Topic : teacher's roles as facilitator, supervisor, trainer, moderator plan

Approbation of work. The research materials were presented and received a positive assessment at the student scientific-practical conference on the topic: "Creative search for young researchers in modern science" (April 23, 2009); were discussed at the methodological council of the school and, by decision of the directorate, will be used in the work of a psychologist, class teacher; an article was also published on the topic: "Formation of sociability as a necessary professional quality of a teacher" ("Bulletin of KSTU", 2009).

1. Psychological and theoretical foundations of pedagogical communication

1.1 The concept of "communication", the structure and functions of communication. The concept of "pedagogical communication"

Communication, or, as this process is often defined, communication is an extremely broad and capacious concept. This is a conscious and unconscious verbal connection, the transmission and reception of information, which is observed everywhere and always. Communication is many-sided; it has many forms, types. Pedagogical communication is a particular type of communication between people (for example, in comparison with business communication (business communication), family communication, etc.). It has both the general features of this form of interaction and those specific to the educational process. Therefore, before defining pedagogical communication, let us first consider what characterizes communication as a phenomenon as a whole. The problem of the word, speech, speech, the art of the influence of the speaker on the listeners, as you know, has a long history, numbering more than twenty centuries. Many important questions of this problem were raised and considered in the most general form by Cicero. It is he who defined the main communicative (as they would call it now) tasks of the speaker: "what to say, where to say and how to say." Considering each of these tasks, Cicero singled out such a quality of a speech statement as appropriateness, since "after all, not every position, not every rank, not every authority, not every age, and even more so, not every place, time and public allow one to stick to one kind for all cases. thoughts and expressions . In our time, this is one of the basic rules of communication - the rule of dependence of the form and content of the statement on the characteristics of a particular audience. Based on the orator's observance of three tasks - "what, where, how" to say, Cicero also determined the type of speaker, the best embodiment of which was the one whose speech "would be appropriate."

At the same time, communication is a new problem of the 21st century. For, if in ancient Greece and ancient Rome oratory was studied within the framework of rhetoric, heuristics and dialectics, then today speech communication, and pedagogical communication in particular, is already being studied from the point of view of a number of other sciences: philosophy, sociology, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, social psychology, general psychology, pedagogy and educational psychology, each of which considers one or another facet of this generally complex problem. Speech communication is widely researched all over the world. Suffice it to say that in the United States alone, several tens of thousands of scientists are working on this problem. Special centers for the study of communication have been created (for example, the Carnegie Center). At the same time, unity has not yet been achieved in the interpretation of the very concept of "communication", its forms, mechanisms. Naturally, researchers interpret this process in different ways, from different points of view, creating its various models, offering different approaches to its study: communicative-informational, interactive, activity, etc.
From the standpoint of the activity approach, communication is a complex, multifaceted process of establishing and developing contacts between people, generated by the need for joint activities and including the exchange of information, the development of a unified interaction strategy, the perception and understanding of another person. This interpretation of communication is based on the following methodological provisions. Firstly, it proceeds from the recognition of the inseparability of social, commodity-money and interpersonal relations, the means of which or the means of interaction are "... language and money" . This means the interweaving of communication into the system of production, social relations, on the one hand, and the reflection of the nature and content of these relations in communication itself, on the other. It is important to emphasize here that the complexity and perfection of verbal communication make it possible to consider it as such a form "where the general psychological patterns of communication processes appear in the most characteristic, most naked and most accessible form for research . " Secondly, such an understanding of this process is based on the assertion of the unity of communication and activity, assuming that "any form of communication is a specific form of joint activity of people" . This provision makes it possible to qualify communication specific to the pedagogical process as a form of joint educational activity of subjects. At the same time, the assertion of the unity of activity and communication does not imply an unambiguous interpretation of the nature of the connection between these phenomena. They can be considered as aspects of a person's social existence (B.F. Lomov 49 ), as phenomena that are in a genus-species relationship, i.e. communication is a type of activity (G.P. Shchedrovitsky, A.A. Leontiev, V.V. Ryzhov, G.V. Gusev, etc.). In the latter case, the question arises what kind of activity it is: individual or collective. We will proceed from the fact that both forms of activity are possible, but communication itself is not an activity, but a form of interaction between people engaged in various activities in social and labor relations. This interpretation coincides with the general position of B.F. Lomov, according to which communication is "not an addition, not an imposition on one another of parallel developing ("symmetrical") activities, but precisely the interaction of subjects entering into it as partners" 48 . However, the difference in interpretation lies in the fact that for B.F. Lomov, communication is the interaction itself, while according to the definition given in the textbook, communication is its form. The form of interaction depends on the means that are used in the socially communicative sphere of human activity as one of the three plans for human interaction with the environment, with other people. The spheres of human activity are differentiated primarily depending on the change in direction, the general goal of human life. So, within the main goal of human activity: creation, creation of oneself and something outside oneself for others and for oneself, three groups of goals can be distinguished: creation of products of material and spiritual culture; acceptance, accumulation, assimilation of knowledge and exchange of thoughts, the implementation of the first two groups of goals to meet the spiritual need for communication. In accordance with this, three interrelated and interdependent spheres of activity are conditionally distinguished: social production (labor), cognitive (cognition) and social communicative (communication). It is significant that similar forms of activity were identified by B.G. Ananiev 3 based on the approach to it from the standpoint of the structure of the subject. According to this approach, the combination in a person of the properties of the subject of labor, cognition and communication determines the organization of the person as a whole as a subject of activity and personality.