1

The article is devoted to the substantiation of the possibility of using an expert assessment to determine the level of formation of communicative competence. The reasons for the relevance of addressing this problem are revealed, due to the lack of the necessary and sufficient number of methods for studying all the components that make up such a complex personality quality as communicative competence. The method of expert assessments makes it possible to quantify the communicative qualities of students' personalities. The level of communicative competence is determined through the informativeness coefficient and the behavioral-evaluative coefficient. To determine the value of informativeness, the experts used various communicative and linguistic test tasks, held conversations, colloquia, oral and written tests, evaluating psychological, pedagogical, rhetorical, linguistic knowledge about communication, communication, communicative competence. To obtain a behavioral-evaluative coefficient, a group of experts gave a ranked assessment of the communicative features of students and their communicative activity. The indicators of the formation of the communicative competence of university students were distributed over three levels: creative, productive and reproductive. A comparative analysis of the results of the study shows that the main part of university students is characterized by productive and reproductive levels of communicative competence, and only a small part of students is at a creative level (13.9%), which indicates the need further development communicative competence of students.

expert review

diagnostics of communicative competence

formation of communicative competence

communicative competence

informative index

behavioral-evaluative index

1. Tareva E.G., Budnik A.S. Intercultural communicative competence as an aim of teaching foreign languages ​​in comprehensive school // Journal of Sibirskogo federal university. Ser.: Humanitarian sciences. - 2013. - No. 11. - S. 1592-1598.

2. Korobkova O.F. The content of the concepts of "communicative competence", "communicative skills" and "speech skills" in modern normative documentation and scientific literature // Special education. - 2010. - No. 3. - P. 29-41.

3. Remizova V.F. Training of foreign language business communication as a tool for the formation of communicative competence / V.F. Remizova, N.G. Kostina, I.V. Nazarova, O.V. Doskovskaya // Actual problems of trade and economic activity and education in modern conditions: electronic collection scientific papers 8th international scientific and practical conference. – Orenburg: Orenburg branch of RGTEU, 2013. - S. 484-509.

4. Konyuchenko O.N. Interaction of subjects of the educational process in the formation of personality culture / O.N. Konyuchenko, O.N. Kazakova // Materials of the scientific-theoretical conference "The Facets of Culture: actual problems history and modernity". - M.: Institute of Business and Politics, 2006. - 314 p.

5. Mertsalova S.L. Communicative competence as a basis for the success of professional adaptation / S.L. Mertsalova, I.V. Karpova, N.A. Martynova // Science and education of the XXI century - 2014. - Ufa: Aeterna LLC, 2014. - P. 122–126.

6. Runova S.A. Communicative competence of a teacher as a fundamental of his professionalism // Novainfo.ru. - 2014. - No. 26. - P. 136–142.

7. Shumilina N.S. Communicative competence as a component of the professional and ethical orientation of the personality of the future economist // Contemporary Issues science and education. - 2016. - No. 3 [ Electronic resource].?id=24715 (date of access: 03/25/2018).

8. Moiseeva I.Yu., Nesterova T.G. Parables as a means of developing the value orientations of students // Modern problems of science and education. - 2017. - No. 4 [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.?id=26665.

9. Remizova V.F. Concept vs. value / V.F. Remizova, N.G. Kostina // University complex as a regional center of education, science and culture: materials of the All-Russian scientific method. conf. / Orenburg. state un-t [Electronic resource]. - Orenburg: OGU, 2017. - CD-R. - S. 2612-2620.

10. Sholudyakova A.V. Diagnosis of communicative competence of university students // Bulletin of the Chuvash State Pedagogical University them. AND I. Yakovlev. - 2011. - No. 1–2. - S. 184-189.

In the context of rapidly changing socio-economic, information and cultural circumstances, the ability to communicate, cooperate, conduct a constructive dialogue is recognized as one of the most valuable qualities of a person. Communicative training is currently aimed at the formation of practical skills, their use in various forms of activity; in the educational process of the university, the use of training exercises is increasingly practiced, the introduction of active and interactive teaching methods, the predominance of productive types of communicative activities are observed. Practice communication education seeks to take into account modern pedagogical concepts and approaches. In connection with the increasing requirements for communicative training, the problem of assessing, diagnosing the communicative activity of students is becoming more important.

The fact that the competence-based approach formed the basis of educational standards (FSES) has led to an increase in the number of studies in pedagogical science related to the theoretical understanding and applied aspects of various competencies.

As for communicative competence, having originated in the methodology of teaching language disciplines, this concept has spread to many areas of pedagogy, as evidenced by a large amount of work on problems that are somehow related to this concept: for example, at the request of "communicative competence" in the scientometric system of the RSCI 14,764 publications were issued. An analysis of these publications shows that the interest of researchers is still riveted to the communicative competence implemented in linguistic education. Theorists compare concepts such as communicative competence, communicative competence, communication and speech skills (N.G. Kostina, O.F. Korobkova, I.A. Malikova, V.F. Remizova). In many works, communicative competence is considered in the context of the general professional competence of representatives of various professions, within the framework of the formation of a personality culture (O.N. Konyuchenko), it is recognized as the basis for successful professional adaptation (I.V. Karpova, N.A. Martynova, S.L. Mertsalova), a fundamental factor of professionalism and professional excellence(N.A. Rogovaya, S.A. Runova), is called the leading component of personal and professional characteristics (E.P. Abdurazyakova), the most important element of the professional and ethical orientation of the individual (N.S. Shumilina). Communicative competence is of considerable interest for research related to the humanization and axiologisation of education (I.Yu. Moiseeva, T.G. Nesterova, V.F. Remizova).

Diagnosis of communicative competence, scientists note, contains numerous difficulties (A.V. Sholudyakova) associated with the fact that communicative competence is a multifaceted personal quality, and at the moment there are not enough methods that study all components of communicative competence.

The purpose of this article is to present the possibilities of the methodology of expert assessments for determining the level of formation of communicative competence.

The communicative competence of students is defined by us as a complex, multifaceted quality of a personality, the main characteristic of which is the degree of involvement of the personality in communicative activity, represented by the unity of cognitive, operational-activity and motivational-value components. In addition, communicative competence serves qualitative characteristic communicative activity. The formation of communicative competence leads to the emergence of neoplasms represented by knowledge, skills, abilities and orientation, distributed over three levels: productive, reproductive, basic.

The material for analysis was obtained by surveying the state of affairs with communicative competence among students of the Orenburg branch of the Russian University of Economics them. G.V. Plekhanov. The diagnostics involved 75 1st year students and 59 2nd year students studying under the bachelor's program in the direction 38.03.01 Economics and in the specialty 38.05.01 Economic security. As a result, the total population of the studied was 134 people.

The main method for obtaining empirical data was the method of expert assessments and the method of self-assessment. Self-assessment implied the assessment by students of their own communicative personal qualities in quantitative terms. Expert assessment is a method that allows you to quantify the phenomenon under study (in our case, communicative competence) based on the opinions of specialists with significant experience in this field. The role of experts in our study was assigned to teachers of the Orenburg branch of the PRUE. G.V. Plekhanov and Orenburg State University.

At the stage of determining qualitative indicators for further expert evaluation, the main task was to identify the levels of formation and development of communicative competence. The qualimetric expression of the criteria is embodied in a three-level scale: we distinguish between productive, reproductive and basic levels communicative competence.

The productive level of formation of students' communicative competence is characterized by the possession of strong and deep knowledge about the essence of communication in general and business interaction in particular, rules of etiquette, communication norms; the desire to deeply understand the socio-psychological, psychological-pedagogical, sociolinguistic theories of personality and communication; stable focus on critical and creative understanding of communicative and cognitive activity and its results. Communicative activity is distinguished by a high degree of initiative and active interaction: the student is able to effectively distribute his attention, demonstrate stable skills active listening, knows how to tactfully adjust the direction of the conversation. All means of communication are subject to interaction with a communication partner, which is built on the basis of cooperation, co-creation. Communication skills are manifested as a habitual, self-produced action. This level is different developed ability adapt to changes that arise in the situation of communication and in the conditions of the course of activity.

For the reproductive level of formation of communicative competence, the following points are indicative. A university student has the necessary and sufficient amount of knowledge about the nature of communication, subject-subject relations, he is motivated to develop communicative activity, he has a need to transform his personal qualities necessary for competent communication. A young man is taught to plan and predict his communicative activity, however, the ability to analyze communicative activity, evaluate its effectiveness, draw conclusions and make adjustments has not acquired a stable, usual character. Student demonstrates pretty a high degree mastery of communication skills. His communicative activity is distinguished by a variety of forms, but the form of communication and its content are not always organically correlated, he is able to easily get in touch, but his attention can be scattered, he can be distracted by the external details of the communication situation, which affects the speed and adequacy of the response.

Students with a basic level of communicative competence demonstrate insufficient awareness of communicative processes, have fragmentary information about the essential parameters of communication, they have not fully developed the very need to develop their communicative skills. Students replace full interaction with one-sided influence, are not able to fully cope with communication barriers, do not show proper activity, initiative, they avoid improvisation, but tend to act according to a model, standard, if they do not know the algorithm of action, students cannot always maintain contact, speak out on the merits .

In order to meaningfully determine the communicative behavior of students at the university, we invited experts to assess the personal qualities of students that are important for communication. At the same time, self-assessment was given to the same qualities. The maximum score is 5 points, the minimum is 1 point. The materials presented in Table 1 convince us that expert assessment and self-assessment do not coincide.

Table 1

Ranking of expert assessment and self-assessment of students' communicative qualities

Expert review			Self-esteem
	Communicative quality			Communicative quality
	Emotionality			openness
				Politeness
	openness
	Reflection			Flexibility
	Politeness			Emotionality
	Self-criticism			Reflection
	Flexibility			Self-criticism

Empirical data show that the average self-esteem of students is overestimated by about 1 point and is 4.23 points compared with the opinion of experts who assessed the communicative qualities of students by 3.16. Such a ranking indicator as emotionality differs significantly (1st place for experts and 5th for students). Despite the differences in scoring, when ranking such communicative qualities as empathy and self-criticism, they occupy close positions. The highest self-esteem among individual students relates to the quality of openness, the most low self-esteem received the quality of self-criticism ( GPA 3.9). The greatest discrepancy in self-assessment and expert assessment is observed in the position of "politeness" (1.8 points). The assessment of experts was reflected in the fact that at present young people use stylistically reduced forms of speech, show rigidity, authoritarianism in communicative behavior. The data obtained allow us to state that such a quality as reflection is not yet sufficiently developed among young people, and although self-criticism received a rather high rating from students (average score - 3.9), the self-image in communication among the majority of respondents is inadequate.

The level of communicative competence was calculated according to the formula we derived: I = (1/2) × (I and + I by), where I is the index of communicative competence; I and - information content index; I on - behavioral-evaluative index.

To calculate the information content index, we proposed multiplying the value of student information content by 0.1, established by experts on a 10-point scale. The value of informativeness was determined using tests, colloquia, conversations, interviews, written and oral tests, allowing to reveal students' knowledge about communication, communication, verbal interaction, communicative competence, formed in the course of studying psychology, pedagogy, business communication, ethics of business relations, linguistic disciplines : cultures of speech, rhetoric, foreign language and special economic disciplines.

To obtain a behavioral-evaluative index, we have provided a procedure for evaluating the communicative activity of students. To do this, the panel of experts assessed the communicative activity of students on a five-point scale. Peer review the following parameters were subject: throughout the entire period of communication, clearly realize the goal and consistently implement it; plan the course of communication, thinking over strategies and varying tactics in the process of communication; build communication systematically, logically, demonstrating clarity of thinking; manage the communication process, holding and at the right time transferring the initiative to the partner in accordance with the rules of etiquette, assisting the partner in the implementation of his communicative intentions; show patience, goodwill in communication, even in situations that cause irritation, showing flexibility, easily resolving emerging problems, conflicts; respond quickly to changes in the situation or situation; implement an individual, differentiated approach to communication.

The student's communicative activity is highly rated if the average score is in the range of 60-45, if it fluctuates within 44-35, then the average, below 34 points - low. The behavioral-evaluative index is determined using a reference table (Table 2). The calculation of the level of communicative competence using the above formula allows us to conclude that the competence index is always within 0< I < 1.

table 2

Behavioral-evaluative indices

The diagnostic material obtained using the described methodology made it possible to judge the distribution of the levels of students' communicative competence as follows (Table 3).

Table 3

The level of communicative competence of students

Calculations showed that the ratio of students with a productive level of formation of communicative competence to the total number was 0.14; reproductive - 0.51; base - 0.35.

So, comparative analysis The given results of the study show that the main part of students in the junior years of the university has reproductive and basic levels of communicative competence, and only a small part of students is at a productive level (13.9%), which indicates the need for further development of students' communication skills.

As evidenced by the facts, in general, communicative competence is not sufficiently formed. We have reason to explain this phenomenon by the fact that students have not yet received the necessary communicative training, although, undoubtedly, they have certain inclinations in order to become competent in communication. We believe that the inclusion of students in business conversation is one of the powerful means of forming the communicative competence of students.

Bibliographic link

Remizova V.F., Matveev A.G. EXPERT ASSESSMENT IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE // Modern problems of science and education. - 2018. - No. 4.;
URL: http://?id=27733 (date of access: 02/01/2020). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

© Huzeeva G.R., 2014

© VLADOS Humanitarian Publishing Center LLC, 2014

© Art design, Humanitarian Publishing Center VLADOS, 2014

* * *

Introduction

One of the main conditions and factors for the successful socialization of children in kindergarten is the formation of communicative competence in the space of interaction of the child with peers.

At present, the communicative development of children preschool age little attention is given. Most often, peer relationships are built spontaneously. IN modern society children do not have enough access to free communication with their peers. At the same time, children are rarely specifically taught effective methods of interaction with peers. Practice shows that a child of senior preschool age experiences the greatest difficulties in the sphere of communication and interaction with peers. This is manifested in increased anxiety, aggression, inability to agree, to see the features of a peer, the inability to carry out joint activities. alarm signal is the fact that a large number of preschoolers prefer communication with a computer to real communication and joint play with peers. Our research shows that 40% of today's preschoolers respond to the question "What games do you like to play the most?" answer that they prefer computer games. What underlies the formation of the communicative competence of preschool children, what are the means of diagnosis and development? We will try to answer these questions in our book. Of course, this is only one way of understanding this problem. Questions communication development modern preschoolers require close attention and further development.

I. The concept and structure of communicative competence

One of the most important aspects and results of the development of a preschool child is communicative development. The result of this development is the communicative competence in the communication of children with adults and with peers.

At preschool age, two spaces of interaction with society are traditionally distinguished. These are interactions with adults and interactions with peers. At preschool age, the boundaries of social space are expanding, primarily due to the fact that from the age of four in a child’s life, in addition to the significance of adults, the significance of a peer appears and increases, since it is from this age that a peer is an integral part of the formation of a child’s self-consciousness. The peer group becomes a reference for preschool children

The problem of the formation of communicative competence was considered by us within the framework of the system-activity approach and the theory of communication and interpersonal relations (M.I. Lisina, E.O. Smirnova).

M.I. Lisina made the activity of communication the subject of her research. She considers communication as a certain independent type of activity and as a condition for the formation of the personality as a whole.

The purpose of communication, according to M.I. Lisin, is the knowledge of oneself and the knowledge of other people.

Interaction with other people is a central component of a child's holistic relationship to himself, to other people, to the objective world as a whole. The need for communication is not innate, but is formed in vivo, through the formation of the need to communicate with adults and peers. In the course of development, needs, motives, and means of communication change. At preschool age, a child goes through several stages of development of communication with adults and peers, which M.I. Lisina defined as forms of communication.

Communicative competence- the ability to communicate effectively, a system of internal resources necessary to achieve effective communication in certain situations (V.N. Kunitsyna).

Competence V modern psychology is understood as a combination of knowledge, experience and abilities of a person (G.A. Zuckerman).

That is, communicative competence, in contrast to communicative skills (those qualities that can be taught by exercising in the use of the means and methods of achieving goals existing in culture), implies the presence of qualities that allow a person to independently create means and ways to achieve his own goals of communication.

It is important to note that there is whole line prerequisites for the formation of communicative competence of a preschooler in communication with peers.

Communicative competence is based on prerequisites, the main of which are age features development (features mental development and features of communication with adults and peers) and individual characteristics the child himself (the individuality of the child and the individual experience of the child).

Let us note the most important and studied prerequisites for the formation of the communicative competence of preschool children in communicating with their peers.

Prerequisites for the formation of communicative competence of a preschooler

It is important to note that communicative competence is formed exclusively in the process of real interaction, joint activities with peers.

In the study of the communication features of older preschool children, we proved that the result of socialization, the success of communication in a group of peers is determined not by internal and external features directly, but is mediated by the very process of real communication and interaction. That is, the success of the child in communicating with peers depends on the process of designing social reality: activity, sensitivity to a partner.

From our point of view, communicative competence in the process of real communication is manifested in the ability to navigate and take into account the characteristics of another (desires, emotions, behavior, characteristics of activity, etc.), focus on another, sensitivity to a peer.

At the same time, as the results of our study showed, a child can take into account the interests and characteristics of a peer and use them “for his own benefit” (selfish orientation, competitiveness), or maybe for the “benefit of another” (humanistic orientation, prosocial forms of behavior, disinterested help).

But in both cases, the child may have a high level of communicative competence.

The ability to navigate and take into account the characteristics of another in the process of communication is formed in the process of activity.

The basis of communicative competence, from our point of view, is the formation of an adequate image of a peer, which includes cognitive, emotional and behavioral aspects.

It is conditionally possible to distinguish three components of the image of a peer:

The cognitive aspect of the peer image includes:

1) knowledge of the norms and rules of communication and interaction with peers;

2) a differentiated image of a peer (knowledge of external characteristics, desires, needs, behavioral motives, characteristics of the activity and behavior of another);

3) knowledge and understanding of the emotions of another person;

4) knowledge of ways of a constructive way out of a conflict situation.

The manual provides a methodology for the formation of relationships with other children and adults in preschool children. The publication presents various game situations that contribute to the formation of a positive attitude towards a peer in a preschooler; constructive cooperation in the children's team; the ability to express and achieve one's goal in communication, taking into account the interests of others; strengthening the skills of generally accepted cultural norms of communication. The manual is addressed to psychologists and teachers of preschool educational institutions.

A series: Psychological and pedagogical service of accompanying a child

* * *

by the LitRes company.

II. Diagnostics of the communicative competence of preschool children

To determine the features of communicative competence, methods have been selected that are aimed at diagnosing all components of communicative competence: features of the cognitive, emotional and behavioral aspects of the image of a peer and sensitivity to a peer.

1. Indicators of communicative development and communicative competence

2. Method of verbal choice "Birthday"

Diagnostic focus: determination of sociometric status in a peer group.

Examination procedure.

Instruction:“Imagine that your birthday is coming soon and your mother says to you: “Invite three guys from your group to the holiday!” Who will you invite?"

The experimenter records separately in the sociometric table the choice of each child.

Thus, all the data in the table is filled in, after which the researcher determines the count of the choices made by each child (in vertical columns), and writes it in the corresponding column of the table. Next, you should move on to identifying mutual choices. If among those who chose a particular child, there are children chosen by him, then this means the reciprocity of the choice. These mutual elections are circled, then they are counted and recorded.

Processing and interpretation of results

1. Determining the sociometric status of each child

To determine the status of the child, we used the processing of the results of a sociometric study proposed by Ya.L. Kolominsky. The status of a child is determined by counting the choices he has received. In accordance with the result, children can be assigned to one of four status categories: 1 - "stars" (5 or more choices); 2 - "preferred" (3-4 choices); 3 - "accepted" (1-2 choices); 4 - "not accepted" (0 elections). The 1st and 2nd status categories are favorable, the 3rd and 4th are unfavorable.

2. Rate of satisfaction of each child with their relationship

Satisfaction ratio (CS) is defined as the percentage of the number of peers with whom the child has mutual choices, among whose children he himself has chosen.

75-100% - high level of satisfaction

30–75% – average level of satisfaction

Less than 30% - low level

3. Method "My friend"

: the study of ideas about a peer (his social and personal qualities), the degree of differentiation and emotional attitude towards a peer.

Instruction: "Draw your friend as you imagine him." Then offer a sheet of white paper and colored

pencils. After finishing the drawing, ask the child questions: “Who is he? What is he? What do you like about him? Why is he your friend?

Record answers.

Analyze the drawing and the results of the conversation:

Analysis criteria:

1) a figurative component of a portrait of a friend (according to the drawing),

2) the verbal component of the image of a friend (according to the results of the conversation.

Evaluation criteria:

1) emotional attitude towards a peer,

2) the degree of differentiation of the image of a peer. Analyze the drawing according to the following parameters:

drawing,

having yourself around

relation through image,

gender friend.

Analyze the conversation according to the following parameters:

presence in the description of a peer appearance features,

the presence in the description of a peer of personal qualities,

the presence in the description of a peer of skills and abilities,

the presence in the description of a peer relationship to oneself.

Results processing

High level peer image formation:

positive emotional attitude, highly structured image of a friend (at least 5–6 content characteristics of a peer, using different categories (appearance, skills, personal characteristics).

Average level peer image formation:

ambivalent emotional attitude towards peers, the average level of structured image of a peer (at least 3-4 characteristics of a friend).

Low level of peer image formation :

ambivalent or negative attitude towards peers, weak structured image (characteristics 1-2 - " good friend”, “like”, etc.).

4. Experimental situation "Coloring"

Diagnostic focus:

1) determining the type of interpersonal relationship of preschool children to their peers,

2) the nature of the manifestation of prosocial forms of behavior. Stimulus material: two sheets with a contour image; two sets of markers:

a) two shades of red, two shades of blue, two shades of brown;

b) two shades of yellow, two shades of green, black and grey. Two children are involved in the diagnostic procedure.

Instruction:“Guys, now we will have a competition, we will draw with you. What colors do you know? You need to color the drawing using as many colors as possible. The winner is the one who uses different pencils more than others, whose drawing will be the most multi-colored. The same pencil can only be used once. You can share."

Children are seated next to each other, in front of each is a sheet with a contour image and a set of pencils. In the process of work, an adult draws the child's attention to the drawing of a neighbor, praises him, asks the opinion of another, while noting and evaluating all the statements of the children.

The nature of the relationship is determined by three parameters:

1) the child's interest in a peer and his work;

2) attitude towards the assessment of another peer by adults;

3) analysis of the manifestation of prosocial behavior.

The first parameter is the degree of emotional involvement of the child in the actions of a peer.

Evaluation indicators:

1 point - complete lack of interest in the actions of another child (not a single glance in the direction of the other);

2 points - weak interest (cursive glances towards a peer);

3 points - expressed interest (periodic, close observation of the actions of a friend, individual questions or comments on the actions of another);

4 points - pronounced interest (close observation and active intervention in the actions of a peer).

The second parameter is the emotional reaction to the assessment of the work of a peer by an adult.

This indicator determines the child's reaction to the praise or censure of another, which is one of the manifestations of the child's attitude to a peer, either as an object of comparison, or as a subject, an integral personality.

Reactions to the assessment may be as follows:

1) an indifferent attitude, when the child does not respond to peer assessment;

2) inadequate, negative assessment, when the child rejoices at a negative assessment and is upset at a peer's positive assessment (objects, protests);

3) an adequate reaction, where the child rejoices in success and empathizes with the defeat, censure of a peer.

The third parameter is the degree of manifestation of prosocial behavior. The following types of behavior are noted:

1) the child does not yield (refuses the request of a peer);

2) yields only in the case of an equal exchange or with hesitation, when a peer has to wait and repeatedly repeat his request;

3) yields immediately, without hesitation, may offer to share his pencils.

Analysis of results:

The combination of three parameters allows you to determine the type of relationship a child has with a peer:

indifferent type of relationship- children with reduced interest in the actions of their peers, an indifferent attitude towards positive and negative evaluation peer;

subject relation type- a pronounced interest in the actions of a peer, an inadequate reaction to a peer's assessment, there is a lack of prosocial behavior, an ambivalent attitude towards a peer;

personal type of relationship- there was a pronounced interest in the actions of a peer, an adequate reaction to a peer's assessment, prosocial behavior, a positive emotional attitude towards a peer.

5. Experimental problem situation "Pea"

Diagnostic focus:

1) determining the degree of sensitivity of the child to peer influences;

2) determining the level of formation of actions to coordinate efforts and implement joint activities aimed at achieving a common goal.

Course of the study: two children are involved in the experimental situation. It is necessary to prepare a piece of paper (it is possible on a board) with a contour image of a pea pod (or tree crown), a pencil and a mask that closes the eyes.

Explain to the children that they must complete one task for two, that the result will depend on their joint efforts. Children should draw peas in a pod. The main rule: you can not go beyond the boundaries of the pea (show a sample). The difficulty lies in the fact that one will draw with his eyes closed, and the other should help with his advice (right, left, up, down) to draw peas correctly. First you need to make sure that the child is oriented in the directions on the sheet. Then the children change places, they are given a new sheet and the game is repeated.

Progress: all replicas and the result are recorded in the protocol.

Criteria for evaluation:

1) the ability to coordinate actions and achieve the goal through joint efforts;

2) the ability to hear and understand a friend, the ability to explain, taking into account the emotional state of the characteristics of a peer, an assessment of his actions).

Levels of ability for concerted action were identified.

Low level - the child does not coordinate his actions with the actions of his peer, so both do not achieve a common goal.

For example: 1) the child tells another what to do, ignoring the fact that he was not understood and continuing to give instructions until his friend refuses to complete the task;

2) the child, not paying attention to the instructions of a peer, tries to peep and independently perform the necessary actions.

Average level - the preschooler is guided in the process of completing the task by a peer, but acts inconsistently and achieves the result partially.

High level - the child is able to jointly complete the task and achieve the goal.

Sensitivity to a partner was determined through an analysis of the degree of attention and emotional reactions of the child to peer influences - whether he is guided by a friend when performing a task (hears, understands, reacts emotionally, evaluates or shows displeasure).

Low level - the child is not focused on the partner, does not pay attention to his actions, does not react emotionally, as if he does not see the partner, despite the common goal.

Average level - the child is focused on the partner, closely follows his instructions or work, does not express assessments or opinions about the work.

High level - the child is guided by a partner, worries about his actions, gives assessments (both positive and negative), recommendations on how to improve the result, knows how to explain the task taking into account the actions of a peer, expresses wishes and openly expresses his attitude to joint activities.

6. Features of interpersonal relations (OMO) for children (Modification and analysis criteria: G.R. Khuzeeva)

Direction of the methodology:

The methodology is aimed at determining the characteristics of the child's interpersonal communication with adults and peers, attitude to leadership, subjective feeling inclusion of the child in a peer group, emotional attitude towards peers and adults, ways of behaving in a situation of rejection. It is intended for children 5-10 years old.

This methodology was developed on the basis of the OMO methodology (Features of Interpersonal Relations), proposed by W. Schutz in 1958 and intended for the study of adults. Schutz suggests that interpersonal relationships are based on three basic interpersonal needs. It is the need for inclusion, control and affect.

1. The need for inclusion is aimed at creating and maintaining satisfactory relationships with other people, on the basis of which interaction and cooperation arise. At the emotional level, the need for inclusion is defined as the need to create and maintain a sense of mutual interest. This feeling includes:

End of introductory segment.

* * *

The following excerpt from the book Diagnosis and development of communicative competence of a preschooler (G. R. Khuzeeva, 2014) provided by our book partner -

Based on the fact that competence includes a certain set of knowledge, skills and abilities that ensure the successful flow of the communicative process, the following strategy for building a diagnostic system is distinguished: an inventory of competence components (knowledge, skills and abilities) and the selection or creation of an appropriate psychological procedure.

Communicative competence is considered as a system of internal resources necessary to build an effective communicative action in a certain range of situations of interpersonal interaction.

Like any action, a communicative act includes an analysis and assessment of the situation, the formation of a goal and composition of the action, the implementation of a plan or its correction, and an assessment of effectiveness. Of particular importance for the diagnosis of competence is the analysis of the composition of those internal means of activity that are used in orientation in communicative situations. The assessment of cognitive resources that provide an adequate analysis and interpretation of the situation is the primary task of diagnosing communicative competence.

A holistic diagnosis of communicative competence, or an assessment of the resources of a communicative act, involves an analysis of the system of internal means that ensure action planning. When assessing competence, various quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the solution are used, among which the main place is occupied by such an indicator as the number various kinds constructive solutions.

Research social interaction made it possible to establish that people in the process of communication are guided by complex system rules for the regulation of joint actions. This system of rules includes a local social aspect, rituals, rules for regulating competitive activity. A person's ignorance of the generally accepted rules usually causes a feeling of embarrassment among others, but it is not clear how to use this phenomenon for the purposes of psychodiagnostics. The creation of adequate means of analyzing this component of communicative competence is a matter of the future.

At the first stage of the analysis, an inventory of the communication techniques used is carried out - a kind of operational repertoire is singled out. Such a repertoire may include mastery of the tempo of speech, intonation, pause, lexical diversity, non-directive and activating listening skills, non-verbal techniques: facial expressions and pantomime, gaze fixation, organization communication space etc.

One of the evaluation parameters is the number of communication techniques used. Another parameter is the relevance or adequacy of the technique used. The assessment of this characteristic of the operational potential of a communicative action is made with the help of expert judgments in the process of evaluating an audiovisual recording.

The modern approach to the problem of developing and improving the communicative competence of adults is that learning is seen as self-development and self-improvement based on one's own actions, and the diagnosis of competence should become self-diagnosis, self-analysis. The problem of diagnosing competence is not solved by simply informing the subject about the results of testing - its essence is to organize the diagnostic process in such a way that its participants receive effective information, i.e. one on the basis of which people would be able to carry out the necessary correction of their behavior.

The acquisition of communicative experience occurs not only on the basis of direct participation in acts of communicative interaction with other people. There are many ways to obtain information about the nature of communicative situations, the problems of interpersonal interaction and how to solve them.

Here, forms of group work in the style of introspection groups are very effective, where participants get the opportunity to verify their definitions of communicative situations in the process of comparing the opinions of all members of the group. An important advantage of group forms of work is the fact that one of its products can be the creation of new analysis tools, the great advantage of which is their explication in the process of formation, and hence the possibility of initial correction.

Analytical observation of communicative interaction, both real and presented in an artistic form, provides not only the opportunity to “train” the acquired cognitive means, but also contributes to mastering the means of regulating one’s own communicative behavior. In particular, the process of observation makes it possible to identify a system of rules, guided by which people organize their interaction, to understand which rules contribute and which hinder the successful flow of communication processes. It is no coincidence that observation of the communicative behavior of other people is recommended as effective way increase own competence .

An important point the process of forming communication skills is the mental reproduction of one's behavior in different situations. Planning one's actions "in the mind" is an integral part of a normal flowing communicative action. The ability of a person to act "in the mind" can be purposefully used to provide "controlled spontaneity", which is an important characteristic of competent communicative behavior.

Active group methods of teaching competent communicative behavior can be conditionally combined into three main blocks:

• discussion methods;
• · game methods;
• · behavioral training (training of interpersonal sensitivity and perception of oneself as a psychophysical unity).

The object of discussion can be not only specially formulated problems, but also cases from professional practice and interpersonal relationships the participants themselves. The group discussion method helps each participant to understand his own point of view, develop initiative, and also develops communicative qualities and skills.

Speaking about game teaching methods, it is advisable to subdivide them into operational and role-playing. Operational games have a scenario that contains a more or less rigid algorithm for the “correctness” and “incorrectness” of the decision being made, i.e. the learner sees the impact that his decisions have had on future events. Operational games are used as a means of training specialists and the formation of their personal and business qualities in particular professional competence.

Role-playing games are of even greater interest for personal development. It was this type of games that formed the basis of the method developed by Professor M. Forverg and called by him socio-psychological training.

In conditions role play the individual is confronted with situations that are relevant to those cases that are characteristic of his real activity and put before the need to change his attitudes. Then conditions are created for the formation of new, more effective, communication skills. Active actions are brought to the fore as the main determinants of the success of socio-psychological training. .

Test "Diagnostics of communicative social competence (CSC)"1

Scales: sociability, logical thinking, emotional stability, carelessness, sensitivity, independence, self-control, a tendency to antisocial behavior.

"Diagnosis of communicative social competence (CSC) // Fetiskin N. P., Kozlov V. V., Manuilov G. M. Socio-psychological diagnostics of personality development and small groups. Moscow, 2002, pp. 138-149.

This technique is intended to obtain a more complete picture of the individual, to make a probabilistic forecast of the success of her professional activity.

The questionnaire includes 100 statements arranged in a cyclic order in order to provide a convenient reference using a stencil. There are three alternative answers for each question.

The methodology is designed to study individual personality factors in individuals with secondary and higher education.

Test instructions. You are offered a series of questions and three possible answers to each of them (a, b, c). You need to answer as follows:

• 1) first read the question and the answers to it;
• 2) choose one of the proposed answers that reflects your opinion, and put the corresponding letter (a, b or c) in the box on the answer sheet.

Remember the following rules:

• - do not spend a lot of time thinking about answers; give the answer that comes to mind first;
• - try not to resort too often to intermediate answers like "not sure", "something in between", etc. There should be as few such answers as possible;
• - never miss anything. Each question must be answered;
• - Answer as sincerely as possible. Do not try to make a good impression with your answers, they should be true.

Now please get to work. Your answers in alphabetical form must be put down either in the questionnaire next to the question number, or in a special form.

Memo to the experimenter. Pay attention to whether the respondent understood the instructions, whether he is ready to sincerely answer the questions posed. Remember to answer all questions. It must be emphasized that it is undesirable to use intermediate answers often and to reflect on them for a long time. If there are several interviewees, they should not consult with each other.

Questionnaire text

• 1. I understood the instructions well and am ready to sincerely answer the questions:
  • a) yes;
  • b) not sure
  • c) no.
• 2. I would rather rent a cottage:
  • a) in a busy holiday village;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) in a secluded place, in the forest.
• 3. I prefer simple classical music to modern popular tunes:
  • a) true;
  • b) not sure
  • c) incorrect.
• 4. In my opinion, it is more interesting to be:
  • a) a design engineer;
  • b) don't know
  • c) playwright.
• 5. I would have achieved much more in life if people were not opposed to me:
  • a) yes;
  • b) don't know
  • c) no.
• 6. People would be happier if they spent more time with their friends:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) no.
• 7. When making plans for the future, I often rely on luck:
  • a) yes;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) no.
• 8. "Shovel" is related to "digging" as "knife" is to:
  • a) sharp;
  • b) cut;
  • c) sharpen.
• 9. Almost all relatives treat me well:
  • a) yes;
  • b) don't know
  • c) no.
• 10. Sometimes some obsessive thought keeps me awake:
  • a) yes, that is correct;
  • b) not sure
  • c) no.
• 11. I never get angry with anyone:
  • a) yes;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) no.
• 12. With equal working hours and the same salary, it would be more interesting for me to work;
• a) carpenter or cook;
• b) don't know what to choose;
• c) a waiter in a good restaurant.
• 13. Most of my acquaintances consider me a cheerful conversationalist:
  • a) yes;
  • b) not sure
  • c) no.
• 14. At school I preferred:
  • a) music lessons (nenie);
  • b) find it difficult to say;
  • c) classes in workshops, manual labor.
• 15. I am definitely unlucky in life:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) no.
• 16. When I was in grades 7-10, I participated in the sports life of the school:
  • a) very rarely;
  • b) case by case;
  • c) quite often.
• 17. I keep order at home and always know what is where:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) no.
• 18. "Tired" refers to "work" as "proud" to:
  • a) smile
  • b) success;
  • c) happy.
• 19. I behave as is customary in the circle of people among whom I am:
  • a) yes;
  • b) when how;
  • c) no.
• 20. In my life, as a rule, I achieve the goals that I set for myself:
  • a) yes;
  • b) not sure
  • c) no.
• 21. Sometimes I enjoy listening to indecent jokes:
  • a) yes;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) no.
• 22. If I had to choose, I would rather be:
  • a) a forester;
  • b) difficult to choose;
  • c) a high school teacher.
• 23. I would like to go to the cinema, to various performances and other places where you can have fun:
  • a) more than once a week (more often than most people);
  • b) about once a week (like most);
  • c) less than once a week (less than most).
• 24. I am well oriented in an unfamiliar area: I can easily tell where is north, south, east or west:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.
• 25. I'm not offended when people make fun of me:
  • a) yes;
  • b) when how;
  • c) no.
• 26. I would like to work in a separate room, and not with colleagues:
  • a) yes;
  • b) not sure
  • c) no.
• 27. In many ways, I consider myself quite a mature person:
  • a) it is true;
  • b) not sure
  • c) this is not true.
• 28. Which of the following words does not fit the other two:
  • a) a candle
  • b) the moon;
  • c) lamp.
• 29. Usually people misunderstand my actions:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) no.
• 30. My friends:
  • a) I was not let down;
  • b) occasionally;
  • c) quite often.
• 31. Usually I cross the street where it is convenient for me, and not where it is supposed to:
  • a) yes;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) no.
• 32. If I made a useful invention, I would prefer:
  • a) continue to work on it in the laboratory;
  • b) difficult to choose;
  • c) take care of its practical use.
• 33. I certainly have fewer friends than most people:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.
• 34. I like to read more:
  • a) realistic descriptions of acute military or political conflicts;
  • b) don't know what to choose;
  • c) a novel that excites the imagination and feelings.
• 35. My family does not like the specialty that I have chosen:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) no.
• 36. It is easier for me to solve a difficult question or problem:
  • a) if I discuss them with others;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) if I think about them alone.
• 37. When doing any work, I do not calm down until even the smallest details are taken into account:
  • a) true;
  • b) average;
  • c) incorrect.
• 38. "Surprise" is related to "unusual" as "fear" is to:
  • a) brave
  • b) restless;
  • c) terrible.
• 39. I am always outraged when someone cleverly manages to avoid a well-deserved punishment:
  • a) yes;
  • b) differently;
  • c) no.
• 40. It seems to me that some people do not notice or avoid me, although I do not know why:
  • a) true;
  • b) not sure
  • c) incorrect.
• 41. In my life there was no case that I broke a promise:
  • a) yes;
  • b) ns know;
  • c) no.
• 42. If I worked in the economic field, I would be interested in:
  • a) talk with customers, clients;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) maintain reports and other documentation.
• 43. I believe that:
  • a) you need to live by the principle: “Time for business, hour for fun”;
  • b) something between "a" and "c";
  • c) you need to live cheerfully, not especially caring about tomorrow.
• 44. I would be interested in completely changing the field of activity:
  • a) yes;
  • b) not sure
  • c) no.
• 45. I believe that my family life is no worse than that of most of my friends:
  • a) yes;
  • b) hard to say;
  • c) no.
• 46. ​​It is unpleasant for me if people think that I am too unrestrained and neglect the rules of decency:
  • a) very;
  • b) a little;
  • c) not worried at all.
• 47. There are periods when it is difficult to resist feeling sorry for oneself:
  • a) often
  • b) sometimes;
  • c) never.
• 48. Which of the following fractions does not fit the other two:
  • a) 3/7;
  • b) 3/9;
  • c) 3/11.
• 49. I am sure that they are talking about me behind my back:
  • a) yes;
  • b) don't know
  • c) no.
• 50. When people behave imprudently and recklessly:
  • a) I take it easy;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) I feel contempt for them.
• 51. Sometimes I really want to swear:
  • a) yes;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) no.
• 52. With the same wages I would rather be:
  • a) a lawyer;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) navigator or pilot.
• 53. It gives me pleasure to do risky things just for fun:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.
• 54. I love music:
  • a) light, alive;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) emotionally rich, sentimental.
• 55. The most difficult thing for me is to cope with myself:
  • a) true;
  • b) not sure
  • c) incorrect.
• 56. I prefer to plan my affairs myself, without outside interference and other people's advice:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.
• 57. Sometimes a feeling of envy affects my actions:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.
• 58. "Size" is to "amount" as "dishonest" is to:
  • a) prison;
  • b) sinful;
  • c) stealing.
• 59. Parents and family members often find fault with me:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) no.
• 60. When I listen to music, and they are talking loudly nearby:
  • a) it does not interfere with me, I can concentrate;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) it spoils my pleasure and angers me.
• 61.At times I come to mind like this bad thoughts that it is better not to talk about them:
  • a) yes;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) no.
• 62. It seems to me more interesting to be:
  • a) an artist;
  • b) don't know what to choose;
  • c) the director of a theater or film studio.
• 63. I would rather dress modestly, like everyone else, than catchy and original:
  • a) agree;
  • b) not sure
  • c) disagree.
• 64. It is not always possible to achieve something by gradual, moderate methods, sometimes it is necessary to apply force:
  • a) agree;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.
• 65. I loved school:
  • a) yes;
  • b) hard to say;
  • c) no.
• 66. I learn the material better:
  • a) reading a well-written book;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) participating in a group discussion.
• 67. I prefer to go my own way instead of sticking to generally accepted rules:
  • a) agree;
  • b) not sure
  • c) disagree.
• 68. AB is related to GV in the same way as SR is to:
  • a) software;
  • b) OP;
  • c) TU.
• 69. Usually I am satisfied with my fate:
  • a) yes;
  • b) don't know
  • c) no.
• 70. When the time comes for the implementation of what I planned and expected in advance, I sometimes feel unable to do it:
  • a) agree;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) disagree.
• 71. Nc all my friends I like:
  • a) yes;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) no.
• 72. If I were asked to organize a fundraiser for a gift to someone or to participate in organizing an anniversary celebration:
  • a) I would agree
  • b) I don't know what I would do
  • c) I would say that, unfortunately, I am very busy.
• 73. An evening spent doing what I love attracts me more than a lively party:
  • a) agree;
  • b) not sure
  • c) disagree.
• 74. The beauty of the verse attracts me more than the beauty and perfection of weapons:
  • a) yes;
  • b) not sure
  • c) no.
• 75. I have more reasons to be afraid of something than my friends:
  • a) yes;
  • b) hard to say;
  • c) no.
• 76. When working on something, I would rather do this:
  • a) in a team
  • b) don't know what to choose;
  • c) independently.
• 77. Before expressing my opinion, I prefer to wait until I am completely sure that I am right:
  • a) always;
  • b) usually;
  • c) only if it is practically possible.
• 78. "Best" is to "worst" as "slow" is to:
  • a) fast
  • b) the best;
  • c) the fastest.
• 79. I do a lot of things that I later regret:
  • a) yes;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) no.
• 80. I can usually work with concentration, not paying attention to the fact that people around me are making noise:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.
• 81. I never put off until tomorrow what I have to do today:
  • a) yes;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) no.
• 82. I had:
  • a) very few elected offices;
  • b) several;
  • c) many elected positions.
• 83. I spend a lot of free time talking with friends about those pleasant events that we once experienced together:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.
• 84. On the street, I will stop to look at the work of an artist rather than at a street quarrel or a traffic accident:
  • a) yes;
  • b) not sure
  • c) no.
• 85. Sometimes I really wanted to leave home:
  • a) yes;
  • b) not sure
  • c) no.
• 86. I would rather live quietly as I like than to be admired by my friends:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) no.
• 87. Speaking, I tend to:
  • a) express their thoughts as soon as they come to mind;
  • b) something in between is true;
  • c) First, get your thoughts together.
• 88. Which of the following combinations of characters should continue this series Х0000ХХ000ХХХ:
  • a) XXXX;
  • b) 00XX;
  • c) X000.
• 89. I don't care what others think of me:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.
• 90. I have such disturbing dreams that I wake up:
  • a) often
  • b) occasionally;
  • c) almost never.
• 91. I read the whole newspaper every day:
  • a) yes;
  • b) hard to say;
  • c) no.
• 92. For the birthday, for the holidays:
  • a) I like to give gifts;
  • b) find it difficult to answer;
  • c) I think that buying gifts is a somewhat unpleasant duty.
• 93. I really don’t like to be where there is no one to talk to:
  • a) true;
  • b) not sure
  • c) incorrect.
• 94. At school I preferred:
  • a) Russian language;
  • b) hard to say;
  • c) mathematics.
• 95. Someone harbored a grudge against me:
  • a) yes;
  • b) don't know
  • c) no.
• 96. I willingly participate in public life, in the work of various commissions, etc.:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.
• 97. I am firmly convinced that the boss may not always be right, but always has the opportunity to insist on his own:
  • a) yes;
  • b) not sure
  • c) no.
• 98. Which of the following words does not fit the other two:
  • a) any;
  • b) several;
  • c) the majority.
• 99. In a cheerful company, it is inconvenient for me to fool around with others:
  • a) yes;
  • b) differently;
  • c) no.
• 100. If I made some kind of mistake in society, then I quickly forget about it:
  • a) yes;
  • b) something in between;
  • c) no.

Processing and interpretation of test results. The answers of the respondent must be compared with the key.

• - If the letter specified in the key matches the letter of the answer chosen by the respondent, 2 points are awarded for this answer.
• - For the intermediate answer “b”, 1 point is always awarded.
• - In case of a mismatch between the letter of the answer and the letter of the key, 0 points are awarded.

Processing for factor B (logical thinking) is somewhat different.

• - If the letter of the answer matches the letter of the key, 2 points are assigned.
• - In case of mismatch - 0 points.

Key to the test

The scores thus obtained are summed up for each factor.

For factors A, B, C, D, K, M, H, L, the maximum number of points is 20.

For factor P - 40 points (add rows V and IX). The number of points from 16 to 20 (for factors A, B, C, D, K, M, H) is a high score for this factor, which means that the corresponding personality quality is clearly expressed (for example, sociability by factor L).

The number of points from 13 to 15 indicates a certain predominance of a quality corresponding to a high rating (for example, sociability over isolation).

The number of points from 5 to 7 indicates the predominance of a quality corresponding to a low score (for example, isolation over sociability).

The number of points from 8 to 12 means an approximate balance between two opposite personal qualities (for example, moderately open, moderately closed).

If the respondent scored 12 or more points on the L scale, then the results of the survey must be recognized as unreliable.

If the respondent scored more than 20 (out of 40) points on the P scale (tendency to antisocial behavior), then this indicates certain personal problems in any area of ​​life: in the family, relationships with friends, at work, in relationships with others). In this case, it is necessary to conduct an additional interview to determine how serious the problems are.

Factor a

• - high score +A - open, easy, sociable.
• - low score -A - unsociable, withdrawn.

Factor B

• - high score + B - with developed logical thinking, quick-witted.
• - low score -B - inattentive or with underdeveloped logical thinking.

Factor C

• - high score + C - emotionally stable, mature, calm.
• - low score -C - emotionally unstable, changeable, amenable to feelings.

Factor D

• - high score + D - cheerful, carefree, cheerful.
• - low score -D - sober, silent, serious.

K factor

• - high score +K - sensitive, reaching out to others, with artistic thinking.
• - low score -K - self-reliant, realistic, rational.

Factor M

• - high score + M - preferring his own decisions, independent, self-oriented.
• - low score -M - dependent on the group, sociable, follows public opinion.

Factor H

• - high score + H - controlling himself, able to obey the rules.
• - low score -N - impulsive, disorganized.

In addition, this questionnaire allows you to identify the propensity

to antisocial behavior (factor P), which may be characterized by disregard for accepted social norms, moral and ethical values, established rules of conduct and customs.

Included in the questionnaire and the scale of truthfulness (factor L), which allows you to judge the reliability of the results.

Level assessment of factors (in points):

• - 16-20 - maximum level;
• - 13-15 - the prevailing severity of factors;
• - 8-12 - average level;
• - 5-7 - low level.