Aspects of fostering social educators’ communicative competence: students’ opinions (using an interactive discussion club as an example)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to identify the main factors in fostering social educators’ communicative competence by using an interactive discussion club in the teaching process as an example. To participate in the study, 198 students majoring in Social Work were chosen. The students’ ages ranged from 18 to 42 years old in order to collect as many different opinions from the participants as possible based on their age group and to ensure that the sample is as consistent as possible. The authors used a survey interview with participants based on a questionnaire they created. The study was conducted in the context of a social work degree communication unit in which online discussions were frequently used. The survey found that educators with high communicative awareness also tend to have the following qualities: the ability to assume and play different social roles (15%); the ability to adapt to the collectives of society and situations within them (15%); the ability to master verbal and non-verbal means of communication (15%); the ability to organise and manage the interpersonal space during communication with people (20%); the understanding of value orientations and needs (15%), and the knowledge of public relations methodology (20%). Future research on this topic may aid in comprehending the relationship between students and social educators, Internet technology, and online education. A more in-depth investigation and testing of some improvements to find new variables influencing interactions between teachers and students are planned for the future.

Keywords:

• Communication
• discussion club
• interaction
• online forum
• social educator

Keywords:

• Reza Gholami
• Education and Social Justice
• University of Birmingham
• United Kingdom

SUBJECTS:

• Development Communication
• Educational Psychology, Sociology of Education

1. Introduction

Interaction is an essential factor in the success of any type of educational endeavour. Asynchronous online discussion forums are commonly used in learning management systems (Akyol & Garrison, 2011). Forums allow educators to comprehend and participate in learning activities, while students have time to reflect and formulate responses. An interactive discussion club in education is a platform or forum where participants, such as students or teachers, come together to engage in collaborative and interactive discussions on various educational topics (Chakrabarty et al., 2020). The purpose of an interactive discussion club is to promote critical thinking, knowledge sharing, and a deeper understanding of educational concepts through active participation and dialog. People gain knowledge collectively by collaborating in an asynchronous online environment. Consequently, a well-coordinated educational forum is a valuable instrument for facilitating reflection on learning, sharing information and perspectives, and connecting students and educators (Hamdan, 2014a).

However, forums may experience both periods of inactivity and intermittent message series. Without sufficient feedback, there is only a minimal amount of activity and students may feel alone, which can result in little participation or a discussion that is not deep and engaging enough. Previous research has concentrated on specific enhancements to online discussion forums or includes a list of benefits, challenges, and strategies, as well as their primary outcomes. The relevance of this study is demonstrated by the paucity of studies that identify factors for the growth of social educators’ communicative competence (Domakin, 2013).

Online discussion forums are widely used in universities as an important part of the teaching and learning process (Al-Ibrahim & Al-Khalifa, 2014). Many universities in Saudi Arabia use these forums to supplement traditional coursework in a blended learning setting (Hamdan, 2014b). Social constructivist theory can be applied to an online social environment where forums are incorporated into conventional classrooms. Learning must take place in a social context and be developed through interactions with other students (Vygotsky, 1978). Social interaction is essential for the full development of communicative competence in social educators (Vygotsky, 1978). According to Al-Ismaiel (2013), social constructivist theory ‘is applicable to all educational content and activities’, with online discussion in a social educator environment ‘promoting communication and social skills and encouraging dialogue and collaboration among students as envisaged in social constructivist theory’.

Positive and constructive interactions, characterized by respect, empathy, and understanding, are more likely to foster wellbeing, while violent, aggressive, or emotionally harmful interactions tend to have detrimental effects on an individual’s physical, mental, and emotional health (Mambetalina et al., 2022). Researchers have found that people with more close relationships, social resources, and support are less stressed, happier, and psychologically healthier in offline settings (Alzahrani, 2017), compared to people with fewer close relationships, social resources, and support. This has been used to support the ‘Internet paradox’ (Xia et al., 2013), which holds that increased online interaction reduces wellbeing because it interferes with offline interaction. If time spent interacting online replaces important everyday face-to-face interactions between educators and students, this can have long-term negative consequences for users’ psychological well-being (Domakin, 2013). There is no doubt that ‘excessive’ online activity can have a variety of negative effects on users (cyberbullying, online harassment, trolling, misinformation, privacy concerns, online addiction, and excessive screen time) (He, 2012). It is important to consider these adverse effects alongside the positive ones and to encourage the responsible use of online platforms to mitigate these negative effects.

Thus, the study emphasizes the importance of well-coordinated educational forums in facilitating reflection, information sharing, and connections between students and educators. Despite the prevalence of online discussion forums in universities, the research highlights the existing gap in understanding the factors influencing social educators’ communicative competence.

1.1. Literature review

Social educator education refers to educational programs and initiatives designed to equip students with the skills and competencies necessary for a career in social work. A social educator is a professional who works in a variety of settings to guide and support individuals or groups in developing social skills, knowledge, and abilities to enhance their overall well-being and participation in society (Berg-Weger & Morley, 2020). They work in schools, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, orphanages, boarding schools, and social services. Their main responsibility involves working with a range of complex scenarios including children from disadvantaged families, children with disabilities, children with learning difficulties, and people who have experienced mental trauma (Birkenmaier et al., 2019). Through their work, the social educator promotes the development of a shared culture in individuals and guides the process of adjustment toward positive and constructive outcomes.

One of the most important skills of a social educator is communicative competence, which means the ability to use language effectively and appropriately in different social and cultural contexts to achieve communicative goals. It involves not only conveying information clearly but also establishing rapport, building trust, and facilitating active participation in the learning process (Tursunovich, 2023). Communicative competence, coined by linguist Dell Hymes in response to Noam Chomsky’s concept of linguistic competence, goes beyond mastery of grammatical and syntactic skills (Whyte, 2019). It encompasses the practical and functional aspects of language use, emphasizing the ability to convey meanings, intentions, and messages in real-life situations. According to Hymes, communicative competence involves understanding and applying the rules of language appropriately in specific social and cultural contexts (Abdulrahman & Ayyash, 2019). Hymes’ theory broadened the scope of linguistic analysis by considering the social and cultural dimensions of language use and highlighting the importance of context in understanding communicative competence.

The advantages of online education in higher education have been the subject of numerous studies in recent years (de Lima et al., 2019). Furthermore, the number of students enrolled in online higher education courses is increasing. The rapid expansion of online learning in universities has posed a challenge and necessitated the development and delivery of online courses on par with traditional classes. Learning management systems are the typical environment for online courses. Most of these systems include discussion forum tools. Students and educators can benefit from active participation in discussion forums. Thus, discussion forums fulfil a social function by allowing students to interact with other students and educators, exchange ideas, discuss problems, and collaborate to solve problems (de Lima et al., 2019). In these situations, group interactions serve as the basis for learning; thus, once the learning process has started, social relations govern how knowledge is created. Thus, knowledge is actively constructed through a continuous social exchange between multiple learners participating in social networks (Holmes et al., 2015).

Building connections with people and groups online can help make up for the lack of social resources offline. The growth of social capital has been positively correlated with online interaction (He, 2012). Offline social capital has been shown to reduce dropout rates and increase students’ and educators’ sense of belonging and well-being in academic settings (Jowett, 2015), and members of virtual communities have shown similar benefits (Salter & Conneely, 2015). Overall, research demonstrates that user well-being is impacted by online interactions in both favourable and unfavourable ways (He, 2012).

In the United Kingdom, the discourse on social educators’ communication process deficits evolved from the findings of a number of research reports that revealed consistent failures (Alzahrani, 2017). Studies have been conducted to identify systemic and contextual issues, such as high workload and turnover rates and an over-reliance on technical and bureaucratic aspects of work. This way, they determine the extent and potential causes of communication failures that can happen in everyday communication processes (Khlaif et al., 2017).

Researchers have a more positive view of the effects of Internet use now that they have more recent data. Ismail et al. (2013) say that online interactions between teachers and students can supplement rather than replace face-to-face interactions. Multiple reasons support this argument. First, the Internet helps keep geographically separate networks together. It can keep communities from breaking up too much by giving users access to social support no matter where they live (Ismail et al., 2013). Second, those individuals who have used up most of their offline social resources may find that participation in online groups can be of tremendous benefit to them. Therefore, social educators must recognise the significance of competent communication with their students. This does not just mean being comfortable in front of an audience, but rather in any and all socially significant communication situations.

In another paper (Winter et al., 2017), the authors used two factor analyses to identify three dimensions of competence: empathy (which accounted for 20% of the variance in the study), task completion (30%), and student engagement (50%). One more variable was found. In one study, it was the need to achieve, and in another, it was physical attractiveness. The study only accounted for 35% of the variance, implying that their measurement tool did not account for additional important dimensions of competencies.

1.2. Problem statement

The analysis of scientific articles revealed that a pressing issue in online social educator education is the use of interactive discussion groups. In this study, online education of social educators refers to the academic and professional preparation of students (future social workers) through distance learning tools. There are still few studies in the scientific literature that focus on how social educators’ communication skills can be improved and identify aspects of communicative awareness improvements (Da Silva et al., 2019; Ferri et al., 2020; Gay & Betts, 2020; Onyema et al., 2019).

The purpose of this article is to identify the main factors in fostering social educators’ communicative competence by using an interactive discussion club in the teaching process as an example.

Research objectives are as follows:

- Examine the contribution that interactive discussion clubs make to social educators’ work;

- Identify the social educator’s professional qualities.

- Reveal the factors that shape social educators’ communicative competence.

2. Methods and materials

The research methodology is based on the survey in the format of survey interviews, frequency semantic and structural analysis of data. The selection of appropriate methods indicates that the research design is consistent with basic qualitative approach. This type of research seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study by a deep understanding of students’ perspectives. Collecting students’ opinions and perceptions is an important tool for understanding how they experience online learning and why certain aspects of social educators’ behaviour are important to them. The research was conducted at Saint Petersburg State University and Russian New University, both of which have Social Work programmes. This provided a genuine opportunity to investigate students’ perspectives on their experiences with educators while using the interactive discussion club. Students’ perspectives on social educators’ communicative competences were gathered through an in-depth interview survey. This means that two methods of data collection are summarized into one - survey interview. The frequency and structural semantics of interview texts were examined using qualitative data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods.

2.1. Participants

Five social educators from the universities listed above were chosen, and 198 full-time and part-time students were chosen to meet with each teacher online for one semester. They were randomly selected from lists provided by the administrations. The main selection criterion was that educators should have more than 6 years of university teaching experience. University administrations provided documentation to confirm the qualifications of educators (graduate degree and employment contract). Using a survey interview, each student will evaluate each teacher and highlight the factors of communicative competence development at the end of the experiment.

A random sample of 4-year part-time undergraduate students from Saint Petersburg State University and Russian New University participated in the survey. Fourth-year students have already completed a significant portion of their social work curriculum. This advanced stage in their academic pathway contributes to a more in-depth and knowledgeable assessment of educators’ competencies. Their accumulated knowledge and experience can provide valuable insights into the development of communication competence. The survey was open to students from all the Social Work courses. Social work students were selected as participants in this study because of their relevance to the research on the development of the communication competence of social educators. Social work is a field that relies heavily on effective communication in both academic settings and professional practice. Social work students are immersed in work that involves the development of communication skills, making them appropriate respondents for assessing the communicative competence of educators. All students were invited to participate. Invitations were sent out via e-mail. Individuals who responded were taken to the next stage of the study. 198 undergraduate students (99 from each university) were selected to participate in the study in order to create a sample that was balanced in terms of gender and age. The study did not examine the possibility of a gender or age-related effect on the opinions of the participants, so the sample was composed of an equal number of male and female participants from each university. The students’ ages ranged from 18 to 42 years old, with a fairly even distribution of participants’ ages. Table 1 provides more information about the participants’ demographics.

Table 1. Sample participants’ demographics.

Age	Saint Petersburg State University		Russian New University
	Male	Female	Male	Female
18–26	17	18	17	18
27–35	17	17	16	17
35–42	15	15	16	15

2.2. Data collection

Students’ perspectives on a social educator’s communicative competence were gathered through survey interviews lasting an average of one hour. The procedure was conducted according to predetermined ethical principles (ensuring participant confidentiality and obtaining informed consent). The appropriateness of the questionnaire’s questions was one such principle. The questions were designed to reveal respondents’ objective opinions while minimising the influence of subjective factors. This included asking clear and specific questions and avoiding leading or biased questions. The principles of validity and competence in data collection were followed. The primary limitation of the survey was the inability to use the collected data for purposes other than research. The norms of confidentiality and individual respect were followed.

Formal approval was first obtained from the universities, followed by individual informed consent from each participant. The relationship between the participants and the researcher was essential to establishing a safe environment in which the students could share their experiences. The relationship between researchers and participants involved no more interaction than that of the interviewer and interviewee. Following that, each student was scheduled for an interview at a mutually convenient date and time. All interviews were conducted online via an interactive discussion club. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed using Google’s Speech-to-Text API. This helped to decode the interviews for further analysis. The transcripts were formed into separate files. Discussion was facilitated with the help of a questionnaire, which became the basis for the survey, retaining the form of an interview (Appendix A). If necessary, additional questions were asked. The interviews continued until no new patterns or topics could be found in the data. Data saturation was defined as the point where results consistently matched existing question topics and no contradictory or new information emerged.

2.3. Data analysis

Preliminary analysis included interview transcripts and multiple reviews of the transcripts. Following that, analysis included identifying emerging topics, categorising them, and creating summaries of students’ stories. To make the survey easier to complete, colour coding was used, and refinements were made at each stage of the coding process. Similar codes were grouped to form topic categories during the topic analysis, and prominent patterns and relationships between topics were discovered. This system included such categories as correct perception of others, well-developed nonverbal means of communication, showing respect, focus on knowledge, well-developed speaking and writing skills, and tolerance, the ability to assume and play different social roles; the ability to adapt to the collectives of society and situations within them; the ability to master verbal and non-verbal means of communication; the ability to organise and manage the interpersonal space during communication with people; the understanding of value orientations and needs, and the knowledge of public relations methodology.

Frequency semantic and structural analysis of survey interviews was performed using specialised NVivo software. Data processing in the form of descriptive statistics and data visualisation was done using the Microsoft Excel 2019 software package.

After 198 questionnaires from students majoring in Social Work were analysed, the following limitations regarding the use of discussion clubs in online learning environments were found: the article’s broad topic did not permit a detailed examination of social educators’ communication skills.

3. Results and discussion

198 students identified the main aspects of communicative competence and how important they are for the students based on the sessions led by each of the five social educators. Table 2 summarises the findings.

Table 2. Factors that forster communicative competence: using an interactive discussion club in the training of social educators.

Fostering communicative competence
Factors	How important these factors are for students
Correct perception of others	Everyone influences each other in some way in human relationships. Evaluating people based on their image and predicting their behaviour in society will assist teachers in maintaining team communication harmony.
Well-developed non-verbal means of communication	Non-verbal communication methods are required to control the process of communication between students, to establish psychological contact in the group, and to communicate with the deaf and hearing impaired.
Showing respect	Respect is essential for a person’s sense of self-worth in society and for communicating without fear of being judged. Being respected and respectful is the cornerstone of trust between the teacher and the student, enhancing the mental health and well-being in the environment.
Focus on knowledge	Students value the social educator’s knowledge of their field because they want to receive accurate, verified, and validated information.
Well-developed speaking and writing skills	A person’s well-breed speech suggests that they know how to express themselves clearly and understandably: this will help students to understand everything and to take proper notes.
Tolerance	Tolerance for others is yet another crucial element in communication. Tolerance for one another should increase as we become more aware of how unique everyone is and how each person approaches the world in their own unique way.

According to Table 2, social educator qualities such as correct perception of others, well- developed nonverbal means of communication, showing respect, focus on knowledge, well-developed speaking and writing skills, and tolerance are important for students during online learning. All of this demonstrates the importance of students feeling calm, confident, and secure when communicating. Table 2 shows that the importance of good perception lies in its role in shaping human relationships. Participants emphasized the need for teachers to understand the complex dynamics affecting people within a group. The ability to predict behavior based on accurate perception is seen as a tool to promote harmony in team communication, reflecting the interconnectedness of people in the learning environment. The importance of non-verbal communication goes beyond its traditional understanding. Participants emphasize its role in managing the communication process between students and strengthening psychological bonds within the group. Moreover, recognizing its importance in communicating with people who are deaf or hard of hearing emphasizes its inclusive nature. Respect is seen as a fundamental element of human interaction, affecting a person’s sense of self-worth. Participants delve into the psychological implications, emphasizing that a respectful environment allows for open communication without fear of judgment. Moreover, tolerance is positioned as a dynamic element of communication that develops as awareness of individual uniqueness grows. Responses emphasized the need to expand tolerance in line with a growing awareness of different points of view. Student quotations are presented to support these findings:

Student1: ‘When my social educator accurately understands our perspectives, it makes me feel heard and valued. It fosters a sense of connection and mutual respect.’

Student2: ‘Nonverbal cues play a huge role. A social educator who uses gestures, facial expressions, and body language effectively helps bridge the virtual gap, making the class more engaging and dynamic.’

Student3: ‘Respect is crucial in any learning environment. When a social educator treats students with respect, it sets a positive tone for the entire class and encourages open communication and collaboration.’

Student4: ‘I appreciate when my social educator is knowledge-driven. It enhances the learning experience, and it’s reassuring to know that our educator is well-versed in the subject matter. It boosts our confidence in the quality of education we receive.’

Student5: ‘In an online class with diverse perspectives, a tolerant social educator creates an inclusive atmosphere. It encourages students to express themselves without fear of judgment, fostering a positive and supportive learning community.’

At the end of the study, based on the results of the interview, the students were given a list of qualities that a professional social educator should have. Figure 1 illustrates how they characterise the qualitative side of communicative competence and what qualities (percentage) a social educator should have.

Figure 1. Qualities a social educator should have according to the students surveyed.

A diagram that illustrates how students characterise the qualitative side of communicative competence and what qualities.

According to the findings, as shown in Figure 2, the important aspects of a social educator’s communicative competence in the interaction during distance learning include the ability to assume and play different social roles (15%); the ability to adapt to the collectives of society and situations within them (15%); the ability to master verbal and non-verbal means of communication (15%); the ability to organise and manage the interpersonal space during communication with people (20%); the understanding of value orientations and needs (15%), and the knowledge of public relations methodology (20%). Students also mentioned empathy (including participation and support), the behavioural adaptability of social educators in relation to students, and the ability to manage online interactions with the audience as indispensable aspects of communicative competence. Interaction management consists of several components that indicate control, power, and general reactions to one another. Variation in behaviour along these dimensions appears to distinguish competent from incompetent social educators. Communicators need to understand how crucial empathy is for successful social functioning. Student quotations are presented to support these findings:

Figure 2. Social educators’ negative qualities according to the students surveyed.

A diagram that demonstrates results of students survey about social educators’ negative qualities.

Student6: ‘We appreciate educators who can adapt their role based on the situation. It makes the online learning environment dynamic and helps us connect with the material in various contexts.’

Student7: ‘Online communication can sometimes feel distant. Educators who can effectively manage the virtual space, creating a sense of closeness and interaction, make the learning experience more personal.’

Student8: ‘Interaction management is multifaceted, involving control, power dynamics, and general reactions. We notice that competent educators distinguish themselves through varied behaviour in these dimensions. It’s evident that a deep understanding of the importance of empathy is fundamental for successful social functioning, especially in online learning environments.’

During the interview, the students were also asked what qualities a social educator should not have. They responded that the worst traits of a teacher could be partiality and bias in judging students’ behaviour and personalities, refusal to accept a viewpoint that is different from one’s own, irritability in communication, acting superior to students, and a lack of necessary knowledge and general erudition (Figure 2).

Thus, as people gain a better understanding of the value of competence-based learning, it is becoming clear that communicative competences are crucial. Indeed, it is through communicative behaviour that people find common ground and learn to understand and accept one another. Although it is still in development, the idea of communicative competence for social educators serves as a theoretical framework to direct the instruction of practical communicative skills.

This study proves the importance of possessing communicative competence among social educators. Previous research has shown that using online forums can improve students’ academic performance as well as their interactions with social educators (Hew & Cheung, 2010). Communication with teachers was deemed a success by the students who participated in this study. Two factors of communication competence, social discernment and open-mindedness, were identified through self-assessment and expert observation in the study examined (Lloyd, 2011). These findings are in line with those of Wilkinson and Barlow (2010), who proposed seven communicative competence dimensions as essential for successful intercultural learning and subsequent intercultural adaptation. These include: demonstrating respect (similar to the aspect of belonging/support); interaction position (description versus evaluation, similar to ‘ownership statements’); focus on knowledge; empathy; self-centred behaviour (rather than other-centred); interaction management; and tolerance for ambiguity.

Another primary ‘descriptor’ of communicative competence is: ‘An effective communicator will be perceived as oriented towards others’ (Wei et al., 2015). Another option for social educators’ communicative competence growth was identified as having three components: adaptation to others, commitment to messages, and empathic listening. One study discovered that ‘competent’ interaction management induced greater attraction to target people by its subjects than ‘incompetent’ interaction management when the same targets were manifested, regardless of background similarity manipulation (Riad et al., 2013). While the importance of orientation to others in communicative competence has been emphasized, research on online learning has delved into the specific qualities and skills that students consider crucial to effective communication with social educators. The current study also provided practical ideas for incorporating communication competency development into social educators’ curricula, albeit with the acknowledged limitation of a broad research topic. The study of communicative style is of interest to pedagogical competence researchers. Communicative competence and communicative style are conceptually related in the sense that differences in communicative style result in judgements about competence (Mayan et al., 2014). There were nine style variables identified: dominant (the best predictor of communicator image), dramatic, animated, open, argumentative, relaxed, friendly, attentive, and leaving an impression – the results differed from those in this study. Clearly, there is considerable overlap between these style variables and the various behavioural parameters of social educators studied in the context of competencies. The current study reveals that communicative awareness pairs well with qualities such as the ability to assume different social roles, adapt to collectives and situations, master verbal and non-verbal communication, organize interpersonal space, understand value orientations and needs, and know public relations methodology. While both studies touch upon the importance of communication in education, they differ in their specific focuses and outcomes. This study explores students’ perceptions and emphasizes the practical implications for social educators in an online training environment. It is more narrowly focused on online training, potentially limiting generalizability. It lacks detailed communicative style variables and is limited in examining social educators’ communication competence due to the broad article topic.

Despite the differences in the listed competency components, there are clear similarities between the data from this study and other studies on the topic on several dimensions, all of which were identified using various research strategies. According to this study, empathy (including participation and support) is the most significant aspect of communicative competence because it was mentioned by every participant in some way (Naranjo et al., 2012). Several studies reviewed here found social educators to be behaviourally adaptable (Nandi et al., 2012). With a growing understanding of the value of competency-based learning, it has become clear that communicative competencies are critical because it is through communicative behaviour that people find common ground and learn to understand and accept one another. Clearly, for any type of education to be successful, students and teachers must possess a minimum level of communication competence in order to receive, comprehend, and apply the lessons’ essence.

4. Conclusions

Students’ assessments of their social educators’ communicative competence as revealed in the online training were collected. Students identified the main aspects of communicative competence and the importance of these aspects for the students after attending classes led by each of the five social educators. For students, social educator qualities such as correct perception of others, well-developed non-verbal means of communication, showing respect, focusing on knowledge, well-developed speaking and writing skills, and student tolerance are important. All of this suggests that it is critical for students to communicate while feeling at ease, secure, and confident.

Additionally, it became evident from the student survey that communicative awareness pairs well with the following qualities: the ability to assume and play different social roles (15%); the ability to adapt to the collectives of society and situations within them (15%); the ability to master verbal and non-verbal means of communication (15%); the ability to organise and manage the interpersonal space during communication with people (20%); the understanding of value orientations and needs (15%), and the knowledge of public relations methodology (20%). Social educators can now take advantage of these aspects of communicative competence development to enhance their curricula to better prepare students for the demands of real-world social communication situations.

While still in development, the concept of communicative competence of social educators is a theoretical model to guide the teaching of practical communication skills. The task at hand is to apply this model to various levels of curriculum development in educational institutions. The paper adds to the body of knowledge about the advantages, challenges, strategies, and improvements for educational forums and communication opportunities for social educators. Hence, the practical significance of the paper is that it can serve as the foundation for future research on the subject. Future research on this topic may aid in comprehending the relationship between students and social educators, Internet technology, and online education. These findings can assist social educators in analysing and improving their communicative competencies. A more in-depth investigation and testing of some improvements to find new variables influencing interactions between teachers and students are planned for the future.

4.1. Recommendations

Based on the ratings of the semi-structured interviews, the desirable and undesirable communication traits of a social educator from the perspective of the trainees were identified, as were the factors of communicative competence development for social educators. Therefore, social educators should recognise the significance of competent communication with their students. This includes being comfortable not only in front of an audience but in any socially significant communication situation. The findings highlight the need to further develop social educators’ communicative competence in several critical areas. These areas include the ability to manage online communication processes, ensure a sense of safety and engagement during interactions, and be flexible in their behaviour when interacting with different audiences, social groups, and situations, including conflict. According to research, these experiential situations necessitate social educators developing empathy, adapting their behaviour from situation to situation, and conducting conversations in a mutually satisfying environment.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Data will be available on request.

Additional information

Funding

Khaleel Al-Said is grateful to the Middle East University, Amman, Jordan for the financial support granted to cover the publication fee of this research article.

Notes on contributors

Khaleel Al-Said

Khaleel Al-Said, PhD, associate professor in Department of Educational Technology, Middle East University, Amman, Jordan. His research interests include the study of communication between students and teachers and their interaction during the educational process.

Irina Semenycheva

Irina Semenycheva, PhD in engineering, associate professor in Department of Medical Informatics and Statistics, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia. The field of her scientific interests includes the study of the communication competence of teachers in higher educational institutions.

Liia Voronova

Liia Voronova, PhD in sociology, assistant professor of the Department of Nursing Management and Social Work, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia. Her research interests include the study of communication between members of a discussion club and an online forum.

Appendix A

1. Describe what qualities you think a social educator should have when dealing with people and why

2. Does online learning make students and educator feel closer or more distant from each other? Why do you think so?

3. What qualities in communicating with an educator may discourage you and why?

4. Do you advocate continuous communication through social media with your teachers? What circumstances and factors influenced your choice?

5. What benefits do you believe knowledge of communicative competence has for social educators?

6. Which of the above benefits is the most significant?

7. What barriers to communication with the educator have you encountered during online learning? What are the ways to solve them?

8. Describe your general experience of communicating with social educators.

9. Were there any variations in the way each teacher delivered the lectures? Could you communicate with everyone in a calm and relaxed manner?

Research Participant Questionnaire.

Age
Major