SYSTEMS PSYCHOLOGY
AND SOCIOLOGY

    Views: 662

SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT OF SYMBOLIC ACTIVITY IN YOUNGER STUDENTS

Yu. A. Shulekina,

MCU, Мoscow,

Juliah@mgpu.ru

The article considers the problem of reading textbook as the most important component of the system organization of educational activities of primary school children. Studying of its psychological platform (symbolic activity) is necessary for the understanding of the difficulties arising in students of different classes, as well as the modeling of psychological and pedagogical assistance to such children. A questionnaire developed by the author and tested on a large sample of recipients was chosen as a tool for studying the symbolic activity of younger students.

The study is based on the hypothesis: every year at the stage of primary General education students improve various components of symbolic activity, which is a necessary condition for the development of educational activities, and as a result, expands the opportunities of students in mastering educational competencies. The results of the surveys are the material of empirical nature on the problem of the attitude of students in grades 1–4 to reading the textbook as a specific symbolic activity. The data obtained in the course of this study made it possible to trace the development of certain components of symbolic activity in primary school students. The most important conclusion was that the development of symbolic activity is uneven, which indicates the different readiness of children to quickly adapt to the changing requirements of the information and educational environment, including multimodal nature. However, by the end of primary General education, students fully assimilate the traditional model of learning activities: their experience and skills allow them to solve problems in accordance with the learning objectives. At the same time, students do not fully use the multimodal resources of the textbook, often referring to their semiotic noise, and sometimes directly avoiding them.

Keywords: symbolic activity; reading the textbook; learning activity; learning skills to operate the tutorial; specific skills to operate the tutorial; multimodal literacy; younger students.

For citation: Shulekina J. A. Specific development of symbolic activity in younger students // Systems Psychology and Sociology. 2019. № 3 (31). P. 46–54. DOI: 10.25688/2223-6872.2019.31.3.05

Shulekina Juliya Alexandrovna, PhD in Pedagogics, docent, docent at the Department of the Speech therapy at the Institute of special education and comprehensive rehabilitation of the Moscow City University, Moscow, Russia.

E-mail: Juliah@mgpu.ru

References

1. Andreeva V. A. Illustration system features in textbook design concept // Text. Book. Book publishing industry. 2013. № 1 (3). P. 75–82.

2. How to teach modern schoolchildren Russian language and literature? School textbook today: a monograph. Мoscow; Saint-Petersburg: Nestor-History, 2018. 320 p.

3. Nikulina T. V., Starichenko E. B. Informatization and digital technologies in education: concepts, technologies, management // Pedagogical education in Russia. 2018. № 8. P. 107–113.

4. Pozdeeva S. I. On the problem of formation younger schoolchildren’s abilities to work with informational text // TSPU Bulletin. 2016. № 5 (170). P. 28–31.

5. Romashina E. J. Interrelations between the text and visuals in Russian school textbooks in the late 19-th–early 20-th centuries // Problems of modern education. 2014. № 6. P. 135–148.

6. Modern technologies in working with textbook in inclusive education: educational and methodical manual / Ju. Shulekina. Moscow: MCU, 2018. 100 p.

7. Turchin A. S. Formation of activities with symbolic means as a condition of psychological and acmeological development of students’s personality: PhD thesis ... in Psychology (Psy. D). Кostroma, 2011. 44 p.

8. Tsvetkov A. V. On the universal structure of symbolic activity // News of the Russian State Pedagogical University named by A. I. Herzen. 2008. № 75. P. 266–271.

9. Shulekina Ju. Modern tendencies of modernization of the educational text in the conditions of inclusive education // Bulletin on education and science. Pedagogy. Psychology. Medicine. 2014. № 2 (12). P. 32–42.

10. Aerila J.-A., Merisuo-Storm T. Emergent readers and the joy of Reading: A finnish perspective // Creative Education. 2017. № 8. P. 2485–2500.

11. Bintz W. P., Ciecierski L., Moore S. D., Nageldinger J. K., Scullin B. L., Baron H.-L. M., Berndt R. New Potentials for Making Meaning with Picture Books // Making meaning — literacy in action. Book of abstracts. FinRa, Тurku, Finland. 2016. P. 42.

12. Blanchard J., Long R., Mangen A., Walgermo B. R., Brønnick K. Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension // International Journal of Educational Research. 2013. № 58. P. 61–68.

13. Deguara Jo., Nutbrown C. Signs, symbols and schemas: understanding meaning in a child’s drawings // International Journal of Early Years Education. 2018. Vol. 26. № 1. P. 4–23.

14. English language arts and literacy. Massachusetts Curriculum Framework. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2017. 193 p.

15. Kress G. Multimodality: A social semiotic to contemporary Communication. London: Routledge, 2009. 236 p.

16. Jing Liu Visual images interpretive strategies in multimodal texts // Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2013. Vol. 4. № 6. P. 1259–1263.

17. Jo Shan Fu ICT in Education: A critical literature review and its implications // International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology. 2013. Vol. 9. Issue 1. P. 112–125.

18. O’Halloran K. L., Lim F. V. Dimensioner of Multimodal Literacy // Viden om Læsning. 2011. № 10. P. 14–21.

19. Shulekina Ju. Language competence of children with speech disorders (interdisciplinary aspect) // Вестникобразованияинауки. Педагогика. Психология. Медицина. 2012. № 3. С. 34–38.

20. Unsworth L. Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction // English teaching: Practice and critique. 2006. Vol. 5. № 1. P. 55–76.