DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/1813-4718.1902.15
UDC: 
378+72.06+72.01
Chaplay Taniana Vitalievna
Доктор культурологии, PHD of cultural studies, associate professor at the department of museology, theory and history of culture, Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, chap_70@mail.ru, Novosibirsk

How an architectural space influences the communicative practices of educational process participants

Abstract: 
The influence of methods of educational institutions’ internal space organization rarely becomes an object in the modern science study. The article analyzes the dependence between the forms of communicative practices, presented within the walls of educational organizations, and their correlation with the internal space organization. An educational institution refers to the types of organizations with a rigid system of interaction organization, based on discipline and hierarchy. The rectangular shape of rooms, doors, windows, arranged in strict rows furniture – everything contributes to the object’s rigid fixation in space and control over his behavior, body position and gestures, to building one-sided communicational practices. The author comes to the conclusion that creating a system of transformable interior spaces and mobile furniture would lead to participants of educational process to master more communicative practices of interaction with piers as well as with personnel of educational organizations.
Keywords: 
practices, communication practices, architecture, interior space, education, educational organization, social behavior
References: 

1. Bourdieu, P., 1995. Structures, habitus, practice. Modern social theories: Bourdieu, Giddens, Habermas. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk University Publ., 120 p. (In Russ.)
2. Burmistrova, M. N., 2016. Social practices as a resource for the professional training of teachers. Siberian Pedagogical Journal, No 6, pp. 47–53. (In Russ.)
3. Giddens, E., 2003. The Disposition of Society: essays on the theory of structuration. Moscow: Academic Project Publ., 528 p. (In Russ.)
4. Gutner, G. B., 2008. Meaning as the basis of communicative practices. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, Vol. XVIII, No 4, pp. 44–52. (In Russ.)
5. Day, K., 2000. Places where the soul dwells. Architecture and environment as a remedy. Moscow: Ladya Publ., 280 p. (In Russ.)
6. Zeleeva, V. P., 2009. Pedagogical communications and communication technologies in higher education. Scientific notes of Kazan State University, Vol. 151, No. 5, Part 1, pp. 274–281. (In Russ.)
7. From the history of Russian culture. Vol. IV (XVIII – early XIX century). Moscow: Languages of Russian culture Publ., 832 p. (In Russ.)
8. Kostron, L., 2018. Psychology of architecture. Kharkiv: Humanitarian Center Publ., 340 p. (In Russ.)
9. Krashennikov, A. V., 1988. Residential neighborhood. Moscow: Higher School Publ., 87 p. (In Russ.)
10. Personality-oriented sociology. Moscow: Academic Project Publ., 2004, 608 p. (In Russ.)
11. Nartova-Bochaver, S. K., 2005. Psychological space of the personality. Moscow: Prometheus Publ., 312 p. (In Russ.)
12. Sennet, R., 2016. Flesh and Stone: Body and City in Western Civilization. Moscow: Strelka Press Publ., 504 p. (In Russ.)
13. Smith, R., Bani, V., 2010. Theory of Symbolic Interactionism and Architecture. Sociological Studies Magazine, No 9, pp. 71–79. (In Russ.)
14. Fadeeva, I. E., 2015. Existential Reflection and Cultural Genesis: Cultural Education in the Context of Modernity. News of Saratov University. New series. Philosophy Series. Psychology. Pedagogy, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 65–70. (In Russ.)
15. Foucault, M., 2015. To oversee and punish. The birth of prison. Moscow: Ad Marginem Publ., 416 p. (In Russ.)
16. Khasieva, S. А., 2001. Architecture of the urban environment. Moscow: Stroiizdat Publ., 200 p. (In Russ.)
17. Shutenko, A. I., 2015. The Concept of Building Educational Communications in the System of University Training. Siberian Pedagogical Journal, No 6, pp. 98–104. (In Russ.)