Topic: The principles teaching communication Content Introduction i-chapter About pedagogical communication

CHAPTER II. PEDAGOGICAL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION CONDITIONS.
2.1 Model of pedagogical communication in modern conditions
Note the diametrical contrast. monologue and dialogic forms of pedagogical communication.In the first case, there is a subject-object relationship, where the object is the student, the learner, the class, the group. In the second - subject-subject relationship, in which the teacher forms an alliance with or with the student on the basis of partnership. This difference is the essence of pedagogical cooperation, in which the teacher deviates from the usual ideas about the activities of the teacher in his work, in which someone (teacher) teaches and directs development, educating, and others under his guidance. should be studied and developed. What are the conditions for effective pedagogical communication based on pedagogical cooperation? Pedagogical collaboration is a two-way process based on the teacher-student relationship, the success of which depends on the teacher’s activism and personality, as well as the student’s activism. The pedagogical interaction corresponds to the individual capabilities of the student’s personality and promotes their maximum manifestation. Collaborative pedagogical dialogue involves the teacher’s creative search for optimal pedagogical solutions. Thus, pedagogical communication based on subject-subject relations is manifested in collaboration in a creative environment and contributes to the humanization of education. By analyzing the actual work of teachers in the classroom and in the same group of students in the forms of extracurricular learning activities, we can distinguish different levels of communication: ¯ High- characterized by warmth in relationships, ¯ mutual understanding, trust, etc .; ¯ average;
¯ short-alienation, misunderstanding, hostility, coldness, lack of mutual assistance.
The level of communication depends directly on the influence of the teacher, which is partially (partially) consistent with the assessments, B.G. well studied by. Ananiev. These effects can be of two types:
* positive - praise of independence, humor, please, encouragement, encouragement;
* Negative - comments, ridicule, irony, insults, threats, insults, nit-sweating.
Different methods of communicative interaction lead to several models of teacher behavior when communicating with students in the classroom. Traditionally, they can be defined as follows:
The model dictatorship is “Mon Blanc” - the teacher is supposedly alienated from the students being taught, he rises above them while he is in the world of knowledge. The students being taught are simply a faceless mass of listeners. No personal contact. Pedagogical functions are reduced to an information message.
The result: a lack of psychological communication, and therefore the initiative and passivity of the students studying.
The contactless model (the “Chinese Wall”) is close to the first in its psychological content. The difference is that there is less feedback between the teacher and the students due to an arbitrary or involuntary set barrier. The role of such a barrier may be more informed than the lack of willingness to cooperate on all sides, rather than the interactivity of the lesson; involuntary emphasis on the teacher’s position, discriminatory treatment of students.
The result: a weak relationship with the students being taught, and by them - an indifferent attitude to the teacher.
The Locator model of differential attention is based on selected relationships with students. The teacher focuses not on the entire composition of the audience, but only on a part, such as talented or, conversely, weak leaders or strangers. In communication, he seems to put them in a state of specific performance, according to which he pays attention to the mood of the team, focusing on them. One of the reasons for this model of classroom communication may be the inability to combine the individualization of students ’learning with a frontal approach.
The result: the integrity of the act of interaction in the teacher-student community system is disrupted, which is replaced by the disintegration of situational relationships.
The hyporeflex model (Teterev) is a teacher in communication that lies as if closed to himself: his speech is mostly monologue. When he speaks, he only hears himself and makes no reaction to the audience. Attempts by an opponent to add a comment in a conversation are useless and simply unacceptable. Even in collaborative work, such a teacher is absorbed in their own ideas and shows emotional deafness to others.
The result: there is almost no interaction between the audience and the trainer, and a psychological vacuum is formed around the latter. The aspects of the communication process are essentially separated from each other, and the educational impact is formally manifested.
The hyper-reflex model (“Hamlet”) is psychologically the opposite of the previous one. The teacher is interested not in the content of the interaction but in how it is perceived by others. Interpersonal relationships are raised to an absolute level by him, which is of paramount importance to him, he constantly doubts the effectiveness of his arguments, the correctness of his actions, reacts sharply to the nuances of the psychological environment of students, personally accepts. . Such a teacher is like an open nerve.

The result: an increase in the socio-psychological sensitivity of the teacher, which leads to an inadequate response to the words and actions of the listener. In this model of behavior, the reins of control can be in the hands of the students, and the teacher can take the lead in the relationship. Non-flexible response model (“Robot”) - the relationship between teacher and students is built on a strict program, where the goals and objectives of the lesson are clearly observed, the methodological technique is didactic, the logic of the presentation is flawless existing and factual arguments, facial expressions, and gestures are polished, but the teacher does not have a sense of understanding the changing state of communication. They do not take into account the pedagogical reality, the composition and mood of the students, their age and ethnicity. Ideally planned and methodologically designed lesson breaks take place on the reefs of socio-psychological reality without achieving their goal. Outcome: Low impact of pedagogical interactions. The model is authoritarian (“I am myself”) - the learning process is entirely teacher-centered. He is the main and only hero. Questions and answers, judgments and debates come out of it. There is almost no creative connection between him and the audience. The one-sided activity of the teacher suppresses any personal initiative of the students being taught, they perceive themselves only as executors, waiting for instructions for action. Their cognitive and social activity is kept to a minimum. The result: students lose initiative, the creative nature of learning is lost, the motivational field of cognitive activity is disrupted. Active Interaction Model (“Alliance”) - the teacher constantly communicates with students, keeps them in a positive mood, encourages initiative, easily understands changes in the psychological climate of the group and responds to them flexibly will be. Friendly communication style is preferred while maintaining role distance. Outcome: Emerging educational, organizational, and ethical issues are creatively addressed through joint efforts. This model is the most effective.

The most important factor that determines the effectiveness of pedagogical communication is the type of attitude of the teacher. To his owner, in most cases, they seem absolutely right, so they are very stable and difficult to change through external influences. Conservatism and the rigidity of relationships increase with age. Researchers identify two types of teachers ’dominant attitudes toward students: positive and negative.
The fact that a teacher has a negative attitude towards this or that student can be identified by the following characteristics: the teacher gives less time than the “good” student to respond to the “bad” student; does not use leading questions and advice, if the answer is incorrect, he or she is in a hurry to direct the question to another student or answer it himself / herself; often blames and less encourages; does not react to the student’s successful actions and does not feel his or her success; sometimes it doesn’t work at all in class with him.
Accordingly, the presence of a positive attitude can be assessed by the following details: more expectation of an answer to the question; asks leading questions when difficult, encourages with a smile, looks; if the answer is incorrect, he is not in a hurry to evaluate, but tries to correct it; special research shows that “bad” students address the teacher four times less often than “good” students; they feel a sharp sense of teacher wrongdoing and experience pain.
The teacher understands the attitude towards the “good” and “bad” students and, without any special intent, still has a strong influence on the students, as if setting a program for their further development.
The most effective way to solve pedagogical problems is the democratic method, in which the teacher takes into account the individual characteristics of students, personal experience, needs and opportunities. A teacher with this style consciously sets tasks for students, does not show a negative attitude, is objective in assessment, multifaceted and active in communication. In fact, this style of communication can be described as personal. It can only be developed by a person who has a high level of professional self-awareness, who is able to constantly introspect his or her behavior, and who has sufficient self-esteem.
Using the following communication methods will help to establish optimal pedagogical communication in the classroom: Methods of prevention and elimination of blocking of communicative effects (communicative inhibition, discomfort, depression, rigidity, insecurity in communication):
- creating a safe environment in the classroom when communicating with students and teachers;
- support by approving, trying to respond, evaluating the fact of participation in the interview;
- approval of the practice of asking students for help from teachers or peers;
- Encourage students to respond verbally on their own initiative;
- creating favorable conditions for the student’s response with clear communicative inhibition;
- Preventing individual student actions that suppress the creative activity of classmates. Methods of communicative assistance in communication:
● timely assistance in choosing an adequate dictionary, correct sentence construction;
● clarify the meaning of communicative norms in a particular situation of communication;
● training in communication techniques, performance and communication techniques (direct and indirect);
● Strongly positive criticism of the student’s behavior in communication with the teacher (if necessary);
● show interest to students through verbal and non-verbal means, support their desire to participate in conversations with the teacher;
● Immediate provision of opportunities for students to “justify the impatience of the raised hand”;
● Focus on the situation, giving students the opportunity to “gather their thoughts”. Ways to start counter-learning and cognitive activities of students: v directly encourage students to actively communicate with the teacher in the classroom; v Motivation in front of a group of awards for students for the initiative; v to criticize one’s own mistakes, as a demonstration of the standard of attitude towards them; v “Game provocation” (“Ivanov Ivanov smiled in disbelief at your answer. Prove to him that you are really right ...”). ⁵