DEVELOPING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ COMMUNICATIVE CULTURE IN INTERNET ENVIRONMENTS THROUGH PROFESSIONAL-COMMUNICATIVE TASKS: A METHODOLOGICAL SYSTEM AND ASSESSMENT MODEL
Keywords:
communicative culture, internet environment, professional-communicative task, digital communication, reflection, feedback, transfer, performance-based assessment.Abstract
Communicative activity in an internet environment does not, by itself, indicate that a student has developed communicative culture. Pedagogical outcomes depend on integrating a professional situation, a communicative problem, an addressee, collaboration, feedback, and reflection into a coherent task cycle. This article aims to develop a system of professional-communicative tasks and an assessment model for fostering university students’ communicative culture in internet environments. The study draws on methodological design, thematic synthesis of contemporary national and international literature, operationalization of communicative culture into observable indicators, and principles of scenario-based assessment of authentic communicative performance. Communicative culture is represented by five components: motivational-value, cognitive, communicative, activity-behavioral, and reflective. The article makes no quantitative claims regarding the empirical effectiveness of the intervention; rather, the proposed system is presented as a reproducible methodological framework for subsequent quasi-experimental testing.
References
1. Abdigapbarova, U., Zhienbayeva, N & Baikulova, A. (2025). Monitoring the effectiveness of the model for the formation of network communication culture and digital etiquette teachers and students in the online community of the university. Pedagogy and Psychology, 3(64), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.51889/2960-1649.2025.64.3.004
2. Baimakhan, A., Belgibayeva, G., Sarybayeva, A., Baimakhanova, A., & Iskakova, P. (2024). Formation of communicative competence of students based on the use of digital technologies. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 6(6), 1007–1017. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v6i6.7512
3. Bhandari, L. P., Dahal, N., Awasthi, J. R., & Dhungana, S. (2025). Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A systematic review. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2560051. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2560051
4. Jongsma, M. V., Scholten, D. J., van Muijlwijk-Koezen, J. E., & Meeter, M. (2023). Online versus offline peer feedback in higher education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(2), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221114181
5. Karabayeva, K. (2022). The formation of professional-communicative competence of future foreign language teachers in the context of digitalization. Journal of Educational Sciences, 71(2), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.26577/JES.2022.v71.i2.04
6. Kreijns, K., Xu, K., & Weidlich, J. (2022). Social presence: Conceptualization and measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8
7. Martin, F., Wu, T., Wan, L., & Xie, K. (2022). A meta-analysis on the Community of Inquiry presences and learning outcomes in online and blended learning environments. Online Learning, 26(1), 325–359. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2604
8. Nickerson, C., & Davidson, P. (2024). Using scenario-based assessment in the development of students’ digital communication skills and professional competence. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 87(2), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906241240247
9. Osiyanova, O. M., Burikova, S. A., & Radyuk, A. V. (2024). Technology for improving students’ communicative skills in the university digital educational environment. Training, Language and Culture, 8(4), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-4-24-35
10. Shirmatov, S. T. (2019). The technology of development of a culture of students communication (based on social networks). International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 9(2), 5024–5030. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.B7667.129219
11. Smith, B., & González-Lloret, M. (2021). Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 54(4), 518–534. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000233
12. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
13. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
14. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
15. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
16.Natalya Tokareva “The development of the dialogic culture as a “centaur problem”of the professionalization of the future educators” SHS Web of Conferences 75, 02001 (2020)
17.Svitlana Omelchenko1, Nadiia Chernukha, Yaroslav Spivak, Liudmyla Spivak & Elmira Uteubaeva “Communicative Culture Formation of Future Social Workers in the Educational Process of Pedagogical University” International Journal of Higher Education Vol. 9, No. 4; 2020
18.Igor Yu. Sinel’nikov “Communicative and interactive culture of the modern school teacher: professional requirements, problems, risks” SHS Web of Conferences 9, 01067 (2016)
