Discourse homeostasis as a teacher’s tool: transition from personal concepts to expert terminology

Introduction. Despite the declared transition to student-centered approach within the modern pedagogical paradigm, higher education continues to face a key contradiction between the declared commitment to dialogue and institutional inequality, as well as a gap between students' personal experience and the strict language of academic disciplines. This leads to the formal acquisition of terminology without deep comprehension. As a solution, the operationalization of the model of educational discourse is proposed, which views learning as a movement from personal concepts to professional terms through a stage of collective negotiation.
Materials and methods. The study employed the modeling method to operationalize the theoretical model of discursive homeostasis. A system of linguo-didactic techniques of rediscursification was developed (synonymization, exemplification, comparison, denomination, definition). Empirical testing was conducted using qualitative discourse analysis and structured observation based on translation classes involving 42 students.
Results. A practice-oriented model for managing discursive homeostasis was developed, transforming the teacher's role from a knowledge transmitter to a manager of discursive ecosystems. It was revealed that the targeted application of rediscoursification techniques facilitates the transition of educational discussion from the Discourse of Differences (clash of personal concepts) to the Discourse of Concord (formation of a collective notion) and further to the Discourse of the Expert Community (legitimation of the canonical term).
Discussion and conclusions. The proposed model and toolkit represent a practical response to the need for transitioning to student-centered, dialogic teaching. They allow for managing the process of knowledge internalization, promoting not only the acquisition of terminology but also the formation of students’ professional identity. The study opens prospects for adapting the model to the digital environment and various subject areas.

1. Antonova N. A. Pedagogical Discourse: Techniques of Dialogization in Teacher Speech with the Aim of Optimizing Pedagogical Communication. Voprosy sovremennoj pedagogiki i psihologii: svezhij vzglyad i novye resheniya: sb. nauch. trudov po itogam mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. Tom 3. Ekaterinburg, 2016. Pp. 109-112. (In Russ.)

2. Bahtin M. M. Issues of Literature and Esthetics. Moscow, Hudozhestvennaya literature Publ., 1975. 502 p. (In Russ.)

3. Vaganova O. I., Prohorova M. P., Karpova M. A. Implementation of Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education Institutions. Karel'skij nauchnyj zhurnal, 2019, vol. 8, no. 2 (27), pp. 56-58. (In Russ.)

4. Vygotskij L. S. Pedagogical Psychology. Moscow, Pedagogika Publ., 1992. 480 p. (In Russ.)

5. Goncharova L. M., Kovshova N. V. Speech strategies and tactics in pedagogical discourse. YAzyk. Kul'tura. Kommunikaciya: izuchenie i obuchenie: sbornik nauchnyh trudov VI Mezhdunarodnaya nauchno-prakticheskaya konferenciya; 20–21 okt. 2022 g. Orel, Kartush Publ., 2022. Pp. 181-187. (In Russ.)

6. El'kina I. YU. Dialogue as a tool for activating students in the context of using electronic educational technologies. Social'no-gumanitarnoe znanie v epohu elektronno-setevyh vzaimodejstvij: materialy nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii (g. Moskva, 13 dekabrya 2019 g.). Moscow, CHOUVO «MU im. S. YU. Vitte» Publ., 2020. Pp. 47-51. (In Russ.)

7. Kaplunenko A. M. Concept – Notion – Term: Evolution of Semiotic Entities in the Context of Discursive Practice. Aziatsko-Tihookeanskij region: Dialog yazykov i kul'tur: materialy mezhdunar. konf. Irkutsk, 2007. Pp. 115-120. (In Russ.)

8. Kaplunenko A. M. On the Advantages of the System-Activity Approach to Pedagogical Discourse. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta, 2012, no. 4, pp. 175-178. (In Russ.)

9. Kaplunenko A. M. Federal / Federalism: From Concept to Notion and Term. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta, 2012, no. 2s (18), pp. 16-21. (In Russ.)

10. Kaplunenko A. M., Van H. Archival Statement as a Semantic Center of Business Litigation. Mir nauki, kul'tury, obrazovaniya, 2023, no. 2 (99), pp. 410-415. (In Russ.)

11. Kemerova N. S. Designing an Individual Trajectory for Learning a Foreign Language in a Technical University. Vestnik TGPU, 2010, no. 2 (92), pp. 53-57. (In Russ.)

12. Kisel' O. V., Butova A. V. Student-Centered Approach in Higher Education: Advantages and Disadvantages. Sovremennye naukoemkie tekhnologii, 2020, no. 12 (1), pp. 166-170. (In Russ.)

13. Kisel' O. V., Dubskih A. I., Butova A. V. Difficulties in Applying the Student-Centered Approach in Russian Higher Education. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii, 2020, vol. 29, no. 8/9, pp. 95-103, doi: 10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-8-9-95-103. (In Russ.)

14. Krapivkina O. A. Discourse of Coordination as a Result of Integration of Communicants' "Possible Worlds" (Based on Court Speeches). Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki, 2018, no. 2 (55), pp. 45-50. (In Russ.)

15. Minnibaeva G. E., Procenko D. S., Taradina L. D., SHalamkov S. A. Trends in the Development of Student-Centered Higher Education in Russia. Vestnik Moskovskogo gorodskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Seriya: Pedagogika i psihologiya, 2014, no. 3 (29), pp. 19-31. (In Russ.)

16. Sergeeva T. V., Samsonova N. V. Didactic means of developing constructive speech behavior of future teachers in conflict situations of professional activity: tactics and strategies. Vestnik Mininskogo universiteta, 2025, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 4, doi: 10.26795/2307-1281-2025-13-2-4. (In Russ.)

17. Sergeeva T. V., Samsonova N. V. Implementation of constructive speech behavior of a teacher in a conflict educational environment. Pedagogika. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2023, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 918-925, doi: 10.30853/ped20230135. (In Russ.)

18. Horon'ko L. YA. Methodological Foundations of a Student-Centered Approach in Education. Vestnik Doneckogo pedagogicheskogo instituta, 2017, no. 3, pp. 55-61. (In Russ.)

19. SHCHurik N. V., Kaplunenko A. M., Vedernikova T. I. On the Translation of Terms of Hybrid Institutional Discourse. Filologicheskoe znanie v sovremennom mire: vzglyad iz Rossii i Indii: sbornik nauchno-metodicheskih trudov, Irkutsk, IGU Publ., 2024. Pp. 256-260. (In Russ.)

20. Anesa P. Popularization and democratization of knowledge through blawgs. Iperstoria, 2018, vol. 12, pp. 155-168, doi: 10.13136/2281-4582/2018.i12.400.

21. Boginskaya O. Popularizing in legal discourse: What efforts do Russian judges make to facilitate juror’s comprehension of law-related contents? Discourse studies, 2022, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 527-544, doi: 10.1177/14614456221108585.

22. Boginskaya O. A. Popularization strategies in eliminating knowledge asymmetry in expert-lay discourse. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie, 2023, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 164-174, doi: 10.15688/jvolsu2.2023.2.13.

23. Ciapuscio G. E. Formulation and reformulation procedures in verbal interactions between experts and (semi-)laypersons. Discourse Studies, 2003, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 207-223, doi: 10.1177/1461445603005002004.

24. Doyle T. Helping students learn in a learner-centered environment: a guide to facilitating learning in higher education. Stylus Publishing, LLC, 2008. 194 p.

25. Keiler L. S. Teachers’ roles and identities in student-centered classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 2018, vol. 5, p. 34, doi: 10.1186/s40594-018-0131-6.

26. Khoury O. Perceptions of student-centered learning in online translator training: findings from Jordan. Heliyon, 2022, vol. 8, no. 6, p. e09644, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022e09644.

27. Li L. C., Grimshaw J. M., Nielsen C. Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice. Implementation Science, 2009, vol. 4, p. 11, doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-11.

28. Rapanta C. Can teachers implement a student-centered dialogical argumentation method across the curriculum? Teaching and Teacher Education, 2022, vol. 105, p. 103404, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2021.103404.

29. Sterk F. M., Van Goch M. M., Burke M., Van der Tuin I. Baseline assessment in writing research: A case study of popularization discourse in first- year undergraduate students. Journal of Writing Research, 2022, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 35-76, doi: 10.17239/jowr- 2022.14.01.02.

30. Tang K. H. D. Student-centered approach in teaching and learning: What does it really mean? Acta Pedagogia Asiana, 2023, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 72-83, doi: 10.53623/apga.v2i2.218.

31. Wenger E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1998. 32. Wenger E. Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. Blackmore C. (ed.) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. Springer London, 2010. Pp. 179-198. 33. Zethsen K. Intralingual Translation: An Attempt at Description. Meta, 2009, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 795-812. 34. Zhang L., Basham J. D., Carter R. A., Zhang J. Exploring factors associated with the implementation of student-centered instructional practices in U.S. classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2021, vol. 99, p. 103273, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103273.