Sergei Lavlinsky. Sergey Lavlinsky Sergey Lavlinsky

chapter 1, monologue and dialogic approaches to the literary work and the reader in modern igkol. g g

I, Monological model for the analysis and interpretation of a literary work. gz\/ 1. 2. Literary criticism, methodological science and pedagogy in search of an interdisciplinary "dialogue of consent"

1. 3. Literary and hermeneutic aspects of the problem of educational dialogue. 66

1,4-. Two approaches to studying the receptive aesthetic activity of schoolchildren readers.

chapter d. educational dialogue and structure of the work. 12?.

2. I. The relationship of the main aspects of educational dialogue in school practice.

2. 2. The plot aspect of the development of the genre consciousness of teen readers on a roll

2. 3. "Chronotonic" analysis of a literary work in a situation of educational dialogue. \1b

3 a KEY.

NOTES

Dissertation Introduction in Pedagogy, on the topic "Educational Dialogue"

At the end of the 20th century, it is difficult to find an area of the humanities that would not be interested in the problem of dialogue to one degree or another. Many people write about dialogue: philosophers and historians, art critics and philologists, psychologists and teachers. A significant part of the work devoted to the study of various aspects of dialogue tends to be multifaceted and interdisciplinary. This should hardly be considered an accident, since dialogic relations, according to N.N. Bakhtin, are "an almost universal phenomenon that permeates all human speech and all relations and manifestations human life, in general, everything that has meaning and meaning (.). Where consciousness begins, there (.) the dialogue begins "(Ex. 1). And since the personality, according to N.N. human being. Therefore, modern research on dialogue is carried out, as it were, "on the borders" of scientific disciplines and almost always, regardless of which area of humanitarian thought the researcher gravitates to, are internally connected with the theoretical legacy of N. N. Bakhtin.

V. S. Bibler tries to give a cultural explanation for this Phenomenon in a number of works. the philosopher identifies the following "turns in humanitarian thought" in which N.N. Bakhtin's ideas about dialogue can be comprehended: dialogue and the universality of humanitarian thinking; dialogue and text; dialogue and understanding; dialogue and consciousness (personality); dialogue on the last questions of being (in the aspect of the idea of spirit); finally, the two poles of the dialogue and the problem of culture - the nusrodialogue in the mind of the individual and the macrodialogue as a dialogue of logicians and a dialogue of cultures (Ex. 2).

However, with all the universality of dialogical "turns", one should not forget about the originality of the approach to the problem of dialogue in a certain area of humanitarian knowledge. Consequently, it becomes necessary each time to correct and concretize the general ideas about dialogue in a new way, highlighting not only the universal aspect of dialogic relations, but also the originality of the ways and forms of their implementation.

Recently, the attention of researchers, especially teachers and psychologists, has been attracted by one of the special aspects of the study of dialogue - dialogue in its application to learning. Works have appeared in which the problem of dialogue is solved in connection with topical issues of developmental education and the so-called "pedagogy of cooperation", which, according to modern scientists, differs from traditional pedagogical activity, monologic in nature. “If in the traditional model of teaching,” writes D. A. Leontiev, “the teacher, along with the task, opposes the activity of the student, then in the model of “pedagogy of cooperation” both the teacher and the student are, figuratively speaking, “on the same side” of their common activity, jointly oppose the task. Their relationship among themselves has all the characteristics of a subject-subject relationship, in the course of the joint solution of educational problems, a kind of redistribution of activity occurs (.). activities for the development of this content, in particular, for the creation and strengthening of the general semantic fund (our discharge -S. / I.) "(pr. 3). Educational activity is understood here as meaningful activity, that is, as a joint activity of equal consciousnesses of the teacher and students, aimed at creating, and not reproducing, the meaning of communication-learning. This kind of learning is an alternative to the traditional forms of "joint-divided activity" that arises in the element of an ordinary lesson (Ex. 4).

Developing the methodological foundations of "open education" (Hegel) in the context of a special state of culture at the end of the twentieth century, modern educators and psychologists have introduced scientific circulation a new concept - educational dialogue (hereinafter - UD). It helps to better understand inner meaning subject-subject relationship between teacher and student and the nature of the new, non-radionic logic of learning. Of great interest to modern pedagogy in this regard, in our opinion, are the works of S. Yu. Kurganov and his colleagues, who consider the nature of UD in the axiomatic framework of the concept of the School of Dialogue of Cultures, put forward and developed by V. S. Bibler (project 5). S.Yu. Kurganov reasonably proved the fundamental difference between the structural and content aspects of UD (the unit of which is the lesson-dialogue) from traditional problem-based learning (the unit of which is the lesson - "ascent") (ex. b).

UD S.Yu.Kurganov calls a special "Form of learning, in which educational tasks are posed in the form of unsolved problems, paradoxes." The problems formulated in the lesson are discussed by the teacher and students "in a dispute with the subject of a different culture, as a result of which the child enters into communication with someone else's cultural meaning in the mind; (.) the discussion of a particular subject is brought to a collision of various subjects of logic, ways of seeing the world as a whole ; students put forward their own options for solving the problem, concentrating their image of the "world as a whole" at first in an external construction of inner speech, a "monster image" (I. Lakatos), which then develops into a detailed concept of the beginning of the subject being studied "(pr. 7).

S. Yu. Kurganov shows how students, in the process of learning, are immersed in the dialogue of various cultural worlds (antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the New Age, the present), in the dialogue of the voices of classmates-interlocutors and in the internal dialogue with themselves. It seems significant to us that for the theorists and practitioners of the School of Dialogue of Cultures, UD is not only a form and method of teaching, a means of shaping the creative thinking of schoolchildren, but also "a testing ground for studying the processes of productive thinking," the birth of thought in a word "(L.S. Vygotsky) "(Ex. 8).

However, despite a number of valuable empirical observations and theoretical generalizations by S. Yu. Kurganov and his colleagues, many aspects of SD are still poorly understood, and some of them have not even been brought to the surface of the humanities dealing with issues of modern education. So, the optimal options for overcoming the gap "between the concept of dyalogical thinking developed in cultural studies and philosophy and various projections of this concept into the plane of scientific psychology" (project 9) have not yet been found and, in our opinion, especially important in the plane of teaching a particular academic subject. Therefore, according to the fair remark of S. Yu. Kurganov, a practicing teacher who conducts dialogue lessons has to "make dizzying leaps from the ideas of dialogue as a general form of thinking to conducting specific lessons in mathematics, literature, history" (nr. 10).

It seems that the noted gap can be overcome only if cultural and psychological aspects UD will be correlated with the goals and objectives of systematic courses of academic disciplines, which are based on the principle of communicative-didactic continuity. Naturally, the very goals and objectives of learning in the process of such a correlation will be dialogically rethought in the minds of a modern teacher.

One of the aspects of the designated problem (its consideration is devoted to real work) is to raise the question of the psychological and pedagogical nature of the educational dialogue in the theory and practice of literary education and, above all, in the process of joint "cognitive-understanding-mayusha" activity of a teacher-philosopher and readers - adolescents, which is based on the perception, analysis and interpretation of a separate literary work . The problem of SD in the aspect of interest to us is posed in the scientific literature for the first time. In the atmosphere of heightened disputes about alternative ways of developing literary education (hereinafter - DL), the explicit "turn" of pedagogical research seems to be especially relevant.

Let us emphasize that its main subject is the nature and functions of SD in the process of analytical and interpretive activity of the lexicographer and schoolchildren, aimed at understanding the laws of structural organization and understanding the meaning.

In a work of art in a literature lesson. The stated problem, due to its novelty, requires a detailed comprehensive justification: cultural, literary, hermeneutical, and psychological and pedagogical. To begin with, let us designate the historical, cultural and socio-cultural reasons for its setting.

The well-known French sociologist A. Nol called the culture of the end of the 20th century "mosaic". He believes that, in contrast to the traditional modern culture, "which gave the subject knowing the world a "screen of concepts" - a "rational" "mesh" structure that possessed (.) almost geometric correctness, "The texture of the "screen of concepts" of the subject of modern "mosaic" culture " is made up of disparate fragments, connected by simple, purely random relationships of proximity in terms of the time of assimilation, by consonance or association of ideas. This culture is not the product of education as some kind of rational organization, but rather the result of exposure through the media of "a continuous, abundant and erratic flow of random information." Therefore, in memory modern man"only fleeting impressions and fragments of knowledge-ideas remain." The general property that characterizes the structure of a "mosaic" culture is "the degree of density of the resulting network of knowledge", and not their depth (Ex. I).

Accordingly, "mosaic" culture gives rise to a special type of perception and understanding of fiction. "Reading as labor and creativity" (VF Asmus) gives way to "fluent" reading or, as it is often called, "short reading". In this case, we are not talking about a mass enthusiasm for popular brochures on "speed reading", but about one of the abilities of modern readers (including those who do not have the technical skills of "speed reading") to assimilate and process artistic information. The purpose of "fluent" reading is to obtain maximum information and emotional impressions in a minimum period of time. In the reader's memory, fragments of thoughts, separate episodes, fragments of memories of one's own experiences of what was read, a general simplified idea of the author's idea settle and mix.

The Spanish philosopher X. Ortega y Gasset gave the following explanation for this type of perception of literature: “There are too many books (.) the number of books that he (the reader - P. 71.) has to digest is so disproportionate that it far exceeds the limits of his time and ability to assimilate" (n. 12). Naturally, the reader adapts in every possible way to the current situation due to the fact that the “mosaic” culture provides him with “the opportunity to receive, without much, more precisely, almost without any effort on his part, the countless thoughts contained in books” (pr. 13), thereby accustoming him not to think through what he reads, and therefore not to think creatively. Fragments of ideas and aesthetic experiences, felt and half understood, form in the mind a kind of truncated "model of the world", constructed by the "wandering" point of view of the modern consumer of culture. In the superficial "destructive" assimilation of literature, the quantitative factor becomes essential, replacing the depth of penetration into the world of an individual work of art and the culture of the reader as a whole with "mosaic" erudition (knowledge of the names of writers, the names of "relevant" and "entertaining" works, etc.) .

It would seem that school 710 with its "slender rows" of trends, writers and works should streamline the ideas of young readers about literature, help them aesthetically settle in the world of artistic tradition, develop a protective reflex against the pressure of the press of "mosaic" culture. After all, the traditional curriculum and its improved versions assume that by the time they graduate from school, students will be well versed in literature, they will know almost everything about any work studied: from the time of creation and place of publication to "the world significance of the writer and Russian literature." But many literary scholars fail to overcome the information "explosion" in the minds of schoolchildren, to give them a deep foundation of literary knowledge. On the contrary, the "built" system of educational material, on which they rely, itself begins to "choke" in the "mosaic" space-time.

This trend is clearly illustrated by some of the new literature programs (Ex. 14). Mastering the number of works that they offer is beyond the power of not only students, but also the teachers themselves. The implementation of other programs in practice is, in our opinion, one of the varieties of modern naive cultural tremor, which forms the type of reader-"erudite", poorly versed in literature as a phenomenon of art, but familiar with the standard set of works in which "actual problems are touched upon", confirming the legitimacy of the popular definition of literature as a "textbook of life".

So, the traditional 710 not only does not overcome the vices of the "mosaic" culture, but, on the contrary, adapts to it and becomes one of the sources of random information that "explodes" in the mind of the student.

Undoubtedly, there is a need for a radical revision of the content, methods and forms of LO, the creation of a completely different type of training programs that take into account state of the art culture and based in the principles of construction and methods of distribution of material on the achievements of literary thought. In our opinion, in order to decide main task learning in literature lessons related to the formation of a culture of the reader as a creatively thinking person, first of all, one should abandon the desire to make the LO "even higher", while using the "packaging" method of including "current and upcoming knowledge in compact mini-mini-packages" (etc.

15), from the temptation to introduce an additional amount of historical and literary Facts into the old educational "turnover". Consideration of possible options for fundamentally new concepts and programs is not part of our task, however, in order to substantiate the relevance of the raised problem of SD, it will be necessary to identify the direction in which the search for a way out of the crisis can be carried out.

At present, both in artistic and theoretical thinking, the birth and formation of a new orientation of consciousness towards the idea of mutual understanding and communication through cultural epochs is taking place. The idea of mutual understanding, explored in the works of cultural philosophers of hermeneutic orientation (pr.

16), resists the chaos of "mosaic" culture and forms a new type of creative behavior of the individual. The reader, joining different cultural worlds, finds his unique place on their borders, "in the zone of contact" with their special cognitive, ethical and aesthetic values.

Of course, "modern culturology," notes T.V. Tom-ko, "does not give recipes, but it suggests in each case to realize: 1) the paradoxical position of including the individual "I" in a dialogue with the "other", or with oneself, as "other"; 2) the unacceptability of monologism and pseudo-polyphony when trying to resolve this paradoxicality; 3) the interpretation of texts as a necessary moment of any meaning formation in dialogue; 4) that the semantic definiteness of the position of interpretation of each "voice" is not set, but is born, therefore it can be only within communication, 5) that the meaning of authorship consists in substantiating the continuity of communication as an activity, i.e., the continuity in time of “understanding”, certain positions of the author in this process of dialogic meaning formation” (project 17).

In order for the modern school reader to turn from a casual consumer of "mosaic" culture into a responsible interlocutor of the author and other readers, he must master not a set of disparate historical and literary Facts, but learn to enter into a dialogue with various "voices" of individual works of art. Fixing in consciousness the diversity of artistic principles and forms of depicting the world and man. The main condition for improving the culture of reader perception and understanding is, in our opinion, the dialogization of learning.

Let us briefly dwell on some features of such a formulation of the question. Dialogization of distance learning involves a radical revision of the main principles and basic ways of distributing the material intended for study. It should be correlated both with the main epochs of the formation of the student's reading development, and with the "dominant" stages of verbal art. When choosing specific texts at each level of education, it is necessary to take into account the patterns of learning that allow the student to consistently and purposefully solve those cognitive, ethical and aesthetic problems that were solved long before him at different historical stages of the development of literature, to independently form and master literary concepts and categories that are over the centuries were developed and comprehended by the science that studied verbal creativity. It is the mitogenetic principle, according to which ontogenesis repeats in some way phylogeny, that underlies the concept of DO developed by D.S. Streltsova and N.D. Tamarchenko. The main theoretical provisions of this concept are of great methodological importance for our study (Project 18).

X. Ortega y Gasset pointed to the internal dialogical relationship between the formation of the reader's culture and the evolution of literary genres. In particular, he wrote: “An adventure novel, a fairy tale, an epic is the essence of the first naive way of experiencing semantic phenomena. A realistic novel is the second, indirect way, but it needs the first one to make us see it precisely as a mirage. That's why,” emphasized philosopher - not only "Don Quixote", which was specially conceived by Cervantes as a criticism of chivalric novels, carries them within itself, but the "novel" as a whole as a literary genre, in fact, needs such internal assimilation" (pr. 19 ). The reader also needs a "similar internal assimilation" of the essence and structure of the genre at the moment of "meeting" with a work of art. Our pedagogical experience shows that the most interesting observations in the lessons devoted to the study of the Russian realistic novel in high school, as a rule, are made by schoolchildren who have mastered the way of reading, and, consequently, the genre originality of adventure literature.

Thus, in the context of DL, meaningful dialogically, the concept of "genre memory" characterizes not only the typical features of a work of art and the consciousness of its creator, but also the peculiarities of the reader's thinking of schoolchildren, largely explaining the specifics of their aesthetic preferences.

Dialogization of distance learning, guided by the historical typological principles of the distribution of material, allows the philologist to overcome the traditional gap between the synchronous, system-structural (study of a work), and diachronic, historical-genetic (study of the literary process) approaches to the cognition of literature, which is carried out in the conditions of UD , most effective way education of school readers.

Of course, the hypothesis formulated in the most general form about the priority role of LD in the literature lesson should be examined in detail from a psychological and pedagogical position and convincingly proved. Any "pedagogical concept (lesson, educational activity, learning task, point of surprise, theoretical generalization, "quasi-research", age, educational discussion, educational dialogue, etc.), - according to the fair remark of S. Yu. Kurganov, - are fundamentally concepts-problems, concepts of a dialogic type "(Project 20). Let us preliminarily designate the dialogic spectrum of "flickering" definitions of UD, which are concretized in the course of the study.

Obviously, the concept that interests us in the context of the "cognitive-understanding" activity of readers (teacher and schoolchildren) has many aspects. It can be considered both as a dominant form of education corresponding to the communicative nature of a work of art, and as a method of aesthetic analysis (a kind of heuristic method), and the main hermeneutic condition for the explication of the "interpretative field", and a means of Forming (as well as analyzing) the students' genre consciousness, and, finally, a special "way of life" of modern readers (teachers and students).

The multidimensionality and “flickering” of the concept of “UD in a literature lesson” allows, nevertheless, to single out its semantic “core-concept”, around which all possible definitions. So, UD is of interest to us primarily as a hermeneutical method of teaching in a literature lesson, adequately reflecting the "ontological unity" of a literary work and the diversity of correlative and complementary positions of school readers, whose research meaning of activity is ultimately aimed at understanding of the value horizons of the hero, author and interlocutor readers.

The working definition of SD helps to formulate the main goal of the dissertation research - a comprehensive pedagogical substantiation of the theoretical and practical significance of SD as the most effective hermeneutic method for studying a work, which determines the nature of the dynamics of the joint creative activity of a teacher and schoolchildren, as well as the originality of their reader's "lifestyle" in a literature lesson. .

Based on the main goal, the dissertation sets several interrelated tasks:

Identification and differentiation of two complex psychological and pedagogical approaches (monological and dialogic) to a literary work and a school reader;

Comprehensive theoretical consideration of the literary and hermeneutic-non-dagogical nature of UD and the identification of an invariant model of the joint dialogic meaningful activity of the philologist and his students, in relation to which individual dialogue lessons (as units of UD) act as possible options;

Practical clarification and theoretical understanding of the specifics of the procedurality of UD, depending on the structural parameters of the work under study and the apperceptive Background of consciousness ("genre memory") of schoolchildren readers;

Practical tracking and theoretical definition of the dialogic aspect of the development of genre consciousness and thinking of schoolchildren and the formation of their reader's understanding in dialogue lessons devoted to a holistic study of a work at different levels of its artistic organization;

Consideration of the mechanism of correlation and interaction of independent positions of readers-schoolchildren and the formation of a "semantic field" of learning in the conditions of a specific LD;

Definition of complex (communicative-didactic) Functions of UD in the process of analysis and interpretation of a literary work: aesthetic (emotional-value), psychotherapeutic, psychological, cognitive-research, hermeneutic, cultural-creative, ontological.

When developing the axiomatics of the study, the aesthetic ideas of M. M. Bakhtin, the hermeneutic ideas of X. -G. Gadamer and psychological ideas L. S. Vygotsky, directly related to such areas of humanitarian consciousness as "perception", "thinking", "speech", "dialogue", "personality", "activity", "communication", "understanding", etc. . . We will constantly refer to the works of these authors in the course of our discussions.

The development of the main provisions of the dissertation was largely stimulated by the theoretical works of N. D. Tamarchenko, as well as lectures and seminars of the literary critic, "charged" with dialogic energy. For a number of years, the author of the dissertation was a regular listener and participant in N. D. Tamarchenko's seminars.

An important role in comprehending the aspect of the SD problem that interests us was played by the studies of S.Yu. Kurganov, the "pioneer" of the School of Dialogue of Cultures. Although we do not agree with the teacher-dialogist in everything, we, nevertheless, try to take into account the experience of dialogic learning, described and analyzed in the works of S. Yu. Kurganov.

When defining the "cognitive-understanding" paradigm of UD, we relied on some ideas of philological hermeneutics put forward in the works of G. I. Bogin, V. N. Toporov and V. Airapetyan (project 21).

So, the axiomatic provisions of the work, its methodological basis were built in the field of interdisciplinary "dialogue of consent", "on the borders" various areas humanitarian science.

The dominant research method in the dissertation is a holistic hermeneutic-pedagogical analysis of dialogue lessons. Based on the analysis of communicative, situational and contextual factors of the meaning activity of readers (authors and heroes of the lesson) in the process of communication-learning, conclusions are drawn about the nature of the "movement of understanding" (IM Bakhtin) of students. As for the texts of literary works studied in the lesson, they are of interest to us not so much from a purely literary point of view, but from a hermeneutic-pedagogical point of view. In a word, the literary aspect of the work "mixes" into the field of pedagogical hermeneutics (or "understanding" pedagogy) (Ex. 22), the main task of which is to consider the dynamics and levels of understanding of works of art by readers of different ages, as well as the mechanism of development of their genre consciousness and quality of reader reflection.

Departure from traditional experimental (scientist) methods of pedagogical research of psychological other owls, "independent of the consciousness and thinking of the child", and a fundamental rejection of the so-called "Formative experiment", "which is based on the understanding of psychology as completely formed from the outside" (pr. 23) , makes the material of our work "texts about texts" - transcripts of lessons-dialogues. They can be considered "transcripts of humanitarian thinking", arising, according to N.N. . Following the theorists of the School of the Dialogue of Cultures, we call these transcripts "educational works" (or "meta-works"), which have a complete integrity and are organized according to certain structural and content laws. Naturally, this approach to psychology, using the expression of I. L. Berlyand, turns out to be "shifted to the side" of literary criticism and hermeneutics (ir. 25). In the scientific literature devoted to the problems of LO, the declared "boundary" research method is used for the first time.

In the first part of the "Introduction" we substantiated the relevance of the raised problem from a cultural point of view and connected it with the dialogization of learning, without which UD, occasionally used within the framework of the traditional pedagogical system, can become just an insignificant flash of creative activity of school readers and is unlikely to stimulate its further development. Since we are interested in one of the central aspects of the dialogization of learning, namely, the psychological and pedagogical nature of UD in the process of analyzing and interpreting a separate work in a literature lesson, it will be necessary to determine the traditional model of a monologue approach to the study of literature and the receptive-aesthetic activity of school readers, delimiting her from the approach actually illogical. The first chapter of the dissertation ("Monologic and Dialogic Approaches to a Literary Work and the Reader in the Modern School") is devoted to the solution of the formulated theoretical problem.

In the second chapter ("Learning dialogue and the structure of the work"), our attention is focused on the analysis of specific dialogue lessons. It will allow to show the relationship of the main aspects of LE. The theoretical propositions put forward in the first chapter are here undergoing a kind of psychological-pedagogical "test" and corrected.

The dialogue lessons considered in the dissertation were conducted by the author over the past four years in the middle grades (5th, 6th and 8th), where training was conducted in line with the author's concept of LO, developed by L. E. Streltsova and N. D. Tamarchenko. The choice of texts of works studied in the lessons is justified in the second chapter.

In the "Conclusion" the main results of the study are summarized, a set of communicative and didactic Functions of SD is explicated, and general prospects for further development of SD problems in the LO are substantiated and outlined.

Thus, the structure of the dissertation work corresponds to the tasks set and to the axiomatic provisions that are stated in it.

SYMBOLS pr. 18) - serial number of the note

UD - educational dialogue

DO - literary education

Dissertation conclusion scientific article on the topic "General Pedagogy, History of Pedagogy and Education"

TO CONCLUSION

1. About the "explosive" character modern culture apart from the decree. For earlier works by A. Nol, see: Lotman Yu. I. Culture and Explosion. -N. : Gnosis, 1992.

2. Tyupa V.I. Artistic reality as a subject of scientific knowledge. - Kemerovo, 1981. - S. 40-41.

3. The plot of cognitive activity in a situation of dialogic communication is specifically considered in Art. L. A. Radzikhovskogo: The problem of communication in the works of L. S. Vygotsky // Psychological studies of communication. - N. : Nauka, 1985. - S. 53-64.

4. Bakhtin N. N. Questions of literature and aesthetics. - N .: Arts. lit. , 1975. - S. 25.

5. Ibid., p. 402.

6. Holqvist N. Dialogue of History and Poetics // Bakhtin Collection. - N., 1991. - Issue. II. - S. 265.

7. Averintsev S. S. Philology// Brief literary encyclopedia. - N .: Owls. encisl. , 1972. - T. 1. - Stb. 976.

List of references of the dissertation author of scientific work: candidate of pedagogical sciences, Lavlinsky, Sergey Petrovich, Moscow

1. Averintsev S. S. Philology// Brief literary encyclopedia. M. : Sov. encycle. , 1972. - T. 7. - Stb. 973979.

2. Averintsev S. S. Ancient Greek poetics and world literature// Poetics of ancient Greek literature. M. : Nauka, 1981. - S. 3-14.

3. Hayrapetyan V. Hermeneutical approaches to the word. N. : Labyrinth, 1992. - 302 p.

4. Active forms of teaching literature. M. : Enlightenment, 1991. - 176 p.

5. Annensky I. The problem of Gogol's humor// Annensky I. Izbr. prod. L.: Arts, lit. , 1987. - S. 375-391.

6. Aristotle. Op. : In 4 vols. N .: Nauka, 1975. - T. 1. -549 p.

7. Arseniev A. s. Thinking and the problem of personality// Culture is a tradition of education. Yearbook. - M., 1990. - Issue. 1. -S. 198-219.

8. Arkhipov Yu. I. Analysis and perception (Problems of receptive aesthetics)// Theories, schools, concepts (Critical analyzes). Artistic reception and hermeneutics. M. : Nauka, 1985. - S. 202-211.

9. Asmus V. f. Reading as work and creativity // Asmus VF Questions of the theory and history of aesthetics. M.: Art, 1968. pp. 55-70.

10. Bak D. P. Informal method in literary criticism (on the problem of the outside location of a literary critic) // Bakhtinskii sbornik. M., 1991. - Issue. II. - S. 243-264.

11. I. Barban E. Jazz improvisation (On the problem of constructing a theory) // Soviet Jazz. Problems. Developments. M.: owls. composer, 1987. - p. 162-183.

12. Bart R. Selected works. Semiotics. Poetics. M. : Progress, 1989. - 616 p.

13. Batkin L. N. On some conditions of the cultural approach // Antique culture and modern science. M., 1985. - S. 303-312.

14. Bakhtin H.H. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. N.: Art. lit. , 1972. - 472 p.

15. Bakhtin MN Questions of literature and aesthetics. I.: Art. lit. , 1975. - 502 p.

16. Bakhtin H.H. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. N .: Art, 1986. - 448 p.

17. Belenkaya L. I. Socio-psychological typology of child readers (reader type, transitional from child to adolescent) // Sociology and Psychology of Reading. N .: Book, 1979. S. 102-121.

18. Belenky G. I. Non-todic guide to the textbook-reader "Native Literature" for grade 7. n. : Education, 1986. - 256 p.

19. Belenky G.I., Snezhnevskaya H.A. The study of literary theory in high school. N. : Education, 1983. -256 p.

20. White a. philosophy of culture// philosophy and sociology of science and technology. Yearbook. 1986-1987. N.: Nauka, 1987. -p. 226-248.

21. Bergson A. Time and freedom of will. N., 1910. - 134 p.

22. Berlyand I. E. Game as a Phenomenon of Consciousness. Kemerovo: ALEF, 1992. - 94 p.

23. Bibler V. S. Nyshlenie as creativity. N.: Politizdat, 1975. 400 s.

24. Bibler V. S. From science teaching to the logic of culture. Two philosophical introductions to the twenty-first century. - M .: Publishing house watered, lit. , 1991. - 416 p.

25. V. S. Bibler, Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, or the Poetics of Culture. M. : Progress, 1991. - 174 p.

26. Bilinkis Ya. S. Russian classics and the study of literature at school. M. : Education, 1986. - 246 p.

27. Bogin G. I. Philological hermeneutics. Kalinin, 1982. -86 p.

28. Bogin G. I. Understanding the texts of culture// Language and culture. First international conference. Materials. Kyiv, 1992. - S. 41-43.

29. Borev Yu. B. Theory of artistic perception and receptive aesthetics, methodology of criticism and hermeneutics (Instead of introduction) / / Theories, schools, concepts (Critical analyzes). Artistic reception and hermeneutics. M. : Nauka, 1985. - S. 3-68.

30. Bocharov S. G. The riddle of the "Nose" and the mystery of the face / / Gogol: history and modernity. M. : Sov. Russia, 1985. - S. 180 212.

31. Brazhe T. G. On the variability of analysis// Art of analysis of a work of art. M. : Education, 1971.1. pp. 37-54.

32. Brazhe T. G., Narantsman V. G. The art of analyzing a work of art at school // The art of analyzing a work of art. M. : Enlightenment, 1971.-S. 3-10.

33. Bruner J. Process of learning. M., 1962. - 84 p.

34. Bruner J. Psychology of knowledge. M., 1977. - 412 p.35.

Dialogue on the socio-cultural and aesthetic specifics of modern Russian dramaturgy, existing both within the framework of the New Drama movement and outside it, dedicated to clarifying the connections of the latest drama with some phenomena of modern culture;

An experimental space for scientific and educational dialogue, interactive practices for discussing humanitarian problems.

Project leader: Candidate of Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Theoretical and Historical Poetics of the Faculty of History and Philology of the Russian State University for the Humanities, Sergei Petrovich Lavlinsky.

Playwrights Yuri Klavdiev (St. Petersburg) and Vyacheslav Durnenkov (Togliatti) will take part in the workshop

=====================================

Key objectives of the seminar:

Designate the latest Russian drama as a cultural and artistic phenomenon at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries;
characterize some of the most representative examples of modern Russian dramaturgy;
to determine the relationship between the discursive-genre searches of the latest dramaturgy with the closest cultural context, with the traditions of classical and post-classical drama;
to clarify the strategy and tools for studying the latest drama as a socio-cultural and aesthetic phenomenon;
highlight research and project-creative ways of understanding specific texts of the latest drama.

The texts of dramatic works, fragments of theatrical performances and feature films are used as material.
Proposed formats of interactive communication: master class, conference seminar, round table, creative verbatim-laboratory, cinema club.

=====================================

10.00. - 11.45. Plenary session. Introductory speech by the organizers of the seminar and dialogue with the audience.
11.45. – 12.00. Coffee break.
12.00. – 14.00. Conference section "The latest drama as a literary text" (KemSU, room 6 320).
14.00. – 15.00. Dinner.
15.00. – 17.00. KinoKlub: "New drama" on stage and screen" (presenter S.P. Lavlinsky). Viewing and discussion of a film and / or performance based on a play by a modern playwright (KemSU, t-tr "Meeting").
17.00. – 17.30. Reflection on the results of the first day of the seminar.

10.00. - 11.30. Round table "Experimental way of studying modern drama (On the project of creating a dictionary of modern Russian drama)" (KemSU, t-tr "Vstrecha").
Conference section "Experience in the development of dictionary entries" (building 6, room 320).
11.30. - 11.45. Coffee break.
11.45. - 13.15. Continuation of reading reports.
13.15. - 13.45. Dinner.
14.00. – 16.00. "The Newest Drama: Between Stage and Text". Creative meeting with playwrights Vyacheslav Durnenkov, Yuri Klavdiev and Marina Krapivina (DK "Moscow").
16.00. – 17.00. Reflection on the results of the second day of the seminar.
17.00. - 17.15. Coffee break.
17.30. – 19.00. Master classes by Vyacheslav Durnenkov, Yuri Klavdiev and Marina Krapivina for actors, directors, artistic directors, heads of litas (KemSU, t-tr "Vstrecha")

11.00. – 14.00. Reading plays (“Dry breakfasts” by Vyacheslav Durnenkov, “Ruins” by Yuri Klavdiev, “Vera” by Marina Krapivina).
14.00. – 15.00. Dinner.
15.00. – 16.30. Meeting of the "Club of Dramatists" (lecture by Yu. Klavdiev on modern dramaturgy) (Regional Scientific Library named after Fedorov) / continuation of the "reading" (t-tr "Meeting", KemGU).
16.30. – 17.30. Presentation of the results of the work of the "film workshop"
17.30. – 18.30. Reflection on the results of the Open Humanitarian Seminar "DramoMania".

Sergey Petrovich, you are one of the authors of the school program of literary education, which is based on a communicative-activity approach. How do your offers differ from traditional and well-known programs?
- The idea of the program was proposed by Natan Davidovich Tamarchenko, an outstanding literary theorist, my teacher, colleague and friend, at the very beginning of the 90s. It was a time of great hopes, freedom and desire to change the situation with literature at school. Together with Lyudmila Evgenievna Streltsova, a specialist in children's reading and elementary school, he developed a concept that was supposed to overcome the dead ends that had long existed in literary education. For the first time in Russia, a scientifically based system for mastering literature from grades 1 to 11 was proposed, built on a thoughtful dialogue between literary theory and innovative pedagogy, which was actively developing in the 90s. I got involved at the stage of developing the technology of educational activity and communication, as well as creating a methodology for studying science fiction and Russian literature of the 18th-20th centuries in grades 7-11. We developed the part of the program dedicated to mastering the works of the 20th century together with Dina Makhmudovna Magomedova, a well-known literary historian, an expert on the Silver Age, the author of a wonderful book on the philological analysis of a lyrical poem.
In traditional programs, we are not satisfied with the educational strategy. Until now, reading is perceived by many educators not as an aesthetic event, and works not as facts of art, but exclusively as tools for achieving educational goals. Previously, these were communist ideals, today - democratic, religious or environmental - it does not matter. It is not so much the literary text and the meaning expressed by it that is mastered - what Leo Tolstoy called "the labyrinth of links" - as ready-made and "only true" interpretations. What does it mean to study Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment"? Pick up a number of examples proving that Raskolnikov's behavior is an "individualistic rebellion" or, as one well-known critic believed, "self-deception." The absurdities of Soviet textbooks can, of course, be replaced by the deep thoughts of prominent literary critics: Lotman, Likhachev, Gasparov ... But this does not change the essence of the matter. The intrigue of meaning disappears, you no longer want to read the book: why, because everything about the characters and the author is already known in advance. An alternative to the one-dimensionality of such learning is another extreme now common - to teach the student to look for his beloved in the work, that is, to express himself at the expense of others, not paying attention to the author and the signs of meaning left by him. How many teachers now complain: "Children do not read." I know from experience: a student's interest in reading does not arise by itself, but only when the teacher creates an informal reading context.
The program teaches to work directly with the text, to determine what seems strange, incomprehensible in it, to analyze the “complexly organized meaning” (Yu.M. Lotman). Find out why the author constructs the text in this way and not otherwise. The technology and methodology proposed by us do not ignore the position of the author, and most importantly, they do not neglect the potential abilities of the reader to understand it independently. By the way, one of the first versions of the program was called “The Way of the Reader to the Author”.
Based on Bakhtin's literary ideas and Vygotsky's psychological propositions, the authors of the program determined the logic of continuity in education both at the level of selecting material, and at the level of mastering the ways of working with it, and in the sphere of reader preferences, determined by the psychological characteristics of a reader of a certain age. The system of literary education is built on the correlation of the studied texts and the reader's interests of the student, the connections of the classification of the material and the historical and typological similarities and differences of works, on the correspondence between the sequence of the studied works and the logic of the theoretical concepts being mastered. Each new work is considered taking into account already mastered ways of reading. The textbooks created by the authors are, in fact, problem books - you simply will not find such a system of questions, focused on activating the reader's thoughts and speech, in the traditional methodology. And how without it is it possible to develop the culture of the reader?
- And in what units is the culture of the reader determined?
- Unlike the teachers of "spirituality" and "morality" dear to the heart of many, whose development is the goal of the traditional program, the culture of reader's perception can really be determined and diagnosed.
The cultured reader clearly understands that there are three facets in the work. First, this is the world of heroes. Secondly, speech material with its special compositional structure. The third facet is the value position of the author himself, with whom the reader enters into a dialogue. The program outlines a gradual way of mastering these three facets. To what extent the reader has mastered the methods of reading and analysis, it turns out as a result of the discussion of numerous products of educational activity - creative, research, design.
How can this culture be developed?
- Consistently mastering the language of fiction in all its diversity is the way. It is offered in the program. For example, inner world a work is comprehended through consideration of artistic space and time, events, plot, system of characters... The organization of a literary text is through compositional and speech forms, a system of points of view...
Literary education has never provided the student with the opportunity to think theoretically. He was raised on ready-made formulas. A plot is a sequence of events: this is the definition given by a traditional textbook. But any thinking sixth grader will ask: why do we not use this concept in relation to Everyday life? Maybe because it is a sequence organized in a special way? Then the question is: how? We begin to understand and find out: this is a purposeful sequence built by the author in order to achieve a special artistic goal.
It is necessary to master the language of literature systematically, progressively. Why has there always been continuity in mathematical education, where all the principles and concepts are connected, but in literary education it has never been, and even now it is rare? Haven't you ever been surprised that, having not considered a single novel in literature lessons, schoolchildren study "Eugene Onegin" in the 9th grade? They have neither the experience nor the reader's "tools" for perceiving the novel. While Pushkin himself assumed that his reader was well acquainted with the existing novelistic tradition. What about Crime and Punishment? What is the point of reading it if schoolchildren have not studied a single work related to the socio-criminal and detective genre?
- What works of those that have never been studied at school before have you included in your program?
- In the fifth - seventh grades, we consider the "language" of space, time and plot, we read "geographical", historical and fantastic adventurous literature. First, this is an adventure literary fairy tale "The Snow Queen", "The Hobbit", "Niels' Journey with Wild Geese" ... Further, the "geographical" adventure novel - "The Lost World" by Conan Doyle, "Treasure Island" by Stevenson, "Robinson Crusoe" by Defoe, "The Mysterious Island" by Jules Verne, etc. On the one hand, it's fascinating, intriguing, I want to read it, compare it with the available film adaptations. On the other hand, such reading gives an idea of the artistic space. We master the concept of time through stories about prehistoric people, "The Prince and the Pauper", the classic historical novel by Walter Scott ... Then, of course, we move on to the Russian historical story and novel - "Prince Silver", "Taras Bulba", "The Captain's Daughter". The material can be reduced, it can be expanded. In each specific case, a special logic for studying lyrics is built in high school.
In the 7th grade, when time and space are mastered, the concepts of fantasy and the grotesque are introduced. First, examples of adventurous fantasy of the 20th century are considered, then its historical forerunner, grotesque fiction literature: Hoffmann, E. Poe, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Bulgakov ...
The eighth and ninth grades are the time for mastering genres and their features. From drama, lyrics and poems to short stories, short stories and novels. With the isolation of commonality and differences. From Fonvizin to Ostrovsky, from Lomonosov to Akhmatova, the best poems of the 19th century ... In this case, not a formal chronological approach is used, but a subject-forming one. Therefore, readers come to high school to a dialogue about the links between art and life in the literature of the 19th-21st centuries not only informed, but with a conscious understanding of what and why a work is “made”, without which it is impossible, what should be paid attention to first of all . None of the traditional methods, by the way, teaches readers to ask questions. In the system we propose, learning is impossible without questions from readers.
- Your program re-educates teachers first of all...
- The implementation of the program from the very beginning assumed an orientation towards an independent analysis of the work and an educational dialogue. The activity of a teacher becomes really interesting, albeit unusual at first, because he is forced to play several roles at once: a reader, a literary critic, a designer, an organizer of the readership ... Many are not ready for this.
We are often reproached that the program is allegedly too complicated, that it is no longer a school, but a university professional level. I always answer these reproaches: in our approach there is not one thing - formality and boredom. It awakens interest, intrigues both the teacher and his students. They reveal potential that they may not have known about. Teachers who have accepted the program are surprised to find that if, as literary critics and literary historians, they know more than children, then the meaning of the work is often comprehended together with the students. Practice shows that during the dialogue, students can draw the teacher's attention to aspects of the text that he had never thought about before. But after all, a teacher must someday become a reader himself, and not a repeater of popular opinions about literature.
- Sergey Petrovich, do you have many like-minded people?
- According to our program, philologists of the famous Moscow forty-fifth gymnasium are purposefully working, where Inna Iosifovna Torbotryas is in charge of the Department of Literature. I myself taught there for several years in specialized classes, now I teach classes in the international baccalaureate group. Seven years ago we started holding youth scientific conferences. Thanks to the program, conference participants began to treat the work as a valuable aesthetic phenomenon in itself, to read and explore with enthusiasm, to argue and formulate questions.
There is an interesting experience of working under the program in the Moscow gymnasium No. 1582, where my student, a young talented teacher and literary critic Evgenia Davydova, conducts classes in grades 5-8. The program is used in Moscow gymnasiums No. 1321 (“The Ark”), 2010. Several private schools in Moscow worked on our program. They work according to the program in other cities - Yekaterinburg, Kemerovo, Krasnoyarsk, Sevastopol... It is good that our approach is of interest to young people who are not familiar with traditional methods, lively, inquisitive, searching.