Pedagogical communication styles

The individualization of pedagogical work has always been the subject of rather active discussions in the pedagogical community, where, at times, opinions differed diametrically. Representatives of one point of view believed that it is perfectly permissible to have even formalized standards regulating the style of pedagogical communication, while others argued for preserving absolute freedom in this regard, hoping for the predetermined correctness of teachers. Without going into the details of this scientific, and sometimes rather far from science dispute, it should be recognized that pedagogical communication, however, like any other, can hardly ever be "formatted" according to certain general rules, standards, and prescriptions. Acting as one of the manifestations of both professional and general culture of the teacher, it nevertheless always carries within itself elements of subjectivism, reflects the internal understanding of those or other problems by everyone who is involved in pedagogy.

Therefore, the most rational approach in the study of communication styles is the attempt to classify them according to a number of features, which, in our opinion, are the most significant in revealing the nature and characteristics of the styles of pedagogical communication.

Before proceeding to disclose the issue of differences in styles, it is important to emphasize their common. It consists in the fact that, without exception, all communication styles are subordinated to one task - providing such a pedagogical contact, in which the greatest effectiveness of the process of education and upbringing can be achieved. That is why, the style of communication is presented as a pedagogically expedient integrity of methods and methods of socio-psychological interaction, during which information exchange, educational impact and the process of formation and development of communicative skills are carried out . If we consider the styles of pedagogical communication as a result of exclusively individual manifestations of the professional and personal qualities of teachers, then they can be understood as those typological characteristics of communication between the teacher and students who are formed in the process of their social and pedagogical interaction.

For the first time this problem, as a scientific one, was posed by the German psychologist Kurt Levin. Today, this field of knowledge is a fairly extensive field of axioms, theories developed, promising and questionable hypotheses, the common property of which is to recognize that none of the points of view that are on this issue can be denied.

Modern psychological and pedagogical science as the main considers the following styles of pedagogical communication.

The democratic style is not focused on the evaluation of the individual participating in the communication process, but on the facts of his social behavior. Important features of this style are collectivism in the discussion of tasks and decision-making, the predominance of horizontal forms of interaction over vertical, the propensity to develop and disseminate various organizational forms of self-management of students. Democratic style promotes the development of initiative and independence, educating students confidence in their abilities. The teacher at the same time, necessarily relies on the opinion of students in building their own paradigm of pedagogical positioning themselves as teachers. In this "format" of communication, the teacher is the first among equals, who by virtue of authority owns the right of the decisive word.

A type of democratic style of communication is communication, which is formed on the basis of joint creative enthusiasm of the teacher and students. It is based not so much on professionalism, which styles of pedagogical communication are always positioned as the leading argument of pedagogical maturity, but above all ethical attitudes of the teacher. In the opinion of contemporaries, it was this style of communication that was characteristic of VA Sukhomlinsky, VF Shatalov, AS Makarenko.

Today, and it's not a secret, the authoritarian style is quite widespread and popular, which is characterized by mentoring by the teacher, adherence to the command-and-control method of organizing educational activities. Often, such inclinations involuntarily "lead" the teacher to that dangerous boundary, after which he begins to resort to harshness in communication, tactlessness and even humiliation of some students and unreasonable praises of others. This does not mean, for example, that the mathematics teacher should not explain not only the content of the problem, but also the ways to solve it. It is, first of all, the psychological atmosphere of interaction between the "teacher-student" system. In the most general sense, the realization of an authoritarian style testifies to the teacher's loss of confidence in students and their ability to solve rationally the tasks of social development.

Present in pedagogical practice and styles of pedagogical communication, in the course of which the teacher, under the pretext of a high degree of confidence in his students, in fact, is moving away from solving the most pressing pedagogical tasks. This style is often called conniving, although about the term here you can argue. Such a "pseudo-democracy" in the work, as a rule, leads to a decrease in the pedagogical role of the teacher and a drop in indicators in his work, as such. Often, the conniving style is accompanied by imbalance, frequent changes in the mood of the teacher, which is reflected in the nature of his communication and interaction with children.

A style called "communication-distance" is widespread, which is characterized by the underlined observation by teachers of a certain distance in the organization of communication with children. It is not bad if the measure is met, but as soon as the teacher begins to increase this distance, it inevitably entails a transition to the formalization of pedagogical interaction. Distance should be built only on the authority of the teacher, and not on the artificially created foundations of statuses. Differences also adversely affect the nature of communication, in this case, if the distance is not respected, a transition to a style of flirtation is possible, when the teacher seeks some kind of overturning, as it were, to smooth out his infatuation "affection" and condoning to the children.

Well, and finally, the most odious style of communication - communication-intimidation, is a direct proof of the teacher's inability to establish psychological contact with a group of students, and it is appropriate to raise the issue of pedagogical competence as a whole. Any intimidation is always unpromising, whatever effect may emerge from it, it should be understood that such an effect is short-lived.

Of course, it is difficult to find a teacher who can be "classified" in the style of communication, which is called "pure". Everyone has also the features of authoritarianism, sometimes it is necessary to proceed to intimidation. Another important thing, being the bearer of the features of the most diverse styles, it is important to remember that style is a manifestation of a personal individuality, which, as it seems, can not but be cherished by any person, regardless of the nature of his professional activity.