Sociopragmatic approach to teaching bachelors of linguistics in digital learning environment

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.Ru/

Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University

Sociopragmatic approach to teaching bachelors of linguistics in digital learning environment

Budarina A.O.,

Vornovskaia A.A.,

Korolenko I.A.

Kaliningrad, Russia



Abstract

The paper focuses on the implementation of the concept of sociopragmatics in professional linguistics education in digital learning environment. The necessity of applying the sociopragmatic approach to the education of bachelors of linguistics is justified within the framework of the changed objectives of acquiring communicative competence abilities and professional skills. The sociopragmatic approach reflects the ability to use the language appropriately and politely to express a message in certain social and cultural environment in a particular speech community, and includes the study of forms and functions in a social situation. The authors suggest a model for the implementation of the sociopragmatic approach in digital learning environment, where the latter is the source of educating bachelors of linguistics. The model comprises professional environment, which includes interactive intellectual environment, professional activities of bachelors of linguistics, and the functions they perform: communicative, informational, analytical, hermeneutic, intercultural mediative, structural, transformative, organizational, adaptive, linguo-ecological, interlingua-cultural. The professional environment also includes professional competencies and personal qualities of students. Digital learning environment comprises the subject of the performed activities (bachelors of linguistics), the qualities and competencies they should possess, the second language identity, professional self-organization, professional competence abilities. The personal constructs that form the digital learning environment comprise communicative, regulatory, cognitive components.

The data obtained during the experimental testing of the implementation model of the sociopragmatic approach in digital learning environment allow us to conclude that the participants' level of the English language has improved together with their appropriate use of formulaic language in different communicative contexts. The results of the final tests indicate a positive trend in the completion of the tasks (an increase by more than 10%). Oral speech has become more informative and included formulaic language more often (in more than 90% of cases); there is either the same level of completion of the task, or its increase (25%). The results of the surveys prove that the designed model has been successfully experimentally tested and received positive feedback in 90% of cases.

Keywords: sociopragmatic approach; formulaic language; digital learning environment; bachelors of linguistics; theory and methodology of professional linguistic education; professional linguistic education; second language identity



Аннотация

Социопрагматический подход при обучении бакалавров лингвистики в условиях цифровой образовательной среды

Бударина А.О., д.п.н., профессор, Ворновская А.А., Короленко И.А., ст. преподаватель, ФГАОУ ВО «Балтийский федеральный университет имени Иммануила Канта», Калининград, Россия Институт образования

В статье рассматриваются понятия социопрагматики иностранного языка. Обосновывается необходимость социопрагматического подхода к подготовке будущих преподавателей английского языка в связи с изменившимися целями образования для достижения коммуникативной компетенции. Концепт социопрагматики демонстрирует социальное использование языка и включает в себя изучение формы и функций в социальной ситуации, а именно способность применять язык уместно и вежливо для выражения своего сообщения в социальной и культурной среде, отображая использование в определенном речевом обществе. Авторами исследования предлагается модель применения социопрагматического подхода при обучении в условиях электронно-образовательной среды, где электронно-образовательная среда - среда организации учебного процесса будущих преподавателей английского языка. Модель вписана в цифровую образовательную среду, которая включает в себя профессиональную деятельность бакалавров лингвистики, функции, которые они будут осуществлять: коммуникативная, информационно-аналитическая, герменевтическая, функции межкультурной коммуникации, организационно-адаптивная, лингвоэкологическая, интерлингвокультурная. Также в сущность образовательной среды входят профессиональные компетенции и личностные качества бакалавров лингвистики. Цифровая образовательная среда же состоит из субъекта образовательной деятельности - бакалавров лингвистики; качеств и компетенций, которыми должен обладать выпускник - это вторичная языковая личность, навыки профессиональной самоорганизации, профессиональная компетенция. Личностные конструкты, которые формируют цифровую образовательную среду, включают в себя коммуникативный, регулятивный, когнитивный компоненты.

Полученные в ходе экспериментальной апробации модели применения социопрагматического подхода при обучении бакалавров лингвистики в условиях цифровой образовательной среды данные позволяют сделать вывод о повышении уровня владения иностранным языком, а также в уместном использовании студентами формульных секвенций согласно ситуациям речевого общения. Данные итогового контроля говорят о положительной динамике в результативности выполнения заданий (прирост более 10%). Устные речевые высказывания стали более информативными и чаще включают формульный язык: более, чем в 90% случаев наблюдается либо сохранение уровня выполнения задания, либо его повышение (25%). Результаты опросов позволяют сделать вывод, что данная модель была успешно экспериментально проверена и получила положительные отзывы в 90% случаев.

Ключевые слова: социопрагматический подход; язык речевых формул; цифровая образовательная среда; бакалавры лингвистики; теория и методика лингвистического образования; профессиональное лингвистическое образование; вторичная языковая личность



Introduction

The past decades saw a rapid rise in the acknowledgement that the English language by and large consists of language chunks, pre-fabricated phrases, conventional phrases, ready-to-use units [1-5 et al.]. The concept is known as `formulaic language' [4; 5]. Almost 58% of the English language is regarded as formulaic [6].

However, there is a problem that non-native speakers with intermediate and advanced language skills use significantly less formulaic sequences in their speech than the number of formulaic sequences in a native speaker's speech [7].

Taking into account that the ability to use the full range of the language to achieve communicative goals is a professionally significant competence for bachelors of linguistics, this study is aimed at revealing the potential of sociopragmatic approach to training of bachelors of linguistics in digital learning environment.



Literature review

The subject of the research is the bachelors of linguistics. The main structural and functional characteristics of the subjectiveness of professional activity of the bachelor of linguistics are the following [8, p. 69-102]:

• cognitive characteristics, in which the functions of cognition, reflection of objective natural and social reality (universal professional environment) are fulfilled, and which comprise certain cognitive processes: perception, memory, attention, thinking, etc.;

• regulatory characteristics, which include emotional and volitional processes and ensure the subject's ability to implement self-regulatory activities, self-control and influence the behaviour of other people;

• communicative characteristics, fulfilled in intercultural communication and via interaction with other people (subjects of professional activity and the professional environment being interactive and intellectual).

Modern perceptions come down to the idea that in order to achieve a higher level of communicative competence abilities, much more attention should be paid to sociopragmatics in any speech context.

The goal of sociopragmatics is relevance, namely, the production and the use of the language, leading to the necessary understanding of a certain situation in various sociolinguistic contexts. The concept of sociopragmatics reveals the social use of the language, and includes the study of forms and functions in a social situation, namely, the ability to apply the language appropriately and politely to express your message in a social and cultural environment, reflecting the common practices in a particular speech society. Language components such as idioms, proverbs, metaphors, practical phrases used in speech acts vary from culture to culture and are a part of the socio-pragmatic aspect, as they reflect cultural experience [9, p. 88-89].

The social appropriateness of using the language originates in the works of D. Hymes [10]. Sociopragmatic knowledge comprises an understanding of the appropriateness of linguistic forms being used, and the consequences of incorrect speech strategies. The relevance of using the language as a key component in the communication process is presented in the papers of numerous researchers [3; 7; 11; 12 et al.].

Sociopragmatics is seen as the interconnectedness of the relationship between linguistic forms and the sociocultural context, namely knowledge, language variations in different situations. Thus, sociopragmatics is understood as the implementation of the appropriate use of language tools in social communication in a particular speech society.

There is no common understanding of the place of sociopragmatics in communicative competence frameworks. Thus, L. Bachman and A. Palmer [13] present it as a part of pragmatic competence without distinguishing it; M. Canale [14] includes it into the structure of sociolinguistic competence.

Of particular interest is the vision of M. Celce-Murcia of the proposed updated model of communicative competence, which pays great attention to the formulaic side of the language, as well as to the discursive aspects of oral communication, where the nonlinear interconnection of the components of communicative competence is indicated for the first time. Sociocultural competence is understood as pragmatic knowledge of the ability to express messages appropriately in accordance with the social and cultural contexts, which can only be mastered through the knowledge of norms and traditions, history and culture of the language being studied [10; 15, p. 45-46].

Despite the importance of the language of speech formulas, there is no consensus on its place in communicative competence component structure, although many researchers believe that mastering the language of speech formulas is a central aspect of acquiring communicative competence abilities. However, many researchers trace such concepts as the appropriateness of using the language in the sociocultural aspect and the importance of the language of speech formulas in the pragmatic aspect, which clearly echoes and underpins the concept and functions of the sociopragmatics of the language. In our work, following D. Wood [4, p. 93], we are of the opinion that it is the language of speech formulas `as a phenomenon of applied linguistics' that acts as a fundamental part of the social pragmatics of the English language.

The main problem of teaching formula sequences remains unresolved, since the methodology has not been developed, and a search is currently underway for solutions to this problem in the contemporary high-tech society.

The rapid informatization of the society and all spheres of life has led to the search for new approaches to Second Language Teaching (SLT), which would be an adequate response to the requirements of the modern education system. The widespread introduction of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) contributes to the creation of new approaches to the development of the educational environment. One of the priority tasks of the modernization of education is the informatization of education, the main condition of which is the creation of unified “digital learning environment” [16].

Informatization of education opens up new opportunities for development of the entire education system as a whole. Implementation issues and the problems of conditioning digital learning environment have been covered in the works of national researchers [17-23 et al.], as well as colleagues worldwide [24-29 et al.].

At the same time, there has been an unambiguous interpretation of the concept for a long time, since numerous approaches to understanding both the essence and the structure of the learning environment have been implemented. The digital learning environment, according to modern researchers [30; 31 et al.], is perceived through certain networked communication spaces as those in which educational process is organized, methodical input and information are supported and documented, and interaction between all subjects of educational processes takes place with management support. The teacher's primary role here is to coach and facilitate students' learning process and overall comprehension of the material under study, and to measure students' learning through both formal and informal forms of assessment, such as group projects, students' portfolios, and class participation. Teaching and assessment are connected and intertwined because students' learning is continuously measured during teachers' instruction phases. Many educators use computers and tablets in the classroom, and others may use the Internet to assign homework. Here are some tech tools used in the classroom today: G Suite, tablets, laptops, gamification software, education-focused social media platforms, etc.

sociopragmatic communicative social teacher еnglish



Materials and methods of research

In this study, we propose a model for teaching bachelors of linguistics based on a sociopragmatic approach in the digital learning environment (fig. 1).

Figure 1. The implementation of sociopragmatic approach in digital learning environment (compiled by the authors)

The authors of the research perceive digital learning environment as the core of the professional environment, which in its turn also comprises functions, professional competence abilities, personal qualities. Digital learning environment can be viewed through a structure of the subject of the activity, the qualities and professional competence abilities of a bachelor of linguistics, their second language identity characteristics and self-organization skills. As it was pointed out above, sociopragmatic competence is one of the main components of communicative competence, which, in turn, is professionally significant for bachelor of linguistics.

Digital learning environment has certain advantages compared with traditional teaching contexts. When different teachers lecture on the same topic, no two lectures are ever exactly the same. Furthermore, the same teacher hardly ever repeats the same lecture in exactly the same format, or with exactly the same content [32]. Lecturers can demotivate students with their routines. On the other hand, digital learning environment is a flexible way of teaching because it can be used at the most convenient moment [32; 33]. Students do not have to follow a specific timetable, as they would have to do with traditional lectures, and therefore they cannot miss a lecture [32]. J. Lee et al. [34] found in their study that positive attitude towards ICT was the key factor of success in the frameworks of educational environment facilitating the learning process [34; 35].

The theoretical analysis and the study of the educational process on the problem of our research all have made it possible to justify the need and the possibility of considering the implementation of sociopragmatic approach in digital learning environment as the aim of our empirical research. The participants of the pedagogical experiment were bachelors of linguistics at I. Kant Baltic Federal University (Kaliningrad, Russia). In total, 60 participants took part in the pedagogical experiment from September 2016 to July 2019. In the experimental group, digital learning environment practices were implemented to the following modules and courses: English Language Enhancement - 928 academic hours, Culture of ESL Speech Communication - 93 academic hours, Practical Phonetics of the English language - 46 academic hours, Country Studies - 40 academic hours, EL Literature - 76 academic hours, 1183 academic hours in total.

The bachelors of linguistics' data are presented in table 1.

Table 1

Students' data

Students	Group
Age (average)	60 Male - 24 Female - 36
	18 (32 students) 19 (28 students)
Language level	30 students. - B2 30 students. - B2+



The preparatory phase was devoted to observations, getting to know participants, introducing them to the principles of working in the digital learning environment, developing and selecting the necessary diagnostic tools, as well as designing software, media files and multifunctional teaching tasks.

At the ascertaining stage, primary diagnostics of the level of the English language abilities were carried out. Also bachelors of linguistics were questioned to identify skills in using modern resources. 100% of participants had a PC and Internet access at home, 92% of participants had a positive attitude towards the use of ICT in the educational process. 75% of respondents would like classes to be conducted using ICT. The average score on a scale of 1 to 10 for ICT proficiency was 7.3, and all students rated themselves with points above 5. Participants noted that they possessed a wide range of abilities of browsing sites, creating blogs, presentations, etc.

The formative stage was devoted to experimental training based on the sociopragmatic approach. The flipped classroom interaction modes were carried out with the help of the Edmodo platform. All the units studied included blocks of thematic vocabulary, theoretical material on the use of phrases corresponding to the unit, examples of their appropriate use, tasks on vocabulary enhancement and activation. These were videos and presentations for self-study off-classroom regimes, all files were created using various resources, such as Present.me, my Brain Shark, Zaption, Edpuzzle, Educreations. Also, there were handouts with additional materials and projects on the topics under study.

During the classroom interaction stages, students had the opportunity to update the materials and boost their abilities using Media ABCs, role-playing games, problematic discussions, heuristic tasks, letter-writing, reviews, etc.

After the experiment, we received 100% positive feedback on well-functioning interface between digital learning environment and the training modules. Participants also noted that they were interested in studying theoretical material in the form of presentations and videos. Moreover, they could review files as many times as they needed, in any convenient mode with access to the available sources. In general, the experiment allowed all bachelors of linguistics to be involved in the learning process, updating their oral and written English language skills.

At the final stage, the empirical data were processed and theoretically generalized. The participants of the experimental group were offered the final verification work on the topics covered. They were divided into 6 groups according to the level of the English language proficiency. The obtained data are presented in table 2.

Table 2

The effectiveness of the input and the final assessment

No. of the group	The completion of the initial assessment (%)	The completion of the final assessment (%)	Dynamics (%)
1	50	65	15
2	65	75	10
3	48	62	14
4	80	90	10
5	78	86	8
6	69	79	10
Total (%)	65	76,2	11,2

Compiled by the authors

The effectiveness of the task for the production of oral utterances is presented in Table 3.

Table 3

The effectiveness of the assignment for the production of oral utterances (average score for the groups)

Criteria	Average score before the experiment (per Group number)	Average score after the experiment (per Group number)
	1	2	3	4	5	6	1	2	3	4	5	6
Content (max. = 5)	4.3	4.0	3.8	4.0	3.5	4.4	4.4	4.0	3.9	4.1	3.5	4.4
Communicative Task	4.4	3.7	3.9	4.1	3.6	4.3	4.4	3.7	4.0	4.1	3.6	4.4
Achievement = (max. = 5)
Text Organization (max. = 5)	4.0	3.9	4.1	4.5	3.8	3.9	4.1	4.0	4.1	4.4	3.8	4.0
Language Proficiency (max. = 5)	3.9	4.2	3.8	4.0	4.0	4.0	3.9	4.3	3.9	4.0	4.0	4.1
Total Score (max. = 20)	3.7	3.8	4.0	3.8	4.1	3.7	3.9	3.9	4.0	3.9	4.2	3.7

Compiled by the authors

The analysis of the performed task on producing an oral statement showed that in their monologues bachelors of linguistics used the educational materials, included formulaic sequences in their speech more often than before the experiment, which positively affected the quality of their speech. In 25% of cases, we observe an increase in the total score for the applied criteria, 73% of the points remained at the same level, and only in one case we see a decrease in the total score for the group. The statements of participants turned out to be quite substantial, clearly formulated and logical.

This is also confirmed by the results obtained on the basis of the analysis of the answers of bachelors of linguistics to the questions: “How convenient for you is the proposed source of training in the digital learning environment?” and “In your opinion, did the video materials prepared for self-study packs at home help you in studying?”. The data suggest that presented resources were useful for 80% of students. 17% of participants noted that the files were useful, but due to lack of time, they could not get to know them 100%. 45 participants answered that everything was implemented very conveniently.



Conclusion

This study has been attempted to solve the urgent problem of finding new methods of teaching formula sequences to bachelors of linguistics based on the implementation of the sociopragmatic approach to digital learning environment at the university level. It has been found that the process of educating bachelors of linguistics is currently changing due to the active penetration of digital learning environment in the field of education at all levels. Therefore, more and more attention is paid to the introduction and the implementation of digital learning environment, which allows to bring the educational process to a new level, being an excellent tool for conditioning professionally important competencies of bachelors of linguistics curricula.

The analysis of the resources on the sociopragmatic approach to second language teaching suggests that there is no universal agreement on the content, the assessment, and the methods of implementing the approach to linguistic education. As a result of the study, an implementation model of sociopragmatic approach in digital learning environment has been developed. The model has been successfully tested at the IKBFU, Kaliningrad, Russia. The results obtained in the course of the study show positive dynamics in the growth of both the communicative competence level of bachelors of linguistics and their abilities to use the formulaic language appropriately.



References

1. Buerki A. Formulaic sequences: a drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant? European Journal of English studies. 2016. №20(1). pp. 15-34.

2. Bardovi-Harlig K. A New Starting Point? Investigating Formulaic Use and Input // Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2002. №24. pp. 189-198.

3. Bardovi-Harlig K. Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research // ARAL. 2012. №32. pp. 206-227.

4. Wood D. Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic; 2015. 198 p.

5. Wray A. Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. 305 p.

6. Erman B., Warren, B. The idiom principle and the open choice principle // Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. 2000. №20(1). pp. 29-62.

7. Kecskes I., Horn L. Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. Berlin / New York: Mouton; 2007. 348 p.

8. Budarina A.O. Linguistus Universalis: metodologiya i tekhnologii formirovaniya professional'noy universal'nosti lingvistov: monografiya [Linguistus Universalis: methodology and technologies for conditioning the professional universality of linguists: a monograph]. Kaliningrad: Publishing house of the IKBFU; 2011. 227 p. (In Russian).

9. Ekwelibe R. Sociopragmatic Competence in English as a Second Language (ESL) [Internet]. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal [cited 20.07.2019]. 2015. №10(2). P. 87-99.

10. Hymes D.H. On Communicative Competence // In Pride J.B., & Holmes J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Baltimore, USA: Penguin Education, Penguin Books Ltd; 1972. pp.269-293.

11. Neddar B. Short notes on discourse, interlanguage pragmatics and EFL teaching: where do we stand? [Internet] Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences; 2012. [cited 30.07.2019]. №46. P. 5687-5692.

12. Rose K.R., Kasper G. Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. 368 p.

13. Bachman L.F., Palmer A.S. Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. 510 p.

14. Canale M. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards J.C. & Schmidt R.W. (Eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman; 1983. pp. 2-27.

15. Celce-Murcia M. Rethinking the Role of Communicative Competence in Language Teaching. In Alcon Soler E. & Safont Jorda M.P. (Eds.). Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. pp. 41-57.

16. Polupan K.L. Interaktivnaya Intellektual'naya Sreda - Tsifrovaya Tekhnologiya Nepreryvnogo [Interactive Intellectual Environment as a Digital Technology of Continuous Education]. [Internet] Higher Education in Russia; 2018. [cited 01.08.2021]. Vol. 27(11), pp. 90-95.

17. Bashmakov M.I., Pozdnyakov S.N., Reznik N.A. Informatsionnaya sreda obucheniya. [Information environment of teaching]. St. Petersburg: Svet Publishing; 1997. (In Russian).

18. Belousova I.D. Analiz printsipov vnedreniya informatsionnykh tekhnologiy v protsess obucheniya studentov vuza [The analysis of the principles of the implementation of ICT in the learning process of university students]. M.: Sworld; 2007. Vol. 7. No. 1. pp. 3034. (In Russian).

19. Grigor'yev S.G., Grinshkun V.V. Informatizatsii obrazovaniya neobkhodimo uchit' [Informatization of education must be taught]. XII Conference «Information technologies in Education». Moscow: MIFI, 2002, part 4. pp. 9-11. (In Russian).

20. Korotenkov Yu.G. Informatsionno-obrazovatel'naya sreda osnovnoy shkoly. [Information and educational environment of the primary school]. M.: Akademiya IT. 2012. (In Russian).

21. Movchan I.N. Nekotoryye aspekty informatsionnoy podgotovki studentov vuza [Some aspects of information education of university students]. [Internet]. M.: Sworld; 2008. cited 30.07.2021]. Vol. 18. No. 1, pp. 34-36.

22. Ostroumova E.N. Informatsionno-obrazovatel'naya sreda vuzka kak faktor professional'no-lichnostnogo samorazvitiya budushchego spetsialista // Fundamental'nyye issledovaniya [Information and educational environment of the university as a factor in the professional and personal self-development of a future specialist. Fundamental Research]. 2011. No. 4, pp. 37-40. (In Russian).

23. Robert I.V. O ponyatiynom apparate informatizatsii obrazovaniya //Informatika i obrazovaniye [On the conceptual apparatus of informatization of education // IT and Education]. 2002. No. 12, pp. 2-6. (In Russian).

24. Baltusite R., & Katane I. The structural model of the pedagogy students' readiness for professional activities in the educational environment. Rural Environment, Education, Personality; 2014. pp. 29-41.

25. Chatti. M.A. Personalization in technology enhanced learning: A social software perspective. [Internet] Aahena University; 2010. [cited 20.07.2021].

26. Harmelen M. The Manchester personal learning environment. [Internet]. 2009. [cited 20.07.2021].

27. Jadzgeviciene V., & Urboniene J. The possibilities of virtual learning environment tool usability for programming training. Innovative Infotechnologies for Science, Business and Education. [Internet]. 2013. [cited 20.07.2021]. No. 1(14), pp. 3-9.

28. Shaikh Z.A., & Khoja, S.A. Role of teacher in personal learning environments. [Internet]. Digital Education Review; No. 21. [cited 01.08.2021].

29. Tomberg V. Learning flow management and teacher control in online personal learning environment. Tallinn University. Tallinn: Institute of Educational Sciences; 2013.

30. Paik W., Lee J.Y., & McMahon E. Facilitating collaborative learning in virtual (and sometimes mobile) environments. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. pp. 161-166.

31. Starichenko B.E. Professional'niy standart i IKT kompetentsiya pedagoga [Professional standards and ICT teacher competency] Teacher Education in Russia, 2015. №7. pp. 6-15 (in Russian).

32. Walker B.L. & Harrington S.S. Can nursing facility staff with minimal education be successfully trained with computer-based training? Nurse Education Today; 2004. Vol. 24, pp. 301-309.

33. Clarke A. Designing Computer-Based Learning Materials. Angland, Aldershot Gower Company; 2001. 196 p.

34. Lee J., Hong N.L., Ling N.L. An analysis of students' preparation for the virtual learning environment. The Internet and Higher Education; 2002. No. 4, pp. 231-242.

35. Crosier J.K., Cobb S.V., Wilson J.R. Experimental Comparison of Virtual Reality with Traditional Teaching Methods for Teaching Radioactivity. Education and Information Technologies; 2002. Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 329-343.



Литература

1. Buerki A. Formulaic sequences: a drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant? // European Journal of English studies. - 2016. - №20(1). - pp. 15-34.

2. Bardovi-Harlig K. A New Starting Point? Investigating Formulaic Use and Input // Studies in Second Language Acquisition. - 2002. - №24. - pp. 189-198.

3. Bardovi-Harlig K. Formulas, routines, and conventional expressions in pragmatics research // ARAL. - 2012. - №32. - pp. 206-227.

4. Wood D. Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. - London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015. - 198 p.

5. Wray A. Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. - Oxford / New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. - 305 p.

6. Erman B., Warren, B. The idiom principle and the open choice principle // Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. - 2000. - №20(1). - pp. 2962.

7. Kecskes I., Horn L. Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural Aspects. - Berlin / New York: Mouton, 2007. - 348 с.

8. Бударина А.О. Linguistus Universalis: методология и технологии формирования профессиональной универсальности лингвистов: монография. Калининград: Изд-во БФУ им. И. Канта, 2011. - 271 с.

9. Ekwelibe R. Sociopragmatic Competence in English as a Second Language (ESL) // Humanity & Social Sciences Journal. - 2015. - №10(2). - P. 87-99.

10. Hymes D.H. On Communicative Competence // In Pride J.B., & Holmes J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. - Baltimore, USA: Penguin Education, Penguin Books Ltd., 1972. - pp. 269-293.

11. Neddar B. Short notes on discourse, interlanguage pragmatics and EFL teaching: where do we stand? // Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. - 2012. - №46. - P. 5687-5692. [Электронный ресурс].

12. Rose K.R., Kasper G. Pragmatics in language teaching. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. - 368 с.

13. Bachman L.F., Palmer A.S. Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. - Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. - 510 p.

14. Canale M. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy // In Richards J.C. & Schmidt R.W. (Eds.), Language and Communication. - London: Longman, 1983. - pp. 2-27.

15. Celce-Murcia M. Rethinking the Role of Communicative Competence in Language Teaching // In Alcon Soler E. & Safont Jorda M.P. (Eds.). Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning. - Dordrecht: Springer, 2007. - pp. 41-57.

16. Полупан, К.Л. Интерактивная интеллектуальная среда -цифровая технология непрерывного образования / К.Л. Полупан // Высшее образование в России. - 2018. - Т. 27. - №11. - С. 90-95. [Электронный ресурс].

17. Башмаков М.И., Поздняков С.Н., Резник Н.А. Информационная среда обучения. СПб.: Свет, 1997. - 400 с.

18. Белоусова И.Д. Анализ принципов внедрения информационных технологий в процесс обучения студентов вуза. M.: Sworld. 2007. Т. 7. №1, с. 30-34.

19. Григорьев С.Г., Гриншкун В.В. Информатизации образования необходимо учить. М.: МИФИ, - 2002, С. 9-11. [Электронный ресурс].

20. Коротенков Ю.Г. Информационная образовательная среда основной школы. M.: Академия АйТи. 2012.

21. Мовчан И.Н. Некоторые аспекты информационной подготовки студентов вуза / И.Н. Мовчан // Сборник научных трудов Sworld. - 2008. Т. 18. - №1. - С. 34. [Электронный ресурс].

22. Остроумова Е.Н. Информационно-образовательная среда вуза как фактор профессионально-личностного саморазвития будущего специалиста // Фундаментальные исследования. 2011. №4. С. 37-40.

23. Роберт И.В. О понятийном аппарате информатизации образования // Информатика и образование. 2002. №12, с. 2-6.

24. Baltusite R., & Katane I. The structural model of the pedagogy students' readiness for professional activities in the educational environment. Rural Environment, Education, Personality, 2014. pp. 29-41.

25. Chatti M.A. Personalization in technology enhanced learning: A social software perspective. 2010. Aahena University. [Electronic resource]

26. Harmelen M. The Manchester personal learning environment. 2009.

27. Jadzgeviciene V., & Urboniene J. The possibilities of virtual learning environment tool usability for programming training. Innovative Infotechnologies for Science, Business and Education. 2013. No. 1(14), pp. 3-9.

28. Shaikh Z.A., & Khoja, S.A. Role of teacher in personal learning environments. Digital Education Review, No. 21. [Electronic resource]

29. Tomberg V. Learning flow management and teacher control in online personal learning environment. Tallinn University. Tallinn: Institute of Educational Sciences. 2013.

30. Paik W., Lee J.Y., & McMahon E. Facilitating collaborative learning in virtual (and sometimes mobile) environments. In: Brussler, C. et al (Eds.), WISE 2004 Workshop. LNCS 3307 (pp. 161-166). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

31. Стариченко Б.Е. Профессиональный стандарт и ИКТ-компетенции педагога // Педагогическое образование в России. - 2015. - №7. - С. 6-15.

32. Walker B.L. & Harrington S.S. Can nursing facility staff with minimal education be successfully trained with computer-based training? // Nurse Education Today, 2004. Vol. 24, pp. 301-309.

33. Clarke A. Designing Computer-Based Learning Materials, Angland, Aldershot Gower Company. 2001. 196 p.

34. Lee J., Hong N.L., Ling N.L. An analysis of students' preparation for the virtual learning environment. The Internet and Higher Education. 2002. No. 4, pp. 231-242.

35. Crosier J.K., Cobb S.V., Wilson J.R. Experimental Comparison of Virtual Reality with Traditional Teaching Methods for Teaching Radioactivity // Education and Information Technologies, 2002. Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 329-343.

Размещено на allbest.ru

...