Institute of Education

Discourse and ideology are interrelated concepts in social sciences and the humanities and are even occasionally employed interchangeably. This paper sheds light on their relationship in academic discourse and examines the role of sociology as a scientific field in its conceptualization. Using bibliometric analysis, we examined 15,716 academic publications mentioning “discourse” or “ideology” in their title and written in English by American and British scholars between 1966 and 2015. The investigation focused on the two terms’ conceptual environment, areas of usage, journals, and the organizations to which the authors were affiliated. First, we conclude that although some sociology researchers have attempted to create a sociological definition for the concept of discourse, sociologists are not its most active users. The same is true for ideology. These concepts have established niches in other disciplines (political science and history for “ideology,” and educational science and linguistics for “discourse”). Second, throughout the years, the field of discourse studies has become more diversified and fragmented than that of ideology. Third, the leading organizations in both fields are prestigious American and British universities, which indicates that discourse and ideology are elements of the intellectual elites’ language. Fourth, the concept of discourse was more frequently applied than that of ideology in the years 2010–2015, and we expect that it will remain popular among scholars in the next decade. As for ideology, we believe that new social challenges could foster the rediscovery of this concept in the near future.

This study focuses on the practice of using digital interactive materials by history teachers in grade 5. Despite the fact that digital technologies penetrate the modern child's outward things from the first years of life, their integration into schooling is still accompanied by difficulties for teachers. The existing studies indicate restrictions on access to quality equipment and software, which impede the effective interaction of teachers and students with digital materials in the lesson. In this regard, the urgent task is to analyze approaches to the lesson organization and identify problems encountered by teachers who use digital interactive materials in the lessons.

The study is carried out in a qualitative paradigm. The empirical evidence was obtained using the method of semi-formalized interviews and observations. A total of 6 observations and 6 interviews were collected with history teachers in middle school who applied the digital module in the lesson with students in grades 5. The digital module that was used in history lessons was developed by the Sberbank Gamification Laboratory. The module is dedicated to Ancient Greece, the data was collected in the middle of the school year (December 2019-February 2020) directly during the study of this topic as part of a school history curriculum.

As part of the observation, we focused on the interaction of the teacher, students and the digital module in the lesson. It was found that even using digital materials, many teachers prefer the front-end method of organizing the lesson, and therefore students are not able to study the material independently at their own pace. Nevertheless, regardless of the form of organization of work in the lesson, the interaction with the module caused increased interest among students and was positively evaluated by teachers. Interviews show that teachers note the convenience and willingness to work with such materials, even in spite of the considerable time spent in preparing and planning the lesson.

In general, teachers were interested in the innovation, emphasized the interdisciplinary nature of the materials and were ready to recommend the module to their colleagues, including teachers of other school subjects. In prospect, we will identify the teacher’s strategies for working with digital interactive materials in the lesson and give recommendations for improving the module and simplifying interaction with it.

Numerical information can be represented in three formats: two symbolic (visual (digits) and verbal (number words)) and one nonsymbolic (analog) format. Studies have shown that the precision of symbolic numerical representation is associated with math performance. The precision of symbolic representation is mostly discussed as the precision of representation in a visual format, whereas the precision of representation in verbal format and its relation with math performance is less studied. The current study examines the precision of symbolic numerical representation in visual and verbal formats and the relationship between such precision and math performance when controlling for prior math performance, nonsymbolic numerical representation, phonological processing, reading skills and working memory. We used data from 367 Russian first graders (mean age, 7.6 years; 53% girls). To assess the precision of symbolic numerical representation, magnitude comparison tasks with digits and number words were used. It was found that the precision of symbolic representation in verbal format did not have a direct effect on math performance, but has an indirect effect via visual format of symbolic representation, even when controlling for prior math performance and other cognitive abilities.