A comparative analysis of professionally oriented opinion-sharing dialogue and discussion in teaching English to future power engineers

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-4984.2026.359563

Keywords:

teaching, English for Specific Purposes, professionally oriented opinion-sharing dialogue, professionally oriented discussion, power engineers, technical specialities, communicative competence, oral communication, English first additional language, teaching methodology

Abstract

The article presents the results of a thorough theoretical and methodological study devoted to the functional and structural differentiation between two key types of professional spoken interaction: professionally oriented opinion-sharing dialogue and professionally oriented discussion. The methodological need to implement professionally oriented opinion-sharing dialogue training in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) lessons for third-year undergraduate students in power engineering specialities is substantiated by the transition to the study of highly specialised disciplines and the need to prepare future professionals for international engineering cooperation in the energy sector. The work proposes a systematic comparison between professionally oriented opinion-sharing dialogue and professionally oriented discussion based on 20 parameters that cover functional, structural, psychological, and ethical aspects of professional oral communication. Attention is also paid to the features of implementing these types of dialogue in distance and blended learning formats, which have become popular in modern higher education institutions worldwide. It has been identified that professionally oriented opinion-sharing dialogue is a fundamental cognitive tool for the collaborative development of innovative technologies and engineering projects, modernisation of power systems, and coordination of technical work within a globalised professional environment. A comparative analysis of the parameters proposed in the present article reveals that professionally oriented opinion-sharing dialogue is a flexible, cooperative interaction characterised by spontaneous exchange, indirect disagreement, and the pursuit of shared consensus without requiring a facilitator. Conversely, professionally oriented discussion is a strictly regulated, competitive debate necessitating a facilitator, prepared argumentation, and rigid turn-taking to establish the superiority of a single perspective. The results of the study enable ESP lecturers to more accurately differentiate methodological tools and create exercises that meet the real demands of the modern energy industry. It has been proven that incorporating such approaches contributes to the holistic development of professional foreign-language (English) communicative competence in students at technical faculties. The paper’s practical value lies in the possibility of using the developed criteria to create innovative educational materials (potentially) based on authentic videos in English, i.e. thematically relevant movies and programmes, to develop the professional English spoken interaction skills of the mentioned students. This will enable the educational process to closely mirror the real conditions of international professional communication, thereby enhancing the readiness of future power engineers to solve professional tasks

References

  1. Saienko, N., Shevchenko, M. (2020). Authentic Videos in Teaching English to Engineering Students at Universities. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19 (8), 350–370. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.8.19
  2. Moreira Mejía, L. L., Alcívar Loor, T. F. (2024). Using Group Discussion as a Strategy to Promote Speaking Fluency in the Ecuadorian University EFL Classroom: Students’ Benefits and Teachers’ Challenges. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 7 (6), 7777–7800. https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v7i6.9310
  3. Crisianita, S., Mandasari, B. (2022). The use of small-group discussion to imrpove students’ speaking skill. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 3 (1), 61–66. https://doi.org/10.33365/jeltl.v3i1.1680
  4. Jiang, L., Paulino, F. B. (2024). Rethinking Communicative Language Teaching in College English Teaching: Strategies and Lesson Plan. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 15 (2), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1502.29
  5. Haliwanda, U. (2021). The effect of using the communicative language teaching (CLT) approach in teaching speaking. Elite Journal, 8 (2), 40–53. Available at: https://journal.uin-alauddin.ac.id/index.php/elite/article/view/24347
  6. Xu, K., Echiverri, L. L., Shang, H. (2020). Class Discussion and Class Participation: Determination of Their Relationship. 6th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd′20). Valencia, 651–658. https://doi.org/10.4995/head20.2020.11121
  7. Ahmad, C. V. (2021). Causes of Students’ Reluctance to Participate in Classroom Discussions. ASEAN Journal of Science and Engineering Education, 1 (1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.17509/ajsee.v1i1.32407
  8. Al-Buraiki, S. A. (2025). Peer Collaborative Dialogues: Perceptions and Attitudes of EFL Students and Teachers. World Journal of English Language, 16 (2), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v16n2p180
  9. Ramasamy, S. A., Zainal, A. Z. (2023). Facilitating the construction of knowledge collectively through dialogic discourse: teachers’ perspectives and practices in english language teaching. TEFLIN Journal-A Publication on the Teaching and Learning of English, 34 (1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v34i1/79-96
  10. Zhang, L. J., Zhang, D. (2020). Dialogic discussion as a platform for constructing knowledge: student-teachers’ interaction patterns and strategies in learning to teach English. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00101-2
  11. Romios, L., Musthafa, B., Lengkanawati, N. S. (2024). Students’ perceptions of the implementation of dialogic teaching for improving speaking skills at a university in West Java. English Review: Journal of English Education, 12 (2), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v12i2.9531
  12. Jocuns, K. (2021). Dialogic Teaching as a Way to Promote Students’ English Language Use in EFL classroom. Pasaa, 62 (1), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.pasaa.62.1.7
  13. Heron, M., Dippold, D., Husain, A. (2021). How dialogic is the online space? A focus on English speaking skills. TESL-EJ, 25 (3), 1–11. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1331741.pdf
  14. Shevchenko, M. (2024). The ‘Think-Pair-Share’ technique in teaching engineering students English dialogic speech production. Proceedings of the 4th International Online Conference ‘Corpora and Discourse’. Kyiv, 140–143. Available at: https://corpora.kamts1.kpi.ua/cad/paper/view/32065/18840

Downloads

Published

2026-05-29

How to Cite

Shevchenko, M. (2026). A comparative analysis of professionally oriented opinion-sharing dialogue and discussion in teaching English to future power engineers. ScienceRise: Pedagogical Education, (2(67), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-4984.2026.359563

Issue

No. 2(67) (2026)

Section

Pedagogical Education

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Mariana Shevchenko

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Our journal abides by the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License copyright rights and permissions for open access journals.

Authors, who are published in this journal, agree to the following conditions:

1. The authors reserve the right to authorship of the work and pass the first publication right of this work to the journal under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows others to freely distribute the published research with the obligatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.

 2. The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive work distribution in the form in which it has been published by the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.

3. Authors have the right to store the final accepted version of the article in an institutional, thematic, or any other repository to ensure visibility and accessibility.