoculturological methodology of MFL education that provide the concept of a new language world have been established as the communicative, socio-cultural, linguocultural, conceptual, developmental-reflexive and the cognitive which
acts as the dominant principle;
- its aim and learning outcome has been defined as the ‘intercultural competency’ which is formed by the unified cognitive-based process of developing a student as a ‘intermediator of intercultural communication . The learning outcome is reflected in the degree to which the aforementioned
basic six methodological principles are realized;
The combined reflection of the methodological principles found in the intercultural-communicative theory of M F L te a c h in g and the competency-based theory of pedagogy can
be viewed as the integrative concept of the competency-based model ‘intermediator of intercultural communication’. Every one of these methodological principles serves to e s ta b lis h the borders of the intercultural-communicative model of MFL education.The integrative nature of these methodological principles and their reflection in the intermediator of intercultural communication, allow for the suitable definition of the specifics of the direction of the content and function of each of the afore-mentioned basic methodological principles which can be found in the interconnected empirical base and achievements of a range of academic subjects which have added to the interpretation of and, research into, the nature o f ‘intercultural communication’.Субкомпетенции межкультурной компетенции стр 120 англ учпро субъект МКК и принципы подробнее 6 гл., стр. 131 англ учпринципы определения на рус. Стр 270 уч.на рус.яз.
21.Define and describe the types of principles have been proposed for selecting content in contemporary MFL education?
Methodical principles are needed for the selection and construction of subject content and the modeling of the modern process of MFL teaching in order to achieve the aim of developing intercultural-communicative competency.
There should be the methodical principles specific to MFL teaching which, though not directly related to the methodology of MFL teaching, put into practice the conception behind ‘intercultural communication’ through the ‘intercultural communicative/MFL teaching/education’ methodical system.
They are:
1) the principle of discourse
2) pragmatism in choice of communication topic
3) differentiated MFL content
4) the integrative principle
5) authentic foreign language materials
6) problem-based
7) the situational principle
The hierarchical structure of ‘intercultural communicative MFL education’ has the following progression: methodology of MFL education-methodological principles-a methodologically-based conception of MFL education-specific methodical principles to put the conception into practice.
22) What are the innovative features of the competency-based paradigm of education and to what extent have they improved the overall quality of education?
Компетентностный подход в английской версии книги стр. 99- 103
Компетентностный подход в учебнике на русском стр. 89
The competency-based approach, which personifies today’s innovative educational process, corresponds to the general conception of educational standards found in the majority of countries and is directly connected to the transition towards a competency-based system of constructing educational content and as its quality-assurance mechanisms. Moreover, the topical nature of the competency-based approach, however one might interpret the term, reflects various cultural and educational tendencies presently found in CIS:
-the loss of a common, unified educational system; the formation of a free labour market and the resulting appearance of an educational services market;
- the appearance of different and alternative types of educational programme; the growth of competition and commercial factors in the educational system;
-change in the role of the state in education. It no longer has a monopoly over control and planning and now provides the general legal regulation for the educational market;- the prospect of integrating the CIS educational system into the international one.
According to some Russian academics (D. A. Ivanov, V. Zagvozdkin, I. A. Zimniaia, A. G. Kasprzhak), the competency- based approach is a means for achieving a new level of quality within a new model of education. It determines the direction of change in the educational process and as regards priorities and content. This is no accident for it is a new way of measuring an individual’s educational level. The traditional system of knowledge/ability/skills no longer adequately fulfils this task and cannot demonstrate or measure the level of educational quality.
It is therefore necessary to establish the pedagogical status of the ‘competency-based approach’ and an integrative structural- functional competency model for the future‘intermediator of intercultural communication’. Modern‘competency-based education’, which is grounded in a humanistic and culturally-orientated methodology, establishes a ‘system of competencies’ which serve as educational aims and learning outcomes. This educational model involves the selection and organization of a range of ‘key competencies’ (kompetentsii) for the content of every field of knowledge.They may be grouped under three main types of ‘competencies’ (kompetentnosti) (I.A.Zimniaia).
Historically, ‘competency’ (kompetentnost’) has been understood as being either an acmeological category of individual development or as socio-professional category of ‘ability’.
- early period - the early 1960s saw it emerge as a ‘theory of child competency’ concerning child development and was understood as being largely coterminous with ‘ability’ and ‘intellect’ (D. Bruner, R. Sternberg, D. Elkin and others)
- period of ‘maturity ’ (1970s) connected to methods for providing personalized learning, self-improvement and self-assessment which were popular in American pedagogy at that time. The use of stages of ‘competency’ for assessment and defining purposes forced American pedagogues to widen the borders of the content of ‘competency’ to include not only pedagogical techniques and additional fields of knowledge but social indicators as well (microclimate, interpersonal relations)
- third period - the stage of the social and educational acceptance of the concept (early 1990s) and the appearance of academic works defining the ‘concept of competency’ (the concept of the integrated development of competency - G.Wailer.J. Leafstedt and others); a new model of education with a widened educational content - the strategy of developing intellect and competency etc.).
It is important to point out that formation of students’ intercultural communicative competence as a final goal of FLT is divided into sub competencies: cognitive, communicative, conceptual, linguacultural, socio-cultural, reflexive.
The concept of competency is a pillar of curriculum development and a driving force behind the process of change. It is defined as “the development of complex capacities that enable students to think and act in various fields of activity […]. It consists of achieving knowledge in action, the result of a sound knowledge base that can be put into practice and used to explain what is happening” (Braslavsky, C.).
What is competency-based education and what makes it different? The most important characteristic of competency-based education is that it measures learning rather than time. Students’ progress by demonstrating their competence, which means they prove that they have mastered the knowledge and skills (called competencies) required for a particular course, regardless of how long it takes. While more traditional models can and often do measure competency, they are time-based -- courses last about four months, and students may advance only after they have put in the seat time. This is true even if they could have completed the coursework and passed the final exam in half the time. So, while most colleges and universities hold time requirements constant and let learning vary, competency-based learning allows us to hold learning constant and let time vary.
There are many factors that contribute to making competency based education a possibility today, some of these were identified by at the Software & Information Industry Association 2010 Symposium, the notes in parentheses are mine:
Essential Elements:
Flexible, Anytime/Everywhere Learning (Made possible by technology)
Redefine Teacher Role and Expand “Teacher”
Project-Based, Authentic LearningStudent Driven Learning Path (Increased knowledge of students and students as consumers)
Mastery/Competency-Based Progression/Pace (Growing dissatisfaction with cost and business model of higher education)
23- Support the idea that there is no justification or future in integrating competency based education with the traditional approach. Make sure you refer to the principle differences between knowledge and competency-based types of education
The competency-based approach, which personifies today’s innovative educational process, corresponds to the general conception of educational standards found in the majority of countries and is directly connected to the transition towards a competency-based system of constructing educational content and as its quality-assurance mechanisms.The topical nature of the competency-based approach reflects various cultural and educational tendencies presently found in CIS:
- the loss of a common, unified educational system; the formation of a free labour market and the resulting appearance of an educational services market;
■ the appearance of different and alternative types of educational programme; the growth of competition and commercial factors in the educational system;
It no longer is a monopoly over control and planning and now provides the general legal regulation for the educational market; - the prospect of integrating the CIS educational system into the international one;
According to some Russian academics (D. A. Ivanov, V., Zagvozdkin, I. A. Zimniaia,) the competency-based approach is a means for achieving a new level of quality within a new model of education.
Traditional & competency-based approaches differ in the following points:
1.the former limits in the frames of subject knowledge, whereas the latter makes an accent on the learners’ readiness, abilities, & activities to use the subject knowledge & skills in real life for the successful solution of practical & theoretical tasks;.
Traditional Competency-based
2 The significance of Education language as structural system of grammartical models is pointed out The significance of communication is pointed out
3 The choice of language means under linguistic criteria From simple to complicated
E.g. Present Simple & Cont. at Elementary level
PrPerfect & First Conditional at Pre-Int Level All the grammar material is given just from the Elementary level
4 The style of the used language Official, literary & book language Neutral as well as every-day lang with the elements of argo (jargons)
5 The significance in communication Reading & Writing Listening & speaking are of the same significance as R&W
6 The teacher’s role The teacher plays the main role in education The teacher is the students partner. The learner-centered education.
7 The significance of speech The forms of the used expressions are important; Speak about a language. The content, but not the form is more important. Use the language for communication
8 Objectives of education The educational process with the min. of self-work Construction “Language-Culture-Personality”

These are the key factors of the change of the traditional approach to competency-based one. Its’not accidentally, as it is a new way of measuring an individual’s educational level. The traditional system of knowledge/ability/skills no longer adequately fulfils this task and cannot demonstrate or measure the level of educational quality. It is therefore necessary to establish the pedagogical status of the ‘competency-based approach’ and an integrative structural-functional competency model for the future ‘intermediator of intercultural communication’.

Приложенные файлы

  • docx 26448339
    Размер файла: 143 kB Загрузок: 0

Добавить комментарий