Abstract:

The article raises the problem of modern pedagogical partnership in higher education institutions based on various strategies of pedagogical communication. The modern space of pedagogical partnership is based on the anthropocentrism of the 20th century with an orientation towards the subject that defines its identity through its own autonomy. The study reveals that the global transformation of the world requires the formation of educational principles of communication with those who are only discovering their subjectivity, responding to the prerequisites for the generation of humanity. The specificity of the subject of the study determined the use of analysis, synthesis, observation, comparative methods. The study also determines the prospects for the further development of communicative practices of presence in the context of modern requirements of art education.

The communicative component of professional activity becomes leading in achieving successful results in solving new pedagogical tasks, therefore, the tools for implementing the goal in this interaction are adjusted, in particular, communicative strategies in the professional activity of the teacher – explanatory, evaluative, control, organizational, and facilitation strategies.

It is concluded that the concept of «partnership pedagogy» is being updated in domestic pedagogy. Pedagogy of presence activates performative practices and shapes the choice of a communicative strategy in the organization of the educational process. Competence in choosing a communicative strategy allows you to expand the range, improve results and enrich the overall transformational experience in cooperation, to provide optimal creative conditions for pedagogical synergy, manifestations of student initiative.

Keywords: pedagogy of presence, pedagogy of partnership, interaction, production of presence, focus of attention, beauty, communication, strategy.

References:

1. Artemʹyeva, I. (2024). Dydaktychni zasady pedahohiky osobystisno-zoriyentovanoyi vzayemodiyi. [Didactic principles of pedagogy of person-oriented interaction]. Kyyiv.

2. Berezyuk, O. (2012). Metody orhanizatsiyi osobystisno oriyentovanoho navchannya v osvitnʹomu seredovyshchi. [Methods of organizing personally oriented learning in the educational environment]. Kyyiv.

3. Denysyuk, ZH. (2023). Mystetsʹka osvita v umovakh hlobalizatsiyi ta kulʹturnykh transformatsiy suchasnosti. [Art education in the context of globalization and cultural transformations of modernity]. Kyyiv.

4. Domansʹka, YE. (2012). Istoriya ta suchasna humanitarystyka: doslidzhennya z teoriyi znannya pro mynule. [History and modern humanities: research on the theory of knowledge about the past]. Kyyiv.

5. Karpovetsʹ, M. (2018). Performatyvna teoriya kulʹtury: povorot do subʺyekta. [Performative theory of culture: a turn to the subject]. Kyyiv,

6. Lyutyy, T. (2018). Inshyy i Chuzhyy u strukturi lyudsʹkoho YA (M.Buber, E.Levinas, YU.Krysteva). [The Other and the Alien in the Structure of the Human Self (M. Buber, E. Levinas, Y. Kristeva)]. Kyyiv.

7. Mozhova, H., Rudenko, L., Spivak, L.(2023). Uvaha ta yiyi porushennya v konteksti neyropsykholohichnoyi ta biosotsialʹnykh modeley: analiz publikatsiy. [Attention and its disorders in the context of neuropsychological and biosocial models: analysis of publications]. Kyyiv.

8. Pochuyeva, O. (2021). Mekhanizmy orhanizatsiyi pedahohichnoyi vzayemodiyi zi studentamy zakladiv vyshchoyi osvity. [Mechanisms of organizing pedagogical interaction with students of higher education institutions]. Kyyiv.

9. Filonenko, O. (2023). Shcho take produkuvannya prysutnosti. [What is the production of presence]. Kyyiv,

10. Filonenko, O. (2018). Yevkharystychna antropolohiya: krytychnyy analiz [Eucharistic anthropology: critical analysis]. Kyyiv.