Dialogic Communication between Teachers and Students as a Condition for Interaction of Subjects of the Higher School Educational Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the issue of educational interaction and cooperation between teachers and students. The purpose of the study is to show the need for dialogic communication in educational activities, form knowledge, and develop educational cooperation skills, allowing students to take an active position in the educational process to help them adapt to interactive learning. The study's methodological base is the technology of sign-contextual learning, the implementation of which involves the use of active teaching methods. The article gives definitions of the concepts "communication", "dialogic communication", "subject". The principles of dialogic communication are highlighted. Experimental work was carried out in pedagogical classes with students of non-pedagogical specialties. Based on the thesaurus, questions, and tasks of the module, "Teaching Methods" were compiled, training was carried out using active methods. Systematic control was achieved by combining different types of work; however, a special role was played by testing, including computer testing. The result of developing communication-dialogue was the emergence of the participants' subjective positions in the dialogue, the formation of their experience of dialogic communication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".