ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ МЕДИЦИНСКОЕУЧЕБНЫЙ ПРОЦЕССОБУЧЕНИЕПЕДАГОГИЧЕСКИЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИИННОВАЦИИ В ОБРАЗОВАНИ

Pisarenko, O. A.

Skrypnykov, P. N.

Electronic arhive of Vitebsk State Medical University Library  (Репозиторий библиотеки Витебского государственного медицинского университета)

403 Every practical class should include the work with a patient. A con-stant training is necessary for proper examination of the patient by the stu-dent and prevention of possible difficulties. The student must not be afraid of the patient! Under such conditions the student gradually learns how to make a correct diagnosis allowing him to choose optimal therapeutic tactics and rely upon a successful solution of the problem. Thus, when learning surgery is completed the studen should be able to: • demonstrate mastering moral-deontological, legal principles of a medical specialist and principles of professional subordination; • give urgent medical aid in case of the most spread surgical dis-eases; • make differentiation diagnostics, substantiation and making pri-mary diagnosis in case of the most common surgical d seases; • define the tactics of management (principles of surgery and con-servative therapy, rehabilitation etc.); • demonstrate abilities to fill in medical documents in the surgical hospital. Considering all the mentioned above and corresponding to the con-temporary requirements of modern life, the main task of a clinical depart-ment, is to form a clinical thinking, sufficient volume of theoretical knowl-edge and practical skills of the student, which are necessary for a contem-porary physician. NEW APPROACHES TO THE ESTABLISHMENT  OF A CONSTRUCTIVE INTERACTION OF THE TEACHER  AND THE STUDENT Skrypnykov P.N., Pisarenko O.A. Ukrainian medical stomatological academy, Poltava, Ukraine Individual personality plays a sizeable role in determining a teacher’s particular style of interaction in the classroom. Nonetheless, an awareness of important aspects of interaction can guide one in becoming the kind of teacher who influences the lives of students beyond simply matters of sub-ject matter.  The aim of this study is to find the basic styles of teacher-student in-teraction. One’s style is the product of how responsive to individual needs one is along with how much authority he or she demands. Based on this idea, Diana Baumrind [2] describes models of control that administrations of academy have in relationship to students. While these models emerged from her work on parenting styles, she notes that tey have greatly influ-404 enced educators as well. The models have in fact been meaningfully ap-plied to the educational setting [1]. There are differential benefits to students and teach rs present in each of these two styles. Students may have a strong affinity or aspects of the permissive classroom. Adolescents in particular crave to opportunity to ex-ercise freedoms and to self-express. As a result, permissive teachers may be well-liked by their students. “Well-liked,” how-ever, is not the same thing as “respected.” Students actually expect a certain degree of order in the class-room and are dissatisfied with an environment that is excessively disruptive to instruction [9]. The teacher must remember that his or her duty is that of a professional educator and not that of a best friend to students. Without some establishment and enforcement of expectations for students, it is difficult to imagine how meaningful learning could take place. The way that teachers and students interact is a critical factor in deter-mining student outcomes. In a “meta-review” of 30 variables identified as be-ing influential to student learning in the literature, Wang, Haertel, and Wal-berg [8] found student-teacher social interaction t be among the top three most important factors. Students identify relationship  with teachers as being among the most important parts of their academy experience. How a teacher interacts with students translates into products important to education. Motivating students to participate in lessons and to engage in the cur-riculum can be very challenging. Students are so stimulated by entities out-side of academy such as television, video games, and peer groups that it is difficult to spark their interest with matters of academying. At the same time, however, teachers must be aware of the fact th t the way that they in-teract with their students may exacerbate this motivation challenge. Alfie Kohn [5] describes the connection between a te cher’s style and student motivation in terms of the “doing to” versus the “working with” classroom. In the “doing to” classroom, the teacher directs all activity and focuses on compliance with that direction. In the “working with” class-room, the students’ questions and interests drive the activity and the teacher facilitates learning in a collaborative fashion. The “working with” envi-ronment “supports students’s desire to find out about things, facilitates the process of discovery, and, in general, meets studens’s eeds”. In short, providing for student autonomy in the classroom enhances an enduring mo-tivation to take an active part in learning. The first way in which teachers influence the social development of their students, as was just discussed with motivation, is by acting toward them in a non-controlling manner. DeVries and Zan [3] explain how con-trolling atmospheres lead to feelings of helplessne among students, while accepting, respectful, and stimulating atmospheres l ad to feelings of effec-tiveness. The views that students are to respect administrations by virtue of their position and that administrations are supposed to wield their power 405 results in disrespectful attitudes toward students in academys. The outcome is the powerful “hidden lesson” in the curriculum tha  one is to be unques-tionably submissive to those with power. This lesson retards socio-moral growth due to its teaching that interpersonal understanding is insignificant because it is some external structure, not the way th t people act toward one another, that determines relationships. It is important to recognize, however, that authoritarianism is not the only avenue for managing classroom behavior. Jones a d Jones [4] identify positive teacher-student relationships and “classrooms as communities of support” as being critical components to classroom management. When student emotional and psychological needs are met, students are less likely to be problems in the classroom.  Standardized testing and accountability measures have generated many concerns among teachers. Such measures, which not only determine student placement but are also used to evaluate academy effectiveness, af-fect curriculum and pedagogy. One of the ways that e effects of such measures are borne out in the classroom is in the way that teachers and stu-dents interact. High-stakes testing “compels teachers to spend valuable time preparing students to take tests and teaching to the test, undermining what otherwise could be sound, responsive teaching and learning” and “discourages social and intellectual development, such as cooperation, creativity and problem-solving skills, as time is spent on learning exactly what appears on the test”. When so much importance is placed on how stu-dents score on a single test, quality classroom participation, student intel-lectual interests, and deep discussion become subordinate to teaching to that test. As Sacks [6] writes: When academys teach to a test, the test be-comes the nearly exclusive focus of teachers and studen s attention. “Sci-ence,” and its teaching and learning, for example, th refore becomes a se-ries of test items, usually in the format of multiple-choice questions. The very nature of learning, as an open-ended, somewhat uncertain, spontane-ous, creative, and complex process, is turned upside down. It may be the case that teachers must compromise cont nt coverage in terms of breadth and depth in the name of test preparation. Within these curricular constraints, however, teachers can still de iver instruction with attention to quality interaction. For example, Taylor and Walton [7] found that improved test scores can accompany student-centered instruction when students are provided with a series of test-preparation workshops. Here, a relatively small amount of time practicing the mechanics of taking multi-ple-choice tests replaced teacher reliance on drill and lecture and preserved the opportunity for quality teacher-student interaction in the classroom. This is an approach that may work well for some academys, while others may need to search for additional creative solutions. Creative solutions are found when teachers identify the specific needs of their students in terms of 406 preparing for the test (i.e., topic breadth/depth, ractice with test format, specific mode and sequence of instruction) and balance those needs with the students’ needs for personal interaction. Thus, no “cookie cutter” ap-proach is available that will work for all students in all academys, but bal-ancing effective test preparation with quality interaction is important task and a necessary endeavor if students’ complete educational needs are to be met in this time of high-stakes testing. Another negative impact of high-stakes testing may be even more difficult to remedy. The implementation of these tests has also undermined the morale of both students and teachers. Amid the stress imposed by being expected to meet testing standards, students may respond by disengaging from the process altogether. Such students might hold oppositional atti-tudes toward academy and their teachers. Within the test-driven account-ability system, teachers may feel a loss of autonomy and professional re-spect, with so many of their decisions regarding curri lum and instruction being dictated to them. Given an environment of obstinate students and un-happy teachers, it is easy to envision how teacher-student interaction could be drastically compromised. This ugly byproduct of high-stakes testing ap-pears to always be a possibility so long as academy communities do not fully “buy in” to this accountability system. Literature: 1. Baumrind D. Effects of authoritative parental contrl on child behavior. / Baumrind D./ Child Development.-1996.-# 37(4).-P. 887–907. 2. Baumrind D.Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology.-1977.-# 4(1).-P. 99–102. 3. DeVries R. Moral classrooms, moral children: Creating a constructivist at-mosphere in early education. / DeVries R., Zan B. S./ New York: Teachers College Press.-1994.-P.554 4. Jones V. F. Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems (5th ed.)./ Jones V. F., Jones L. S./ Boston: Allyn and Ba-con.-1998 5. Kohn A. What to look for in a classroom. Educational Leadership /Kohn A./ New York: Harper and Row.-1996.- #54(1).-P. 54–55. 6. Sacks P. Standardized minds: The high price of America’s testing culture and what we can do to change it./ Sacks P. New York: Da Capo Press. – 1999.-P.45 7. Taylor K. Co-opting standardized tests in the service of learning. / Taylor K., Walton S./ Phi Delta Kappan.-1997.-# 79(1).-P. 66–70. 8. Wang M. C., Haertel G. D., Walberg H. J. What influences learning? A con-tent analysis review of literature./ Wang M. C., Haertel G. D., Walberg H. J./ Journal of Educational Research.-1990.-# 84(1).-P. 30–43. 9. Winik L. W. Students want more discipline, disruptive classmates out. / Winik L. W. / American Educator.-1996.-# 20(3).-P. 12–14.    

New approaches to the establishment of a constructive interaction of the teacher and the student

https://elib.vsmu.by/bitstream/123/20461/1/obr_2014_403-406.pdf

New approaches to the establishment of a constructive interaction of the teacher and the student

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Electronic arhive of Vitebsk State Medical University Library (Репозиторий библиотеки Витебского государственного медицинского университета)