Abstract:

The paper deals with the postmodern education (Usher & Edwards 1994) and the theory of constructivist study (Driscoll 2000, Marlowe & Page 2005, Murphy 1997), which emphasises the idea that knowledge is supposed to be constructed by the student rather than supplied by the teacher. The theory of constructivism views a learning process where students arrive at their own conclusions with the creative aid of the teacher who serves as a facilitator, creates an effective learning environment and guides students to correct answers through critical thinking (Can 2009, Kurteš & Kopytowska 2014, Murphy1997, Nomnian 2012).

We will examine the application of the theory of constructivist study to Intercultural Communication teaching and learning and demonstrate that the constructivist approach is an instrument of combining language and culture in the process of learning. Using the illustrations from the English and Russian languages and cultures we will show that this approach enables students to see the language as an integral part of culture which is embedded in all language levels and reflects the identity of its speakers with their worldview, values and attitudes (Kecskes 2014, Larina 2015, Larina & Ozyumenko 2016, Leech 2014, Wierzbicka 1991/2003 and many others).

Being promising for studies in language teaching (SLT) in general, the constructivist approach is of particular importance for teaching and learning Intercultural Communication. It helps to develop critical thinking and cultural sensitivity, enables students to understand why people communicative in a different way and to see the logic of the differences. It responds to the requirements of the present time as it is aimed at educating an active and creative student and reflects a shift in the culture of education from teacher-centered to learner-centered education.

References:
[1] Can, T. “Learning and teaching languages online: a constructivist approach”, Novitas-ROYAL, vol. 3, no.1, pp. 60 – 74, 2009.
[2] Driscoll, M. P. Psychology of Learning for Instruction. 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.
[3] Kecskes, I. Intercultural Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
[4] Kurteš, S., Kopytowska M. “Communicating identities in daily interaction: theory, practice, pedagogy”. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, vol. 0, no.1, pp. 1-17, 2014.
[5] Larina, T. “Culture-Specific Communicative Styles as a Framework for Interpreting Linguistic and Cultural Idiosyncrasies”. International Review of Pragmatics, vol.7, no.5, Special Issue: Communicative Styles and Genres, pp. 195-215, 2015.
[6] Larina, T., Ozyumenko, V. “Ethnic identity in language and communication”. Cuadernos de Rusística Española, vol.12, pp. 57 – 68, 2016.
[7] Leech, Geoffrey. The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford studies in sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press, 2014.
[8] Marlowe, B. A., Page M.L. Creating and Sustaining the Constructivist Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2005.
[9] Murphy, E. Constructivism…From Philosophy to Practice. 1997. http://www.stemnet.nf.ca
[10] Nomnian, S. “Constructivism: Theory and Its Application to Language Teaching”. Studies in Language Teaching: Occasional Paper, pp.1 – 7. 2002.
[11] Stiegler, J., Hibert, J. The teaching gap. New York: Free Press, 1999.
[12] Usher, R., Edwards, R. Postmodernism and education. London: Routledge,1994.
[13] Wierzbicka, A.. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991/2003.

Keywords:

Postmodern education, constructivism, Intercultural Communication, intercultural communication competece.