The influence of pedagogical interaction on the quality of foreign-language teaching

Importance. The influence of pedagogical interaction on the learning outcomes of students majoring in foreign languages is examined. The research is relevant since learning a foreign language is aimed at using the latter as a communication tool. A high level of pedagogical interaction is necessary in order to involve students in foreign-language communication with the teacher and other learners, which contributes to the consolidation of foreign-language material in speech. That is why it is relevant to study the existing ways to measure its effectiveness as well as to develop new ones. It is also topical to research its impact on the assimilation of educational material. The purpose of the study is to identify the dependence of learning quality of educational material on the degree of pedagogical interaction formation.

Materials and methods. Pedagogical interaction is defined as interpersonal communication between a teacher and students, which has a transformative effect on them. An analysis of the students’ opinion poll conducted as part of the “Best Teacher through the Eyes of Students” competition, held annually at Peter the Great Saint Petersburg State Polytechnic University, showed that its results can be used to measure the effectiveness of interaction between a teacher and students. The research included the experiment which is conducted in the “Lexical-grammatical consolidation” classes in order to identify the impact of pedagogical interaction on the quality of teaching. During the experiment, in some groups, classes are conducted by teachers who received a low score (C) in the opinion poll, whereas in other groups, classes in a similar format are conducted by teachers who received the highest score (A). The comparison of the diagnostic and final tests’ results revealed the degree to which pedagogical interaction influences the assimilation of educational material.

Results and Discussion. In the groups with a high degree of pedagogical interaction (HDPI), the results of the final test are on average 2,906 points (5,812 %) higher than in groups with a low degree of pedagogical interaction (LDPI), and the increase in the results in the HDPI compared to the diagnostic test is 3,046 points (6,092 %) higher than in the LDPI. This can be explained by the fact that the teachers who worked in HDPI have formed positive relationships with the students due to their high professionalism and their ability to adjust their communication style depending on the audience’s reaction. Since the teachers in HDPI created a positive emotional atmosphere in the classroom, the students’ motivation increased, and they focused on the tasks they performed. In the in LDPI groups, the lack of pedagogical interaction led to misunderstanding between the teacher and the students, which hindered the assimilation of the learning material.

Conclusions. The impact that the effective teacher-student communication has on the assimilation of learning material indicates that it is relevant to develop such tools for measuring pedagogical interaction, as video recordings of classroom sessions and questionnaires with open-ended questions. The students’ answers to them will allow teachers to determine which aspects of pedagogical communication they should review. In addition, further research is needed to identify in more detail the components of pedagogical interaction that affect its quality to a greater or lesser extent. The results of the study indicate that the quality of learning material assimilation depends on the quality of pedagogical interaction. The research results can be used in teaching other subjects.

1. Anan’ev B.G. (2001). Man as an Object of Knowledge. St. Petersburg, 288 p. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qxabyz

2. Wang Ch., Wang Ya., Xiao A., Zhang Ya., Zou H. (2025). Student development in teacher–Student interaction: Evidence from a randomized experiment in online education. Journal of Public Economics, vol. 242, art. 105285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2024.105285, https://elibrary.ru/kezuft

3. Ershova O.V. (2019). Challenging problems of pedagogical interaction in higher education of the Russian Federation. Nepreryvnoe obrazovanie: XXI vek = Lifelong Education: The XXI Century, no. 1 (25), pp. 37- 43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15393/j5.art.2019.4466, https://elibrary.ru/zcjtfb

4. Kodzhaspirov A.Yu., Kodzhaspirova G.M. (2000). Pedagogical Dictionary. Moscow, 173 p. (In Russ.)

5. Popova N.V., Zinov’eva O.V., Vdovina E.K. (2023). Implementation of socially oriented educational goal in foreign language class at university. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 317-333. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2023-28-2-317-333, https://elibrary.ru/ojhqhs

6. Shamov A.N. (2021). Functional literacy of a foreign language teacher and its place in educational paradigms and approaches. Nizhegorodskoe obrazovanie, no. 1, pp. 23-30. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/funnfz

7. Karchava O.V., Efimova A.N. (2013). Choosing the style of pedagogical communication as the most important factor in the effectiveness of teaching a foreign language. Dostizheniya vuzovskoi nauki, no. 4, pp. 59-63. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/refjtp

8. Thornberg R., Forsberg C., Hammar Chiriac E. (2022). Teacher–Student relationship quality and Student engagement: a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study. Research Papers in Education, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 840-859. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1864772, https://elibrary.ru/jrprdy

9. Dashkina A.I. (2023). Teamwork in the preparation of a foreign language description of an artistic image as a means of forming a connection between the linguistic and discursive components of foreign language communicative competence. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 73-88. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/18100201-2023-28-1-73-88, https://elibrary.ru/acjarx

10. Dashkina A.I. (2023). The development of educational autonomy in the conditions of group work on the author’s electronic manual on a remote educational platform. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 347-361. https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2023-28-2-347-361, https://elibrary.ru/cqaddm

11. Klimova M.V. (2009). Pedagogical interaction: the possibilities of humanization. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Povolzhskii region. Gumanitarnye nauki = University Proceedings. Volga Region. Humanities, no. 4 (12), pp. 131-137. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/lamnml

12. Ushatikova I.I., Khuzin A.G. (2020). Factors to develop efficient “teacher – student” relations in modern school. Pedagogika. Voprosy teorii i praktiki = Pedagogy. Theory & Practice, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 153-157. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30853/pedagogy.2020.2.47, https://elibrary.ru/aiwcaa

13. Roginko E.V. (2020). A teacher’s motivation as a precondition for improving the quality of education. Vysshee obrazovanie segodnya, no. 10, pp. 22-27. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25586/RNU.HET.20.10.P.22, https://elibrary.ru/eqzpdt

14. Abubyakyarova D.A. (2016). Features of public speaking by a high school teacher. Ekonomika i sotsium, no. 3 (22), pp. 13-16. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/wdkemx

15. Zaripova A.Z. (2016). The influence of the teacher’s appearance on the educational process. Innovatsionnaya nauka = Innovation Science, no. 3-2 (15), pp. 137-138. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/vqbejd

16. Gulyakina V.V. (2015). The causes of conflicts between teachers and students in the educational process. Evraziiskii soyuz uchenykh, no. 4 (13), pp. 13-15. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31618/esu.2411-6467.8.53.1, https://elibrary.ru/xdsxxj

17. Zaitsev D.N., Korzhenevskaya M.A., Karpova E.V., Fedorova I.S., Selennova T.V. (2023). Pedagogical assessment as a mechanism for managing the quality of students’ educational activities. Vestnik SanktPeterburgskogo nauchno-issledovatel'skogo instituta pedagogiki i psikhologii vysshego obrazovaniya = Bulletin of the St. Petersburg Research Institute of Pedagogy and Psychology of Higher Education, no. 1 (5), pp. 31-36. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/gxwlyi

18. Chapkin N.S. (2024). Modern pedagogical technologies and methods. Kazachestvo = The Cossacks, no. 75 (2), pp. 137-144. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/uiphvz

19. Dashkina A.I. (2025). Applying online resources and peer guidance in EFL practice classes as means of leveling training in multi-level groups of students majoring in linguistics. Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki = Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 299-320. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2025-30-2-299-320, https://elibrary.ru/oulpet

20. Ivanova L.V. (2020). Competence of self-improvement of the teacher: some aspects of study and formation. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskii zhurnal Gaudeamus = Psychological-Pedagogical Journal Gaudeamus, vol. 19, no. 1 (43), pp. 90-94. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-231X-2020-19-1(43)-90-94, https://elibrary.ru/fowntv

21. Kolomiets O.M. (2015). The organization of teaching material by the higher school teacher in his professional activity. Sechenovskii vestnik = Sechenov Medical Journal, no. 4 (22), pp. 53-62. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/jdzrog

22. Abdurakhmonov R.I. (2014). About some problems of realizing the principle of accessibility. Uchenye zapiski Khudzhandskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. akademika B. Gafurova. Seriya obshchestvenno-gumanitarnykh nauk. = Scientific Notes of Khujand State University Named after Academician B. Gafurov. Series of Humanities Sciences, no. 4 (41), pp. 147-152. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/tmixgv

23. Sysoyev P.V., Evstigneev M.N. (2008). Development of informational competence in teaching foreign languages. Yazyk i kul’tura = Language and Culture, no. 4, pp. 96-109. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/kckjpn

24. Deza E.I. (2018). The essence, structure and content of a higher school teacher’s professionalism. Prepodavatel’ XXI vek, no. 2-1, pp. 50-63. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xtevxn

25. Lebedeva Yu.V. (2012). Development of emotional responsiveness – as the psihologo-pedagogical problem. Mir nauki, kul’tury, obrazovaniya, no. 2 (33), pp. 79-81. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/oxjvxt

26. Moiseeva T.V. (2024). Personalization of education as a new trend of a higher vocational school. Mir nauki, kul’tury, obrazovaniya, no. 1 (104), pp. 78-82. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/1991-5497-2024-110478-82, https://elibrary.ru/hduvab

27. Novikova A.Yu., Shevtsov K.S. (2022). Authority of the teacher as a way to improve the quality of education. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk = International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences, no. 5, pp. 244-246. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/2500-1000-2022-5-1-244-246, https://elibrary.ru/nixxdn

28. Dashkina A.I., Soloshenko M.A. (2022). Advantages of Russian-to-English translation exercises: developing grammar skills in university students of linguistics. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye i obshchestvennye nauki = Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences, no. 4, pp. 297-305. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2542-18402022-6-4-297-305, https://elibrary.ru/mwdptx