From the conceptual ideation theory on joint-dialogical cognitive activity

Jakupov, S.M. Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

Jakupov, M.S. Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

Tolegenova, A.A. Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

Zhubanazarova, N.S. Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

Toksanbaeva, N.K. Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

O.K. Tikhomirov was the first to studyideation as a specific forming activity. He initially suggested recordingsystemic properties of the subject of activity; later on, that predeterminedthe formation of the conceptual ideation theory (CIT). Two circumstances of utmostimportance facilitated the aforementioned process: firstly, the implementationof the method of parallel recording of verbal and non-verbal components of theideation; and secondly, the employment of chess problems as the object ofcognitive activity, which was previously and undeservingly ignored.

In the second half of the 20thcentury, O.K. Tikhomirov proposed the experimental situation model forstudying the ideation during chess problems solving. The interpretativepotential of this model was made fully available for comprehension onlyrecently. Here we speak about chess problems referring to a distinctive type of so-calledinteractive tasks which were widely used at that time in social andpsychological studies, but were mainly not employed in general psychology. Herewe mean not the chess problems by themselves, but their interactive nature,which manifests in the necessity of considering the assumed actions of one’sopponent — meaning distinctive virtual partner in joint-intellectual activity(more correctly to say, pseudo–individual activity). An interactive chessproblem initially determines the special conditions for the generation anddevelopment of a specific conceptual field, which later serves as a basis forthe intellectual activity of the test subject. In its turn, it is perceived bythe observer (experimenter) as an activity which is individual in its nature.Nevertheless, considering interactivity as a peculiarity of the solved taskwhich also is subject-generated, this activity is more likely tobe pseudo-individual, meaning that it is actually externally unobservable jointactivity.

For the first time ever, thephenomenon of pseudo-individual intellectual activity was studied under theguidance of O.K. Tikhomirov in the 1980’s (Jakupov, 1985). These studies werededicated to the transformation of joint-practical activity intojoint-intellectual activity under laboratory conditions and revealed aphenomena of pseudo-joint and pseudo-individual intellectual activity. In thefirst case, we mean the activity of two individuals which is externallyobserved as ‘joint’ interaction; on the other hand, in its own internal meaningand psychological content such activity presents a combination of twoindividual activities. Pseudo-individual intellectual activity in psychological(internal) context represents ‘joint’ activity for it depicts all of itscomponents, while externally representing the activity of a single individual.In such a joint activity process, the partner is not the individual himself,but his image, more correctly — a ‘virtual subject’, being the result ofvirtual reality modeling by means of special technique of experimental studybased on the employment of the subject­generating feature of an interactivetask. During this process, an internal ‘virtual dialogue’ with a ‘virtualpartner’ while solving intellectual tasks shows no less efficiency — at times,concerning certain tasks it is more effective than an ‘external dialogue’ withthe real partner.

The experimental technique, which wasdeveloped under the conditions of a real and virtual — hence ceaseless —dialogue with Oleg Konstantinovich, pro- vided not only for the formation ofjoint intellectual activity but also its controlled dissociation. The followingsequence of transformations was experimentally revealed: individualpractical actions — joint practical activity — pseudo-joint intellectualactivity — joint intellectual activity — pseudo-individual intellectualactivity. The stage-by-stage transformation of activities up to the stageof joint intellectual activity is provided by the structure of presentedinteractive tasks. Such tasks which may be successfully solved with theconsideration of the results of a partner’s activity, whereas achievement atthe joint intellectual activity stage was provided, according to ourresearches, by forming a ‘common fund of conceptual formations’ (Jakupov, 1985)in the course of communication; this ‘common fund of conceptual formations’ was‘disguised’ by the ‘common fund of information’ (Lomov, 1984). The decisiveelement here was not the contents of the common fund of conceptual formations(CFCF) itself, but the grade of its acceptance and assumption by the partnersin the joint activity. The latter evidence determined the difference between psychologicalstructures of pseudo-joint, joint and pseudo-individual intellectualactivities. A special series of experiments concerning the stage-by-stageintroduction of communication deprivation (destruction) for the purpose ofcontrolling the process of assumption of CFCF demonstrated dissociation ofpseudo-joint intellectual activity into individual activities in one case andthe transformation of joint intellectual activity into the pseudo-individualintellectual activity in another case.

Qualitative distinctiveness ofactivity, which is pseudo-individual in its form and intellectual in itscontents (which manifested better results in comparison with other forms ofintellectual activity) is provided by a higher grade of assumption of CFCF byeach partner — that substantively widens the individual capabilities of eachpartner (Jakupov, 1992). In its psychological meaning, the assumption of CFCFby the subject of activity means the intensification of the reflexivemechanisms of joint — dialogical cognitive activity, based on the actualizationof the external partner’s image during the transfer from an ‘external’ dialogueto the ‘internal’ one. In other words, we speak about the construction of avirtual reality model which is composed of virtual subjects and various typesof virtual activities with their basic constructional elements being conceptualformations which, in turn, compose the CFCF.

Goal formation as aprocess of reflection of cognitive activity’s genesis

Studies concerning goal formationunder conditions of transition from joint practical activity to the jointintellectual activity, being adequate enough to act as a model for cognitiveactivity genesis research, allow us to draw our attention to some particularaspects of its procedure. The process of transformation of practical activityof a dyad (complex subject) into the intellectual activity of an individualsubject is nothing but formation and development of the subject of cognitiveactivity, expanded in space — time dimensions. The cognitive activity,while initially determining the subject’s activity, is itself the specificresult of the process of the “subject-subject-object” kind of interaction.

This approach states the specialproblem of analysis of the role of communication in the process oftransformation of activities which are individual in their forms and practicalin their contents into joint in their forms and intellectual in their contentsactivities. Here, the problem of formation of joint activity appears — and thisproblem leads us to necessity of interconnection between communication andideation research. Studies performed under B.F. Lomov’s supervision have shownqualitative and quantitative rearrangement of the cognitive processes underconditions of joint activity and communication in comparison with individualactivity (Lomov, 1984). Substantial influence of communication on processes ofideation on various levels was described: from acquisition of notions up tosolving creative tasks. Role of the basic determinants conditioning theinfluence of communication on ideation had been played by the common fund ofinformation, specific regulation mechanisms of dynamics of individual cognitiveprocesses, joint strategies for tasks solution and common — group activitystyle. During this study the sophisticated interconnection of ideation andcommunication was narrowed down to processes of information accumulation in‘common information fund’ and that caused positive influence on the results ofjoint ideation in individuals.

While disagreeing with suchinterpretation of interconnection of ideation and communication, we have toemphasize that, for the common fund of informationto act as an actual thing for each of participants, it is necessary thatit is initially presented to all subjects and accepted. This is substantiatedby results of experiments of Ya.A. Ponomarev concerning research of creativetasks solution under conditions of communication (Ponomarev, 1981). In thisresearch, the by-product of activity acted as a ‘key to solution’ of the taskonly in the process of its comprehension by other participants, while it couldbe inconsistent and thus useless to the subject solving the task.

Studies performed by A.V. Brushlinskyare considered as continuation of the aforementioned studies and have allowedto reveal the phenomena of ‘psychological blindness and deafness’, which pointsout the insufficiency of interconnection of ideation and communicationinformation interpretation (Brushlinsky, 1982). It should be noted that ‘thenew idea on its own does not upraise the process of ideation of all groupmembers up to common level, that may be achieved only if their contents matchor are very close by contents’. Later ‘convergence of the contents of partners’ideation proceeds as gradual comprehension of their mutual ideas andtheir inclusion into the system of connections and relations of each of them’.Nevertheless, such explanation does not reveal the true nature of the‘psychological blindness and deafness’. This contributes to an explanation ofthe ‘gradual comprehension of ideas’ in psychological context.

Results of our studies claim that thecommon information fund which is formed under conditions of joint intellectualactivity actually does play role of additional source of the individual’sactivity — but only in case of its assumption by subjects of activity. This isdetermined, in its own turn, by actual structure of the personality, itsdirection and its ‘dynamical conceptual system’ (Vygotsky, 1982).

Realization of principle of unity ofcommunication and ideation in particular psychological study gains extremeactuality due to research in genesis of cognitive activity. One of means ofrealization of this principle is research of goal-formation during jointintellectual activity which allows us to reveal interconnections between‘dynamical conceptual systems’ and ‘common information fund’. This fact in itsown turn gave us the possibility to ‘throw a methodological bridge’ betweenpersonal and cognitive components of the subject’s cognitive activity and toclose up with the origins of personality’s cognitive activity under conditionsof specially developed experimental — empirical research scheme.

Joint — dialogicalcognitive activity in the process of education

The results of goal formation researchin joint intellectual activity allowed us to develop psychological basis ofconceptual representation concerning the transformation of the teacher’spersonality and personalities of students into the joint — dialogical cognitiveactivity in the process of learning (Jakupov, 1992).

The necessity of joint-dialogicalcognitive activity (JDCA) modeling under the conditions of experiment isdetermined by the fact that JDCA is actually a systemic formation, which isformed in the process of learning and which is the actual psychological contentof that process. Attempts to study JDCA directly in real learning process, as arule, lead to dissociation of the whole phenomenon because the JDCA occurs onlyat a certain level of development of the cognitive activity in the learningprocess and thus marks the highest possible level of the latter.

Processual aspect of the cognitive activity has always been thestumbling stone of researchers. Usually they study the results of cognitiveactivity and not the process itself. That is even harder to achieve consideringthe joint-dialogical cognitive activity — a psychological phenomenon which mayonly exist in processual form. Isn’t it because of that fact that the majorityof methods employed in pedagogy and pedagogic psychology have low ‘ecologicalvalidity’? Reason is the same for impediments in research of processual aspectof active methods of education, such as social-psychological training whichachieves the highest level of cognitive activity — the JDCA — more often thantraditional educational techniques.

There is another way of studyingcognitive activity which is learnt from general psychology. It involvesmodeling the researched process in experimental laboratory conditions with thepurpose of in-depth research of major psychological laws of appearance andfollowing formation of phenomenon in the real conditions of learning process onthe basis of knowledge of such laws. This is the path which is consideredenough valid for researching such sophisticated phenomenon as joint- dialogicalcognitive activity.

In its own turn, the most adequatelaboratory model of JDCA is the joint intellectual activity (JIA) which isformed in the process of solution of special experimental tasks by the testsubjects. Similarly to the JDCA, intellectual activity presents the highestlevel of development of problem-solving activity. And as the cognitive activityin real conditions of learning process — especially JDCA — is actually theconsequence of transformation of practical activities of the teacher andstudents, similarly, in laboratory conditions the intellectual activity — especiallyJIA — is preceded by the practical activity.

In real JDCA the external conditionsof joint and dialogical kind are determined by the form of educational goalswhich are to be realized by the teacher as goals of education and as goals oflearning by the students. Both assume that individual-practical teachingactivity and the individual-practical learning activity are performed. Internalconditions of JDCA are formed in the process of teaching- learning interactionon the basis of integration of concepts of these activities with followingformation of motive for activity which is common in its form and cognitive inits content. The joint cognition is possible only in presence of commoncognitive motive, with the highest level of the former being joint intellectualactivity.

There is another fact supportingadequacy of laboratory JIA to real JDCA. It is the match of psychologicalmechanisms in formation of both. JDCA as the highest level of development ofcognitive activity in the real educational process and JIA as the highest levelof development of intellectual activity in its laboratory model are formedunder conditions of communication. And communication in this case isrepresented by a psychological formation of two forms: firstly, as a conditionof formation of joint type of activity, i.e. the transformation of individualactivities into the joint activity, secondly, as the condition oftransformation of practical actions into the intellectual activity. Thekeystone of all the mentioned transformations are the processes ofgoal-formation, motive-formation and concept-formation.

Right along with this problem we notethat the topic of workshop in the educational process and its main problems maytransform into the goal of joint cognition under certain specific conditions.Nevertheless, the formation of common goal does not readily mean that itsachievement by each subject directly provides theformation of joint cognitive activity. We need psychological mechanismproviding ‘connection’ of teacher and students activities along with so-called‘docking’ and their transformation into the joint-dialogical cognitiveactivity. Studies have shown that such mechanism is presented by the mutualreconstruction of intermediate cognition goals by the partners, during whichthe reconstruction of a common goal is performed. The process of its assumptionprovides the formation of joint- dialogical cognitive activity.

Hence, if the process ofjoint-dialogical cognitive activity formation is possible as a result of assumptionby the students of the teacher’s cognitive goals, then their mutualreconstruction of intermediate cognition goals and their assumption may beperformed during communication. Consequently, the verbal (vocal) means ofcommunication facilitate the process of reconstruction of cognitive goals ofthe teacher whereas non-verbal communication means (intonation, mimics,gestures) allow to reconstruct teacher’s ‘motive-goal’ relations to thestudents, therefore providing the reconstructed goals with personal concepts.The latter is of utmost importance as it provides the reconstructed and assumed‘alien’ goal with the required entities, thus providing it with activitymeaning. In the end, transfer and transformation of concepts duringcommunication of subjects in learning process allows to understand laws andprinciples of goal formation and motives of joint activity, accounting to whichthe learning process creates the necessary conditions for joint- dialogicalcognitive activity formation.

New explanatory possibilitiesof categorical apparatus of conceptual theory of ideation

Our studies, dedicated totransformation of joint practical activity into joint intellectual activityunder conditions of laboratory experiment revealed a phenomena of pseudo-jointand pseudo-individual intellectual activity. The obtained data allowed us toassume that it is possible to form similar phenomena in other types of activityincluding ones which initially exclude such possibility, as it seems — moreprecisely, various laboratory models of individual activities.

Researchers have noted the phenomenaconnected with distortions of the re- search results concerning individualactivities in laboratory conditions determined by obvious presence ofexperimenter. The main reason of these phenomena is seen by us as formation ofpseudo-individual activity in the research process which evades theexperimenter’s attention because of its ‘pseudo’ attribute.

Let us address the scheme oflaboratory experiment to clarify our assumptions. Traditionally, experimenter’spresence is apparent during the initial stage of preparations for research:giving instructions to the test subjects, etc. Then, during the next phase theexperimenter, as a rule, leaves test subject alone with the task, equipment, etc.It is assumed that along with the development of the test subject’s individualactivity the test subject himself and his activity will be less determined bythe experimenter and, later, when the test subject will be totally engaged inperforming the task with maximal motivation, the experimenter’s influence willbe neglected.

From our point of view, it is thisneglection (having place nearly in every study of individual activity underlaboratory conditions) that creates massive amount of contradictory facts inresearches of individual activities of similar types carriedout by different people. The differences concerning the purity ofexperiment, while influencing the results of experiment, are not the onlyfactor; rather, it is different duration of communication of an experimenterand a test subject. We assume that prolonged communication between them in theprocess of accomplishing task in form of ‘communication’ of test subject withthe imaginary experimenter creates the conditions for formation of common fundof conceptual formations. The latter assumption, meaning the solution ofexperimental task by the test subject with account of proposed opinions andestimates of the experimenter, significantly influences the activity of testsubject himself facilitating its transformation from individual activity intopseudo-individual. Although, as we have already noted, the latter one isactually different psychological reality, it is not the only one experimenteris studying in his programmed research. Obviously, that is why he does notrecognize its actuality and is perceived as collateral variable distorting theexpected results.

Necessity to account for thephenomenon of pseudo-individual activity, which has place nearly in everylaboratory experiment (and in certain field experiments, possibly) as aspecific factor is marked by the results of research concerning the phenomenaof ‘over-activeness’. We assume that the bases of phenomena of‘over-situational activeness’ (Petrovsky, 1975) and ‘intellectual activeness’(Bogoyavlenskaya, 1986) are created by psychological mechanisms similar to theaforementioned.

The over-situational activeness(having the phenomenon of self-denying risk as one of its empirical indicators)has an underlying social factor determined by the dialogical character ofthe structure of experiment. In this study, the dialogical character ofexperiment is provided by the factor of threat, presenting the interconnectingcomponent between the experimenter and test subject, thus establishing a possibilityto create a common fund of conceptual formations. The test subject participatesin the process of creation directly, while the experimenter participatesindirectly through the threat factor. Meaning of V.A. Petrovsky’s experimentsstates exactly that the test subject in the process of activity obtainsadditional activity from the common fund of conceptual formations.

We notice similar psychologicalmechanisms determining additional activity of subject of activity which couldnot be explained by actual motives and needs as the basis for phenomenon of‘intellectual activity’. D.B. Bogoyavlenskaya, who firstly experimentallyseparated and described this phenomenon, sees the intellectual activity ‘ascertain characteristic of creative ideation’ (Bogoyavlenskaya, 1986). Whileseeing in the act of definition ‘highest manifestation of intellectualactivity’ a problem, author sees its sources in the intellectual initiativewhich, in turn, depends on the grade of activeness of cognitive activity,cognitive interest, cognitive needs.

We see the possibility of ‘drawing’additional activity from the common fund of conceptual formations by thesubject as concrete psychological mechanism of subject’s additional activityformation. In this case, the common fund of conceptual formations ofpersonality was formed as a result of ‘internal dialogue’ and communication oftest subject with imaginary assumed partner. Namely, these proposed steps ofassumed adversary increase the number of degrees of freedom of the test subject’sideation, thus providing creativity of his intellectual activity. We mustemphasize that the point of drawing additional activity is in alteration ofhierarchicalsystem of his conceptualformations by the test subject as a result of comparison with the conceptualformations of assumed partner or chess adversary.

All cases analyzed by us presented theignoring of social aspect of the interiorization principle, which wasunderstood by L.S. Vygotsky as the transformation of interpsychic intointrapsychic (Vygotsky, 1983). This fact evidences subjectivity of theresearchers, which ‘locks’ them in the framework of subject-subject analysis ofthe activity. At this time one half of researchers when accidentally meetingthe phenomena of formation of additional activeness in the form ofpseudo-individual activity under conditions of laboratory modeling of activityare trying to neutralize such as an interference. Other researchers intentionallycreate experimental conditions for formation of various forms of over-activeness(‘over-situational activeness’, ‘intellectual activeness’) and search for thetrue sources of such either in subject’s personality traits or in the featuresof the object (problem).

We experimentally revealed varioustypes of pseudo-activities which manifest under conditions of formation anddevelopment of joint activity as specific psychological phenomenon that providenew possibilities for research and clarification of true sources of human’sactivity, including ones which clearly manifest as a form of various above normactivities or unclearly as a form of various distortions of the results ofexperimental laboratory studies of ‘individual activity’ of the test subject.

Conceptual theory ofideation and the problem of giftedness

The experimental studies revealed themechanisms of formation and development of various types of pseudo-activities,which allowed to develop the concept of joint- dialogical cognitive activitypresenting new possibilities for studies and revelation of true sources ofhuman’s activity (Jakupov, 2012). Specific significance is presented by thepotential possibilities of conceptual theory of ideation actualized in the conceptof joint-dialogical cognitive activity (JDCA) and allows us to detect the missingcomponent of the sequence of the problem analysis of abilities genesis alongwith giftedness. Examination of giftedness in the context of joint activityfrom the subject-subject relations point of view allows to understand themechanisms of transformation of dispositions into the abilities.

Nowadays, there exist prevalentconcepts and their modified variants describing essential secondary abilitieswhich are represented as already possessed by the individual. This point ofview misses the highly important factor of pseudo-joint activity, the necessityand possibility of which in the human ontogenesis was established in ourexperimental studies. This means that primary abilities — which are formed inthe process of pseudo-joint activity are not accounted for. At the same time,they may be represented as certain ‘stem abilities’ determining the further developmentof various common and special abilities on their basis. In other words, if wewant to understand the genesis of abilities and giftedness, we have to takeinto consideration the conditions of formation and development of ‘stemabilities’.

The conceptual scheme of giftednessdevelopment is being developed by us in a form of specific intermediate resultof the process of formation and development of abilities which allows toclarify many aspects of giftedness psychology which is considered as anunsolved problem by modern authors. Unsolved problems also include the problemof variability of ‘age-dependent giftedness’ (Leites, 2001), theproblem of interconnection of giftedness and creative activity(Matyushkin, 1991),the problem ofinterconnection of psychic processes and abilities (Panov, 1998), etc.

The description of mechanisms ofgiftedness proposed by us allows to actualize its modern understanding as ofsystemic feature of developing human. This approach actualizes the role ofideation as system-forming factor of the system of cognitive processes itself,while the results of its functioning in certain social environment are fixed asthe system of object’s properties named as personality, individuality,giftedness.

The CIT’s contribution into theresearch of giftedness is not only the vision of giftedness as intermediateresults of pseudo-joint, joint, individual and pseudo- individual activities,but also the refinement of factors determining the psychological structure ofgiftedness.

Ethnical prejudices asmanifestation of conceptual barriers

Ethnical prejudices as a specific formof manifestation of conceptual barriers may cause significant influence on theresults of people’s activity under conditions of polyethnic communication(Jakupov & Nigay, 2005). The ethnical factor — while having greatsignificance in the first days of communication — retreats to secondarypositions in comparison with factors of group interaction which determine theeffectiveness of joint activity and manifesting in the processes oftransformation and alteration of ethnical prejudices.

Manifestation of ethnicalpeculiarities of interacting and communicating per- sons under conditions ofjoint cognitive activity is mainly conditioned by the subjective — conceptualcontents of the common information fund. If the ethnical prejudices are mainlyformed as a result of the process of inter — ethnical interaction itself, thenthe alterations of ethnical prejudices proceed as a result of sequentialassumption by the students of various common funds of conceptual formationswhich accompany their interaction in subject — subject space of their ambientworld.

Results of the analysis of the alterationof ethnical prejudices problem in the process of formation and development ofstudents’ cognitive activity allowed to formulate the following problems:firstly, does the mentioned technique influence the processes of formation anddevelopment of ethnical prejudices; secondly, will the intensification ofbarriers (conceptual and ethno-psychological) slow down the process offormation and development of joint–dialogical cognitive activity which proceedwhile manifesting on the behavioral level of the student’s actions as a form ofethnical prejudices; thirdly, is the process of learning based on thetechnology of joint-dialogical cognitive activity which is able to facilitatemore intensive alteration of the ethnical prejudices of the personality of students.

Purposely for solving theaforementioned problems there was performed experimental-empirical research,consisting of a study of ethnical prejudices arising under conditions ofeducation modeled as a type of joint-dialogical cognitive activity.

In the context of known difficultiesconnected with revelation and measuring ethnical prejudices as a specific typeof personal features which manifest in theprocess of communication and interaction of people under the conditionsof poly-ethnic surroundings, the special experimental research test wasdeveloped. The main idea of this approach is modeling virtual mono-ethnicgroups.

So, the results of experimental studyof the process of alteration of ethnical prejudices in the process of formationand development of students’ cognitive activity allow us to make followingconclusions: firstly, the learning process, based on technology ofjoint-dialogical cognitive activity facilitates more intensive alteration ofethnical prejudices of students’ personalities; secondly, there takes place anintensification of barriers (which are conceptual in their nature andethno-psychological in their form) slowing down the process of formation anddevelopment of joint–dialogical cognitive activity process while manifesting onthe behavioral level of the student’s actions as a form of ethnical prejudices;thirdly, the technology of joint-dialogical cognitive activity does provide actionon the processes of formation and development of ethnical prejudices; fourthly,method of modeling virtual mono-ethnic subgroups for studies of ethnicalprejudices as specific manifestations of conceptual barriers in the process offormation and development of students’ cognitive activity allows to overcomethe experimental boundaries as the ethno- psychological method of research.

It is rather interesting to note thatthe latter aspect — which was firstly noted by W. Wundt — facilitated the greatscientist in developing the idea of possibility and necessity of only twopsychologies (by the end of his scientific career) — physiological psychology(he meant modern experimental psychology) and cultural psychology of nations,which is nowadays called ethno-psychology. Considering this historical fact, wecan — presumably — speak of the method of modeling virtual mono-ethnic groupsunder the conditions of experimental research of ethno-psychological phenomenaand its ability to overcome the Wundt’s contraposition of experimentalpsychology and ethno-psychology.

About mechanisms ofpsychotherapeutic impact

We should assume that emotional stateis actually a certain transitional form of emotional event (phenomenon) whenthe phenomenon ceased to be a process but hasn’t yet become an attribute ofhuman’s personality. Remarkable feature of emotion as a certain state orcondition is in the fact that it can easily transform into the process or intoa feature, thus performing dynamical (tactical) regulation of activity in thefirst case and static (strategic) regulation of activity in the second case.The meaning of any psychotherapeutic intervention (psychotherapeutic impact) isin transformation of fixed properties (including emotional ones) of personalityinto states (including emotional states) and further into process (includingemotional one).

Systemic psychological analysis of theeducational process performed by us al- lows not only to systematize factsobtained by various researchers which state that personal changes in studentsare determined by the process of formation and development of their cognitive activity— but also to make a conclusion that its major form is joint-dialogicalcognitive activity (Jakupov, 2012). This substantiated the followingconclusion: if we desire to study changes in emotional field and personaltraits of teachers in the process of their learning to regulate emotionalstates, then we mustcreate all necessaryconditions for formation and development of joint — dialogical cognitiveactivity.

We selected such forms of organizationof the educational process which to the fullest extent facilitated formationand development of joint-dialogical cognitive activity (JDCA) of teachers. Whenteacher finds himself in the problem situation matching the JDCA type hepresses forward to accomplishment of his goal — solving the problem. But requirementsand norms concerning the means and methods of goal accomplishment which areproposed by the new activity make such teacher to reconstruct his behavior,making its new behavioral samples. New form of activity which stimulates thecognitive process and proceeds as a form of communicative interaction based onformation of ‘common fund of conceptual formations’ (Jakupov, 2012) causesre-thinking of its motivational & axiological components, what can beempirically revealed in the changes of personal features of students. Thatmeans that the JDCA as a form of activity is based on its major psychologicalmechanism — conceptual interaction of participants — which facilitates changes,before all, in axiological & motivational field of the personality, whichcorresponds with changes in the emotional field of personality.

Aforementioned facts firmly conform tothe known empirical fact concluding that the effective psychological correctionof human’s personal features is performed under conditions of immersion intothe social-psychological process of a group interaction. Studies in theframework of JDCA concept have demonstrated that this is possible along withoptimal organization of the psycho-dynamical processes in such groups. In suchcase discrete fixed personal features (specific results of previousforms of subject’s activity) undergo transformation, at first, into the state,mainly emotional in its contents, then into the process of self —cognition and comprehension of newly acquired personal features which, in turn,accomplishes as formation of new personal features. Psychological basis for allaforementioned transformations are the processes of goal formation, motivationformation and concept formation which assure formation, development andassumption of the common fund of conceptual formations by all participants ofsuch groups.

In the proposedexperimental model of special learning of emotional state regulation we outlinethree distinct types of regulation: current regulation, situational regulationand perspective regulation.

Under the framework of this model thedissertational study of T.A. Abdrasheetova was performed. It was centered onactual problem of small dynamics of conceptual formations of personality inyoung people with deviant behavior (addicted to psychoactive substances) in theprocess of psychological counseling (Abdrasheetova, 2008). The effectiveness offormation and transformation of conceptual formations of personality wassubstantiated in such a specially organized activity as joint — dialogicalcounseling (JDC) which realized conceptual approach and was based on theprinciples of development of joint — dialogical cognitive activity (JDCA) withthe personality of counseled subject itself poses as the object of self-cognition. It was established that the dialogue (which is the technique ofconcept — formation and concept — building) in the process of joint —dialogical counseling represents the main method of psychological impact possessingcorrecting and forming influence on the conceptual (personal) level ofregulation of personality’s vital activity.

Conceptual ideation theory, whilestimulating experimental studies in Kazakhstan concerning cognitive processes,possesses possibility to execute further development in numerous studies ofcognitive activity and its problems — which is considered unite system ofcognitive processes — with intellectual activity as the system-forming factor.

References:

Abdrasheetova, T.A. (2008). Dinamikasmyslovykh obrazovaniy lichnosti v processe covmestno-dialogicheskogokonsul’tirovaniya [Dynamics of conceptual formations of individuality inthe process of joint-dialogical counselling] (Doctoral dissertation). Almaty.

Bogoyavlenskaya, D.B. (1986). Intellektual’nayaaktivnost’ kak problema tvorchestva [Intellectual activeness as a problemof creative work]. Rostov-on-Don: Rostov University Publishing.

Brushlinsky, A.V. (1982). Myshleniye kak process i problemadeyatel’nosti [Ideation as a process and a problem of activity]. Voprosypsyhologii [Issues of psychology], 2, 28-40.

Jakupov, S.M. (1985). Tseleobrazovaniyev sovmestnoy deyatel’nosti [Formation of goals in joint activity] (Doctoraldissertation). Мoscow.

Jakupov, S.M. (1992). Psikhologiya poznavatelinoydeyatel’nosti [Psychology of cognitive activity]. Alma-Ata: KazGUpublishing.

Jakupov, S.M. (2012). Psychological structure of educational process:cognitive activity in educational process. Saarbrucken: LAP LAMBERTAcademic Publising GmbH Co.

Jakupov, S.M., Nigay, N.V. (2005). Etnicheskiye predubezhdeniya kakproyavleniya smyslovykh bar’erov [Ethnical prejudices as manifestations ofconceptual barriers]. Vestnik NAPK [NAPK Herald], 4, 5-15.

Leites, N.S. (2001). Vozrastnoy podkhod k detskoy odarennosti [Developmental approach to children’s giftedness]. In V.I. Panov (Ed.). Odarennyedeti: teoriya i praktika [Gifted children: theory and practice] (pp.34-56).

Lomov, B.F. (1984). Metodologicheskiyei teoreticheskiye problem psikhologii [Methodological and theoreticalproblems in psychology]. Мoscow.

Matyushkin, A.M. (1991). Razvitiyetvorcheskoy aktivnosti shkol’nikov [Development of creative activity ofschoolchild]. Мoscow: Prosveshenie.

Panov, V.I. (1998). Nekotorye teoreticheskiye i prakticheskiyeproblem odarennosti [Certain theoretical and practical problems ofgiftedness]. Prikladnaya psikhologiya [Applied psychology], 3,28-39.

Petrovsky, V.A. (1975). K psikhologii aktivnosti lichnosti [About psychology of personality’s activeness]. Voprosy psyhologii [Issuesof psychology], 3, 26-38.

Ponomarev, Ya.A. (1981). Rol’ neposredstvennogo obscheniya v resheniizadach, trebuyushikh tvorcheskogo podkhoda [Role of direct communication insolving creative tasks]. In B.F. Lomov (Ed.). Problemy obsheniya vpsikhologii [Problems of communication in psychology] (pp. 79-91).

Vygotsky, L.S. (1982). Sobraniyesochineniy v 6 tomakh. Problemy obschey psikhologii [Collected works: 6volumes. V.2. Problems of general psychology]. Moscow.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1983). Sobraniyesochineniy v 6 tomakh. Problemy razvitiya psikhiki [Collected works: 6volumes. V.3. Problems of psychics’ development.] Moscow.