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

1.2 Pedagogical communication as a form of interaction between the subjects of the educational process. Features of styles of pedagogical communication

Pedagogical communication is a form of educational interaction, cooperation between the teacher and students. This is an axial-retial, personally and socially oriented interaction. Pedagogical communication simultaneously implements communicative, perceptual and interactive functions, using the entire set of verbal, visual, symbolic and kinetic means. Functionally, it is a contact (distant), informational, incentive, coordinating interaction that establishes the relationship of all subjects of the educational process. It is characterized by a multi-object orientation, multi-informativeness, and a high degree of representativeness. The specific synthesis of all its main characteristics formed in it is expressed in the new qualitative content of the interaction of the subjects of the educational process, determined by the characteristics of the system of relations or "pedagogical system" in which they are located.

As N.V. Kuzmina 43 , the pedagogical system is a socio-historical concept, and each historical type of the pedagogical system is aimed at achieving certain state, pedagogical and historical goals. This system carries out the training and education of the student's personality organized by the teaching staff (as its most important element) in the process of purposeful, systematic and long-term influence on him. The pedagogical system has its own goals, objectives, content, structure and, which is especially important for further analysis of communication, different units: structural, functional, meaningful. In this broad context, pedagogical communication is defined as "... such communication of a teacher (and, more broadly, the teaching staff) with schoolchildren in the learning process, which creates the best conditions for the development of students' motivation and the creative nature of learning activities, for the correct formation of the student's personality, provides a favorable the emotional climate of learning (in particular, it prevents the emergence of a "psychological barrier"), ensures the management of socio-psychological processes in the children's team and allows you to make the most of the teacher's personal characteristics in the educational process" 43 .
Pedagogical communication as a form of educational cooperation is a condition for optimizing learning and developing the personality of the students themselves.
The specificity of pedagogical communication is primarily manifested in its polyobject orientation. It is aimed not only at the very interaction of students for the purpose of their personal development, but also, which is the main thing for the pedagogical system itself, at organizing the development of educational knowledge and the formation of creative skills on this basis. Because of this, pedagogical communication is characterized by at least a triple focus: on the educational interaction itself, on students (their current state, promising lines of development) and on the subject of development (assimilation). At the same time, pedagogical communication is also determined by the triple orientation of its subjects: personal, social and subject. The teacher (teacher), working with one student on the development of any educational material, always orients its result to all those present in the class, and vice versa, working with the class, i.e. frontally, affects each student. Therefore, we can assume that the originality of pedagogical communication, revealed by the totality of these characteristics, is expressed in an organic combination of elements of personality-oriented, socially-oriented and subject-oriented communication. At the same time, pedagogical communication, which includes all of the above elements, is not an additive education - it has a fundamentally new quality (L.A. Kharaeva).
The second quality of pedagogical communication is determined primarily by its teaching function, which includes an educative function, since the educational process, as already noted, has an educative and developing character. The learning function of communication, according to A.A. Brudny 18 can be generally correlated with the translational one. The learning function, as a manifestation of the translational function, which is inherent in all forms of human learning (in the game, in everyday everyday interaction with other people), is realized in a specially organized process at any level of the educational system - preschool, school, university. Although the teaching function of pedagogical communication is the leading one, it is not self-sufficient: it is an organic part of the multilateral interaction of the teacher - students, students among themselves. As emphasized by A.A. Brudny, "... communication between a teacher and students is instrumental, because it aims to coordinate joint actions in the educational process. Naturally, communication performs a translational function. But it is no less natural that for a real teacher, communication with students is always self-expression ... " 18 . At the same time, pedagogical communication also reflects the specifics of the nature of human interaction, described by the "Man-Man" scheme, according to E.A. Klimov 34 . Recall that this scheme defines any professional interaction between a teacher and students, service workers and clients, a doctor and patients, a psychotherapist and clients, and so on. Pedagogical communication has features similar to all types of interactions mentioned above, but it is closest to the communication of a psychotherapist and a client. "... In fact, no matter what subject the teacher teaches, he conveys to the student, first of all, the conviction in the power of the human mind, a powerful craving for knowledge, love for truth and an attitude towards selfless socially useful work ... When is the teacher able at the same time to demonstrate students a high and refined culture of interpersonal relations, justice combined with impeccable tact, enthusiasm combined with noble modesty - then, involuntarily imitating such a teacher, the younger generation is formed spiritually harmonious, capable of humanly resolving interpersonal conflicts so common in life ... " 43 .
No less significant is the function of facilitating communication, noted by K. Rogers, which is also common to these types of interaction. This function is so important that K. Rogers calls the teacher primarily a communication facilitator. This means that the teacher helps the student to express himself, to express what is positive in him. The interest of the teacher in the success of the student, the benevolent, contact-supporting atmosphere of communication facilitates pedagogical interaction, contributes to the self-actualization of the student and his further development.
Thus, speaking of pedagogical communication, we note the presence in it, along with teaching, educating and facilitative functions.
By definition, M.I. Lisina, the task of communication (or the communicative task) is the goal to which various actions performed in the process of communication are directed under given conditions. The task of communication is determined by internal and external conditions (the level of development of the need for communication, past experience of interaction with people, the situation of interaction, the nature of the partner's immediate impact). The task, in turn, determines the nature of the action of communication. Let us single out the features of the communicative task as a functional unit of communication . First, according to M.I. Lisina, it performs the role of a stimulus for a reciprocal speech or non-speech action. Secondly, the communicative task is a productive-receptive unit, i.e. it includes the speech activity (actions) of both the speaker and the listener.
From the position of the speaker (for example, from the position of a teacher), the following groups of communicative tasks can be distinguished: 1) transmission (message) of information, 2) request, request for information, 3) motivation for action (verbal or non-verbal) and 4) expression of attitude to verbal or non-verbal action of a partner of pedagogical communication (in this case, a student). The communicative tasks of each of these groups are solved through a variety of speech actions.
Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specificity of which is determined by the various social role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication. The teacher in the process of pedagogical communication carries out (directly or indirectly) his social role and functional duties to manage the process of education and upbringing. The effectiveness of the processes of training and education, the features of personality development and the formation of interpersonal relationships in the study group largely depend on the style features of this communication and leadership.
The first experimental psychological study of professional communication styles was carried out in 1938 by the German psychologist Kurt Lewin . In the same study, a classification of styles of pedagogical communication was introduced, which is commonly used today:
1. Authoritarian.
2. Democratic.
3. Permissive.
Vivid examples of all these leadership styles can be found in any literary work devoted to the life of the school.
It is often heard that although the leadership styles listed above were described and developed in relation to production management and communication between the boss and subordinates, they can, in principle, be transferred to the area of pedagogical communication. This statement is incorrect due to one circumstance, little mentioned in works on social psychology. And the thing is that K. Levin conducted his famous study, studying the peculiarities of leading an adult group of schoolchildren. And this problem is directly included in the subject area of social pedagogical psychology. So, rather, on the contrary, the classification of pedagogical styles can be transferred to leadership styles in general, to the field of industrial social psychology.
During the experiment, K. Levin created several groups ("circles") of ten-year-old schoolchildren. The guys in these groups were engaged in the same work - making toys. For the purposes of the necessary purity of the experiment, the groups were completely identical in terms of age, physical and intellectual data of the participants, the structure of interpersonal relationships, etc. exercise. The only important difference, the variable variable, was the significant difference between the instructors, i.e. teachers. The difference was in leadership styles: the teachers adhered to some authoritarian, some democratic, and some conniving style. Each of them worked with one group for six weeks, and then the groups were exchanged. Then the work continued for another six weeks, and then a new transition to another group. Such a procedure made the experiment extremely correct: the groups were not only identical initially, but also underwent the same influence of all teachers and, accordingly, of all styles. Thus, the group factor was reduced to zero, and the researcher had an excellent opportunity to trace the influence of the leadership style on interpersonal relations in the group, on the motivation of activities, on labor productivity, etc.
Before analyzing the influence of leadership style on all these parameters, it is absolutely necessary to describe the features of communication between a teacher of one style or another and schoolchildren in K. Levin's experiment.