Magistro darbo atraminės nuostatos darbe pateiktos šios. Lietuvos švietime XX–XXI a. sandūroje iš klasikinės ugdymo paradigmos sukant laisvosios paradigmos link kinta ugdymo samprata ir aktualizuojamas ugdymo komponentas – ugdymo sąveika. Visuomenė delegavo švietimui ugdymo misiją, iškėlė nacionaliniu lygmeniu tikslus ir mokykla turi juos realizuoti savo veikloje. Tad tenka persiorientuoti iš poveikio pedagogikos į ugdymo sąveiką. Taigi Lietuvos edukologijoje ugdymo sąveika aktualizuota, tačiau suprantama skirtingai. Teoriniu lygmeniu dar ir XXI a. Lietuvos švietime egzistuoja du požiūriai į asmens ugdymą – vienas pripažįsta ugdymą poveikio asmeniui priemonėmis, kur ugdyme veikia subjektas mokytojas ir objektas mokinys, kitas – dviejų lygiaverčių subjektų – ugdytojo ir ugdytinio sąveikos priemonėmis. Reformuojama Lietuvos mokykla konceptualių dokumentų orientuojama į ugdymo sąveikos principus. Vadinasi, egzistuoja reali teorinių požiūrių ir iškeltų ugdymo tikslų prieštara. Tokia prieštara egzistuoja ne tik teoriniu lygmeniu, bet ir praktikoje. Todėl tirti ugdymo praktiką ir pasiūlyti būdų, kaip aktyviau įtvirtinti reformuojamoje mokykloje ugdymo sąveikos įvairius principus, bus nuolat aktualu. Tai sudaro pasirinktosios temos aktualumą. Šiame darbe ugdymo sąveika suprantama kaip – dinamiška ugdytojo ir ugdytinio, saistomų funkciniais ryšiais, bendravimo sistema, apimanti pedagoginį bendravimą, pedagoginį informavimą, pedagoginį vertinimą, pedagoginį reikalavimą, pedagoginius... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The basic points of the master‘s paper are as follows. At the turn of the XX-XXI centuries the education system in Lithuania shifts from the classical education paradigm to the liberal paradigm. The education conception changes and the education component as well as the education paradigm become significant. The society has imposed an educational mission upon the education system and it has raised objectives at the national level, therefore the school has to implement them. Consequently, the impact pedagogics has to shift into the educational interaction. Therefore, in Lithuanian educology the educational interaction is accentuated, though it is interpreted differently. At the theoretical level in the XXI century two different viewpoints about education of a person still prevail. One of them approves of the education employing tools, that have impact on a person - the subject there is the teacher and the objects is the pupil. The other approach accentuates interface between two equivalent subjects – the educator and the educated person. The Lithuanian school is being reformed towards principles of the educational interaction in conformity with conceptual documents. Thus a realistic contraposition of theoretical approaches and raised educational objectives actually exists. Such kind of contraposition exists not only on a theoretical level but in practice as well. Therefore, it will be always important to research the education practice and propose means how to consolidate... [to full text]

The aim of this study is to investigate the interaction in sign language in a classroom in the special school for deaf and hard of hearing pupils. Three questions are of particular interest: What characterizes interaction in educational situations where the whole class is present compared to half the class and when the pupils in small groups are solving problems given by the teacher? How are a hearing and a deaf teacher interacting in the classroom? And How are boys and girls interacting in different educational situations? Theoretically the study is based on an educational interaction model. Of particular interest in this model are restrictive and permissive aspects of teaching and factors stimulating pupil participation. Symbolic interactionism has been used in the interpretation of face-to-face interaction in sign language. Video recordings of classroom interaction in natural sciences were documented in a class in the special school comprising 17 pupils and three teachers. A total of seven lessons were recorded consisting of whole class teaching, half class teaching and problem solving in small groups. Of the pupils ten were girls and seven were boys and of the teachers one was hearing and one was deaf. The third teacher was only temporarily in the class and was not included in the analysis. The recorded material was transcribed and analyzed in six steps. The results show that the teachers are most restrictive in whole class teaching while there is more participation from the pupils in half class teaching. In the small group problem solving the teachers seem to be more interested in the group process than in getting an answer to the problem. This gives a lot of room for individual actions and interaction of a relational kind rather than educational. There tend to be some visible differences between the hearing and the deaf teacher. The former uses a more individual approach towards the pupils, I-Gaze, which leaves room for the pupils to be engaged in other activities. The deaf teacher on the other hand keeps all the pupils engaged by using a group approach, G-Gaze. Other differences are the use of literacy tools where the deaf teacher situates the material and keeps the attention of the pupils by telling a narrative. Concerning differences between boys and girls it is evident that the boys are more dominant in whole class and half class interactions while the girls tend to take over the teacher role in small group interaction. These results are discussed in relation to theoretical background and research on classroom interaction in the compulsory school and in schools for deaf pupils.