The activities of the teacher and students are constantly in mutual influence, interweaving with each other. It fruitfully proceeds on the basis of subject-subject relations, which is not an exceptional factor, but, on the contrary, rather obligatory, since it is in these conditions that complementarity and mutual enrichment of the activities of the teacher and students take place.

The richness of the pedagogical process is created by the deep erudition of the teacher, his skill in organizing activities by the independent activities of students. And it is here that a single activity, merging in its goals and motivation, takes place.

Here the teacher, relying on the activity and independence of students, fully relies on their creative abilities, predicts the results. There are no enticing prospects for the student to learn with passion, to enter into relationships, not to adhere to standards, to include his life experience, to look for not one but several solutions.

The very process of relations is built on the basis of mutual trust: trust in the teacher, who introduces students into the world of the most complex relationships, and trust in the teacher in the student, in their abilities to understand and penetrate these relationships.

These relationships of mutual understanding, the desire to meet each other halfway and jointly achieve the truth give rise to the need to communicate with the teacher and a deep sense of satisfaction from the realization of one's capabilities.

The problem of activation contributes to the addition of the forces of the teacher and the student, the mutual enrichment of their intense activity that satisfies both sides. On this basis, there is a need for communication that creates a valuable trusting relationship that ensures the well-being of educational and cognitive activity and communication in general.

The interdependence of the activities of the teacher and students contributes, according to I.F. Radionova, creating the necessary situations where the teacher finds more perfect ways of his work, based on the knowledge, ideas of students, aspirations of creative activity. These are situations in which the student:

• - defends his opinion, holds arguments, evidence in his defense, uses acquired knowledge;
• - asks questions, finds out the incomprehensible, deepens with their help in the process of cognition;
• - shares his knowledge with others;
• - helps a comrade in case of difficulty, explains to him what is incomprehensible;
• - performs tasks - maximum designed for reading additional literature, monographs, for long-term observations;
• - encourages students to find not only solutions, but several independently undertaken;
• - Practices free choice of tasks, mostly creative ones;
• - creates situations of self-examination, analysis of one's own actions;
• - diversifies activities, not excluding elements of labor, play, artistic and other activities;
• - creates interest in speech communication, on the basis of which the formation of intersubjective relations takes place.

The student takes the position of the subject of activity, when from its beginning to completion he carries out self-organization, self-disposition, self-regulation. humanization pedagogy interaction

In such activities, the mechanisms for the development of relations are diverse, complex, closer to the personality of the student. That is why the purposeful, active, conscious activity of a student performing educational and cognitive tasks creates an internal predisposition to learning, communication, and the relationships themselves acquire a solid basis for their formation:

• - updating knowledge;
• - the necessary methods are selected, various skills are tested, various solutions are tried, the most productive ones are selected.

Under these conditions, the entire process of interaction acquires personal significance for the student, colors with vivid experiences: surprise at his own discoveries, joy of self-advancement, satisfaction with his acquisitions.

Such activities form self-esteem, which, of course, strengthens the process of relationships. Under these conditions, valuable manifestations of activity and independence are formed, which, with a steady strengthening of the subject position, can become personal qualities.

In conditions when students have the opportunity to make complete independence, the teacher, however, does not cease to be the carrier of the stimulation of the relationships themselves, the carrier of high erudition, the standard for organizing educational activities, and the image of speech forms of activity.

And as an object of students' activity, the teacher acts as an example of moral and ethical standards of communication and relationships.

Pedagogical interaction also provides for the appropriate organization of communication between participants in the educational process: relations of cooperation and mutual assistance, a wide exchange of new information between participants in the educational process, a counter process, students' disposition to the teacher's actions, empathy in the joy of learning, participation in resolving problematic issues and cognitive tasks, the desire to come to help each other in times of trouble.

Creation of special situations of communication in the educational process (“help a friend”, “check each other’s work”, “listen to the answer”, “evaluate the work of a neighbor on the left”), permission to help a friend in case of failures, difficulties removes the psychological barrier that arises between the teacher and students, which is erected by an unreasonable organization of communication, when in the lower grades one from the other closes a notebook with his hand, when children's complaints against each other are frequent, when any valuable impulse to help a comrade, to get him out of difficulty, is suppressed.

And if children expect every meeting with a teacher as desirable and joyful, then this happens precisely because these teachers provide a fertile atmosphere for learning, where the joys of learning and communication are inseparable.

The learning process is a complex unity of the activities of the teacher and the activities of students aimed at a common goal - equipping students with knowledge, skills, their development and education. Learning is a two-way process.

The activity of a teacher is teaching. The activity of the student is teaching. The teacher not only teaches, but also develops and educates students. Teaching is not only a process of mastering what is given by the teacher, it is a complex process of cognitive activity in which the development of generalized experience accumulated by mankind in the form of knowledge takes place.

At the center of the learning process is the cognitive activity of the student, his teaching, his constant movement towards the knowledge of ever deeper and more significant connections and dependencies between the studied processes and areas of scientific knowledge, a wide range of phenomena and processes.

Cooperation in cognition, where the mastery of the experience of mankind takes place, L.S. Vygotsky considered the most important act of transformation of historically established social formations into ontogenetic development.

He saw the logic of the transition of social formations into the individual experience of the child precisely in the fact that the knowledge of the most complex forms is first accomplished in cooperation, in decision with adults, where one can see the zone of proximal development, and only then this new formation enters the fund of the actual development of the child (8 ). Psychologist B.G. Ananiev considered knowledge, communication and work to be the sources of human development. It is their interdependent influence that contributes to the comprehensive development of people (1).

The problem of interaction can be considered from different positions, including from the standpoint of the activity of the teacher and the student within the framework of the relationship style. In one case, the focus is on a combination of exactingness and respect on the part of the teacher for the student.

There are: an authoritarian style of relations, when the manifestation of the initiative, the activity of the teacher occurs to the detriment of the initiative and activity of the student; democratic style, when looking for the optimal solution to the activity of the teacher and student; liberal style, when the initiative and activity of the student dominate in the interaction.

There is also a style of pedagogical relations depending on the manifestation of volitional principles in interaction: autocratic (autocratic), (that is, when the student's personality is not taken into account), imperious (when the teacher tries to establish his power over students), democratic (combination of power with the development of initiative on the part of the student), ignoring (inconsistent).

The pedagogical process is considered as “freedom in which there is order”, which implies the organization of constant feedback, based on pedagogical diagnostics and self-control of students. This direction towards the organization of interaction in the educational process is reflected in the joint design of a management system by teachers and students, group work of students, and various technological training projects.

Humanistic theories are only one of the directions in accordance with the ideas of which interaction can be designed. In this theory, in contrast to the theories based on social needs and cultural and social development of the individual, the main emphasis is placed on two individualistic human needs - the need for a positive attitude, which is satisfied in a child when he experiences approval from others and love, when and needs self-esteem, which develops as the first is satisfied.

Humanistic ideas for organizing interaction with students, but considered from the standpoint of the student's acceptance of the social and moral norms of society, are expressed in the ideas of the American scientist Lawrence Kohlberg, who believed that democratic school management is an important educational tool. L. Kohlberg owns the idea of ​​creating “just societies”, which had a direct impact on the practice of education and on the basis of which cooperation between teachers and students was organized in American universities and schools.

The humanistic activity of L. Kolberg was connected with the organization of an education system in schools on the basis of justice. The scientist called justice not a character trait, but “a reason for action.” An analysis of the views of John Dewey helped the scientist to come to the conclusion that it is necessary to organize school life on the basis of democracy and justice.

In line with our research, it is appropriate to recall the ideas expressed by C. Rogers in his books “A look at psychotherapy, becoming a person” and “Freedom to learn for the 80s”. Based on these ideas, a whole trend in pedagogy has grown, which has received significant recognition.

At the same time, teachers were getting acquainted with the position of accepting a student (C. Rogers) - this largely served as the necessary cognitive and emotional-motivational basis for conducting communication trainings and creative seminars based on the technology of developing cooperation and other psychological and pedagogical methods for developing pedagogical skills (A. V. Kan-Kalik, A.V. Mudrik and others).

Supporters of roles believe that when organizing interaction, it is necessary to strive for the adoption of various roles - “child”, “parent”, “adult” and in communications to take a worthy position in relation to others and to oneself.

This position is metamorphically formulated by E. Berne as “I am good”, “You are good”, which is deciphered as follows: “I am good and everything is fine with me, you are good and everything is fine with you”. This is the position of a healthy personality, the basic position reflecting its success (3.2). A special problem is the ability of a participant in the educational process to dialogical thinking and communication.

The creation of a scientific socio-cultural concept of dialogic relations belongs to M. M. Bakhtin.

This theory has become the starting point for many studies of the influence of dialogue on the development and formation of the individual, the development of sociocultural phenomena and processes, including processes in the educational environment and systems.

To understand the meaning of designing a dialogue in pedagogical processes, we highlight several significant provisions:

• 1. dialogue can be realized in the presence of different semantic positions (dialogical relations) regarding a certain object of consideration;
• 2. dialogue requires a formulated attitude to the statement (modal information);
• 3. for the formation of consciousness, understanding of the subject of study, discussion, it is not enough to acquire knowledge, it is necessary to have an expressed attitude towards them (dialogical communication with them);
• 4. In dialogic relations, there are 2 forms of dialogue - internal and external, for which it is important to create conditions for their occurrence.

When creating conditions for an internal dialogue, you can design situational tasks of the following nature:

• - choosing a solution from alternatives,
• - problem solving,
• - search for judgments on a certain fact or phenomenon,
• - solving problems of an indefinite nature (having no unambiguous solution),
• - putting forward hypotheses and proposals.

To create conditions for an external dialogue, the following are being designed:

• - interrogative communication
• - exchange of thoughts, ideas, positions, discussions, collective generation of ideas, opposing ideas, proposals, evidence,
• - multifunctional analysis of ideas and hypotheses,
• - creative workshops.

To stimulate an external dialogue, it is assumed in advance: inconsistency, the possibility of evaluation, questioning and the opportunity to express their point of view for each participant in the dialogue (31).

The design of dialogic communication involves setting the openness of the positions of its participants. If the teacher does not take an open position, the dialogue is broken and is artificial, the forms and the inner content of communication do not agree.

According to modern international studies, 83% of teachers dominate in the dialogue, 40% of teachers prefer the monologue form in teaching.

Recently, scientists have singled out a special category - value interaction.

Having examined in detail the theoretical prerequisites for the “teacher-student” interaction and taking them as a basis, we move on to the specific practice of interaction.

In the practical part, we consider verbal and non-verbal means of interaction.

Subject-subject relationship.

Introduction.

The social changes taking place in modern society have again actualized the problem of subject-subject relationships. Interpersonal disunity, the growth of individualistic consciousness, the violation of the mechanism of identification with one's people and culture leads to the fact that our modern society is not an integrating principle that can unite many personalities. In the system of interpersonal contacts, the category of "significant other" is lost; the position, feelings, worldview of an individual person are not important and require attention and understanding. Meanwhile, a person's desire for interpersonal relationships is considered in psychology as one of the basic ones, based on three needs - inclusion, control and affect. According to the theory of W. Schutz, these needs develop in childhood in interaction with adults, primarily with parents. So the development of the need for inclusion depends on how the child was included in the family; the need for control depends on whether the emphasis in the parent-child relationship was on freedom or control; the need for affect depends on the extent to which the child has been emotionally accepted or rejected by his immediate environment. If these needs are not met during childhood, the individual feels insignificant, incompetent, and unlovable.

In the context of this issue, we consider it appropriate in this work to analyze the concepts of “subject” and “relationship” from a philosophical and psychological point of view and trace the transformation of these concepts into modern ideas about subject-subject relations in pedagogy.

Philosophical and psychological meanings of the concepts "subject" and "relationship".

The concept of "Subject"

Many social and humanitarian branches of knowledge consider a person not only as an object, but also as a subject of knowledge.

The classical philosophical definition of the concept of “subject” is as follows: the subject is “the carrier of objective-practical activity and cognition, the source of activity directed at the object.” If we consider this concept from the point of view of interpersonal interaction, the source of activity and orientation of the subject will also be the subject with its activity and orientation. For modern philosophy, the subject is “first of all, a specific bodily individual, existing in space and time, included in a certain culture, having a biography, being in communicative and other relationships with other people. Directly internally in relation to the individual, the subject appears as I. In relation to other people, he acts as "another." In relation to physical things and objects of culture, the subject acts as a source of knowledge and transformation. The subject exists only in the unity of the Self, interpersonal (intersubjective) relationships and cognitive and real activity.

The category of the subject is one of the central ones in philosophy. Aristotle, G. Hegel, N. A. Berdyaev represented a person as a free, active subject cognizing reality. Many thinkers emphasized the creative role of the subject, saw the ultimate task in the dominance of man over nature, in new discoveries and inventions, in the knowledge and improvement of the surrounding reality.

In psychology, the foundations of the subjective approach were laid by S. L. Rubinshtein. In his work “Fundamentals of General Psychology”, he connects the personal development of a person with his subjectivity, defining it as independent activity and conscious self-regulation.

Currently, the study of the subjectivity of the personality is becoming a priority in psychological science. The understanding of the subject is associated with the attitude of a person towards himself as a doer, with the endowment of the human individual with the qualities of being independent, active, capable, skillful in the implementation of special human forms of life, primarily subject-practical activity.

According to V. I. Slobodchikov, subjectivity is that category in psychology that expresses the essence of the inner world of a person. The author singles out such subjective characteristics of a person as self-regulation and creative transformation of the surrounding reality and notes that the subjectivity of a person, in its original basis, is associated with the ability of an individual to turn his own life activity into an object of practical transformation.

Another researcher of the "psychology of the subject" was A. V. Brushlinsky.

In his opinion, a person can be considered as a subject at the highest level of activity, integrity, autonomy: "The most important of all human qualities is to be a subject, i.e. the creator of one's history, the arbiter of one's life path. This means to initiate and carry out initially practical activities, communication , behavior, cognition, contemplation and other types of specifically human activity (creative, moral, free) and achieve the necessary results.

The concept of "Relationship"

The category "relationship" is one of the most general and abstract. This concept is used in philosophy, mathematics, sociologists, linguists, psychologists and other sciences. Thus, Aristotle, G. Hegel, I. Kant, K. Marx, L. Feuerbach and others touched upon the philosophical problem of relations in their works.

Attitude is one of the main logical and philosophical categories, reflecting the way of being and cognition. It is in this or close to this sense that the term "Relationship" was introduced into philosophy by Aristotle.

The concept of relation arises as a result of comparing any two objects according to a chosen or given attribute. There are many different bases of comparison (in particular, the base of comparison can be any relationship, which leads to the concept of a kind of hierarchy of relations). Accordingly, there are many different relationships: "The ratio is either the ratio of the double to the half, the triple to the third part, and in general the multiple to the multiple, superior to the superior, then the ratio of the heating to the heated, the cutting to the cut and in general acting to the suffering; further, the ratio of the measuring to measure, the knower to knowledge and the feeling to sensory perception," etc.

Some philosophers, such as Leibniz, considered the concept of "relationship" to be purely ideal, outside of subjects. However, the reality of relations can be understood in another way, namely in the sense that if the basis of comparison is not arbitrary (if it is rooted in the compared objects themselves), then the relation as a result of comparison on this basis is also not arbitrary, but implies the existence of a basis. Here, speaking of the existence of any relationship, of course, one does not have to mean that it "in fact is outside the subjects" that are members of the relationship.

The category "psychological relations" is one of the concepts in psychology. Unlike other sciences, psychology necessarily includes in its content a subjective meaning, which implies a person's connection with the world, other people, society, and himself. Since these connections are not considered outside of social relations, the analysis of the category "psychological relations" is carried out within the framework of all other relations of a person with reality.

S.L. Rubinshtein wrote: “Relationship to another person, to people is the main fabric of human life, its core. The “heart” of a person is all woven from his human relations with other people; what it is worth is entirely determined by what human relations, a person strives, what kind of relationship to people, to another person he is able to establish.Psychological analysis of human life, aimed at revealing relationships with other people, is the core of a truly life psychology.

Considering a person from the position of relations, we are talking about his connections with the surrounding reality.

The concept of "subjective relations of a person" includes how a person relates to certain events and phenomena of the world in which he lives. In this case, the term "relationship" implies not only and not so much the objective connection of the individual with his environment, but, above all, his subjective position in this environment. "Attitude" here includes evaluation, expresses the partiality of the individual.

Subjective relations act as a kind of "backbone" of the subjective world of the individual. In the broadest sense of the word, the subjectivity of relations means that they belong to a person as a subject. They are formed and developed in the process of accumulation and integration of the entire life experience of the individual. They characterize the life position of the individual in society.

Subject-subject relations in education.

Turning to the issue of considering the problem of subject-subject relations, it should be noted that from the standpoint of modern science, it is most often considered in the context of the educational process. In the teacher's encyclopedic dictionary, we find the following definition: “Subject-subject relationship is a type of relationship that develops in the educational process of an educational institution, consisting in creating parity participation of students and educators in the organization and implementation of joint activities. These are the relationships that form the so-called "pedagogy of cooperation" and "pedagogy of non-violence". This is what we call "dialogue learning". This happens when the student's personality is subjectified, which is possible by the following means:

a) delegating to students a number of teaching, including didactic powers;

b) recognition and enforcement of the rights of the child and his parents in relation to school and learning;

c) development of children's self-government both in the educational and extracurricular process;

d) increasing the trust in children on the part of teachers, respect for their dignity and honor; education in children of spiritual and moral qualities;

f) creation in an educational institution of a way of life that corresponds to and develops the cultural traditions of the people from which the children come.

All this is the way and means of implementing the principles of democratization, natural conformity and cultural conformity of national education. In the practice of educational institutions, both types of relations, subject-object and subject-subject, should be reasonably combined, with the leading role of the second type.

Undoubtedly, the problem that arises when considering the issue of subject-subject relations in the educational process has philosophical, social and psychological aspects. At present, the problem of relations between participants in the educational process is dealt with by many scientists (A.Yu. Gordin, V.V. Gorshkova, Ya.L. Kolominsky, SV. Kondratieva, N.Yu. Popikova, G.I. Shchukina, N.E. Shchurkova, etc.) This is not surprising, because the period of study, most often, falls on the age when the most active development and formation of a person's personality takes place. In the educational process, the effectiveness of the formation of personal qualities and character of a person, his temperament, attitude to study, work and the subject being studied depend on the relationship that develops between the teacher, students and parents of students. And although the significance and relevance of this problem is recognized and supported by many scientists, in practice, the conscious formation of relations between the subjects of the educational process is not implemented enough.

Our work aimed only once again to actualize the problem of subject-subject relations and emphasize its complexity and multidimensionality.

Bibliography.

1. Aristotle, op. according to the book: "Beginnings of Euclid", book. 1–6. - M.–L. 1950.

2. Great Soviet encyclopedia. In 30 vols. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. ed. A.M. Prokhorov, 3rd ed. 1976.

3. Brushlinsky, A.V. Psychology of the subject / A.V. Brushlinsky. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2003.

4. New philosophical encyclopedia. In 4 vols. - M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001.

5. Fundamentals of spiritual culture (encyclopedic dictionary of a teacher). - Yekaterinburg. V.S. Bezrukov. 2000.

6. Rubinshtein S. L. Fundamentals of general psychology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002.

7. Slobodchikov V. I., Isaev E. I. Fundamentals of psychological anthropology. Human psychology: An introduction to the psychology of subjectivity. Textbook for universities. - M .: School-Press, 1995.

8. Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970.

9. http://dic.academic.ru/

1. Subject-object relations. In pedagogical activity, the role of the subject is the teacher, and the role of the object is the pupil (child).

The teacher as a subject of pedagogical activity is characterized by goal-setting, activity, pedagogical self-awareness, the adequacy of self-esteem and the level of claims, etc. In this situation, the child acts as a fulfiller of the requirements and tasks set by the teacher. With a reasonable subject-object interaction, the positive qualities of children are formed and consolidated: diligence, discipline, responsibility; the child accumulates the experience of acquiring knowledge, masters the system, the orderliness of actions. However, as long as the child is the object of the pedagogical process, i.e., the motivation for activity will constantly come from the teacher, the cognitive development of the child will not be effective. The situation when the manifestation of initiative is not required, the restriction of independence often forms the negative aspects of the personality. The educator “sees” his pupils in a very one-sided way, mainly from the point of view of compliance / non-compliance with the norms of behavior and the rules of organized activities.

2. Subject-subject relations contribute to the development in children of the ability to cooperate, initiative, creativity, and the ability to constructively resolve conflicts. The most complex work of thought processes, imagination is activated, knowledge is activated, the necessary methods are selected, various skills are tested. All activity acquires personal significance for the child, valuable manifestations of activity and independence are formed, which, with a steady strengthening of the subject position, can become his personal qualities. The teacher in the subject-subject interaction understands his pupils more personally, such interaction is called personality-oriented. A personality-oriented teacher maximally contributes to the development of the child's ability to realize his "I" in relations with other people and the world in its diversity, comprehend his actions, foresee their consequences, both for others and for himself. Pedagogical activity in this kind of interaction is dialogic in nature. M. Bakhtin believes that the child only in dialogue, entering into interaction with another subject, cognizes himself, through comparison with another, through a comparison of his choice and his choice.

Kurkina E.V. identifies the following models of teacher communication:

Model one. The teacher, as it were, rises above the class. He soars in the world of knowledge, science, is fascinated by them, but is at an unattainable height. Here the system of communication develops as follows: the teacher is, as it were, removed from the students, for him they are only perceiving knowledge. As a rule, such a teacher has little interest in the personality of the child and his relationship with him, reducing pedagogical functions to the communication of information. For such a teacher, only the process of transmitting information is important, and the student acts only as a “general context” for science. Such a position, as observations show, characterizes some novice teachers who are passionate about science.

Negative consequences - the lack of psychological contact between the teacher and the children. Hence - the passivity of students in the learning process, lack of initiative.

Model two. The meaning of this fairly common model of communication lies in the fact that between teachers and children, as an invisible limiter in the relationship, there is a distance that the teacher sets between himself and the students. These restrictions can be:

Emphasizing the teacher of his superiority over students;

The predominance of the desire to inform, rather than educate;

Lack of desire for cooperation, approval of the situation of the unconditional statement of schoolchildren;

Condescending - patronizing attitude towards students, which hinders the organization of "adult" interaction.

Negative consequences - lack of interpersonal contact between the teacher and children, weak feedback, indifference of schoolchildren to the teacher.

Model three. Its essence is that the teacher builds relationships with children selectively. In particular, it focuses its attention on a group of students (strong or, on the contrary, weak), as a locator, captures these students, leaving the rest without attention. The reasons for this attitude may be different:

The teacher is passionate about the guys who are interested in his subject, gives them special tasks, involves them in circles and extracurricular work, not paying attention to the rest;

The teacher is preoccupied with weak students, constantly deals with them, while losing sight of the rest of the students, hoping that they will cope with everything themselves;

Does not know how to combine a frontal approach with an individual one.

Negative consequences - the lesson does not create a holistic and continuous system of communication, it is replaced by fragmented, situational interaction. The "pattern" of communication in the lesson is constantly torn, its integral rhythm is disturbed, there are interruptions in interpersonal interaction, which leads to destabilization of the socio-psychological basis of the lesson.

Model four. The teacher in the process of interaction with students hears only himself: when explaining new material, when interviewing students, in the course of individual conversations with children. The teacher is absorbed in his thoughts, ideas, pedagogical tasks, does not feel communication partners.

Negative consequences - feedback is lost, a kind of psychological vacuum is created around the teacher in the classroom, the teacher does not perceive the psychological atmosphere in the classroom, the educational effect of interaction with students is reduced.

Model five. The teacher acts purposefully and consistently on the basis of a planned program, not paying attention to changing circumstances that require a change in communication.

Negative consequences - such a teacher seems to be doing everything right: he has a reasonable plan, pedagogical tasks are correctly formulated. But he does not take into account that the pedagogical reality is constantly changing, new circumstances and conditions arise that must be immediately captured by him and cause corresponding changes in the methodological and socio-psychological arrangement of education and training. In the course of the educational process, two lines are clearly distinguished, as it were: the first is ideal, planned, and the second is real. With such a teacher, these lines do not intersect.

Model six. The teacher makes himself the main, and sometimes the only initiator of the pedagogical process, suppressing all other forms of educational initiative. Here everything comes from the teacher: questions, tasks, judgments, etc.

Negative consequences - the teacher turns into the only driving force of the educational process, the personal initiative of students is extinguished, cognitive and social activity decreases, and, consequently, a sufficiently saturated motivational and need-based sphere of education and upbringing is not formed, the psychological meaning of the interaction between the teacher and children is lost, students they are guided only by the one-sided activity of the teacher and realize themselves only as a performer, the possibilities of the creative nature of education and upbringing are reduced, schoolchildren are waiting for instructions, turning into passive consumers of information.

Model seven. The teacher is tormented by constant doubts: whether he is understood correctly, whether this or that remark is correctly interpreted, whether they are offended, etc.

Negative consequences - the teacher is concerned not so much with the content side of the interaction as with the relational aspects that acquire hypertrophied significance for him, the teacher constantly doubts, hesitates, analyzes, which ultimately can lead to neuroses.

Model eight. The system of relationships is dominated by friendly characteristics.

Children are not taught by the instructions of an adult (teacher), but by the style of interaction. The personality of the teacher, his professional communication, his success are the key to the success of teaching and raising children. And relationships built on the basis of mutual respect, equality, complicity, faith in abilities, provide an opportunity for self-realization and personal development of each of the participants.

So, based on the above, we can conclude the following:

pedagogical communication educational style

Chapter 2. General idea of ​​the style of pedagogical communication and interaction 2.1 Approaches to determining the style of pedagogical communication

As noted by V.A. Tolochek, pedagogical communication, in particular, the problem of the "Teacher-Student" relationship was the subject of study in the last century. For example, the question of establishing a collaborative style of interaction between a teacher and a student was raised back in the 60s of the 19th century. The most fruitful periods of active development of concepts of the 20th century alternative to the authoritarian-administrative style of communication were: the 20s, the end of the 50s - the beginning of the 60s (L.I. Bozhovich, B.P. Esipov, F.N. Gonobolin, N.V. Kuzmina and others), the second half of the 80s (Sh.A. Amonashvili, E.N. Ilyina, I.P. Volkova, S.N. Lysenkov) [according to: 19; p.23].

In foreign psychology, the problem of interaction style originates in the works of K. Levin in the 30s of the XX century, who proposed the concept of "leadership style". One of the reasons for the unproductive style of interaction in foreign pedagogical psychology is the teacher's feeling of inferiority, his lack of self-respect, self-love, self-esteem (R. Burns, J. Coleman, G. Morris, A. Glasser) [according to: 19 ; p.24].

In addition, in foreign psychology, the consequences of liberal-permissive and authoritarian leadership styles are studied, which is of undoubted interest for domestic psychology (S. Coopersmith, D. Baumrind).

In Russian psychology, however, a systematic, purposeful study of style began later, in the 1950s and 1960s, by V.S. Merlin, E.A. Klimov within the framework of the materialistic approach, based on the psychological theory of activity. It is no coincidence that the first stylistic characteristic taken as a subject of research in our country in the 60s was the concept of an individual style of activity. E.A. Klimov gives the following definition of this concept: “This is an individually-peculiar system of psychological means that a person consciously or spontaneously resorts to in order to best balance the properties of individuality with the objective external conditions of activity” . In recent works by V.S. Merlin distinguishes the style of communication as a separate phenomenon, although it turns out to be a special case of an individual style of activity and inherits all its components from it.

Gradually, the concept of style acquires an interdisciplinary meaning, because. studied by various sciences in different aspects. Researchers distinguish: emotional styles, interaction styles, management styles and other styles. V.A. Tolochek classifies the styles identified by the authors in 4 areas: “cognitive styles”, “individual styles of activity”, “management (leadership) styles”, “life styles (behavior, communication, activity, self-regulation). At the same time, style researchers mainly refer to the description of verbal forms of influence, structural components and behavioral manifestations of communication style. In domestic psychology, the concept of style is developed within the framework of the activity approach, where style is understood as an integral phenomenon of interaction between the requirements of activity and the individuality of a person [according to: 19; p.30].

In the further development of ideas about style, some authors see a generalization trend: from a typologically determined individual style of activity (V.S. Merlin) to an individual lifestyle in general (D.A. Leontiev). According to the unanimous recognition of the researchers of communication styles, the urgent task today is to search for conceptual grounds for combining the entire variety of the currently identified stylistic manifestations of the personality into a coherent structure. Such an approach to identifying and describing a single style of a person can be called the definition given by A.V. Libin: “Style has two main manifestations in the structure of individuality, acting, on the one hand, as a mechanism for conjugation, mediation of multi-level parameters of various psychological neoplasms (temperament, character, intelligence, etc.), and on the other hand, forming a stable holistic a pattern of individual manifestations expressed in an individual's preference for a specific form (method) of interaction with the physical and social environment.

A number of researchers see the relationship of the style of pedagogical communication with the style of activity. So, for example, I.A. Zimnyaya believes that the style of pedagogical communication is a component of the style of pedagogical activity, which also includes the style of management, the style of self-regulation and the cognitive style of the teacher.

It is common today to understand the style of pedagogical communication as the style of the teacher's attitude towards children. A slightly different emphasis in describing the style features of communication is emphasized by the authors who use the concept of "interaction style" or "style of interpersonal relations".

The individual style of pedagogical communication, as the analysis of psychological and pedagogical literature has shown, is also considered as a kind of communication style in more detail than other theoretical directions. So, for example, this phenomenon is presented to many researchers as a systematic study (multilevel and multicomponent), which has a compensatory mechanism and is determined by the properties of individuality.

In general, the analysis of steps towards the study of individual communication style can be divided into two areas: activity and interactive. For studies of the activity direction, it is characteristic to consider the style of communication as an element, subsystem, a particular case of the style of activity, the rigid determinism of the style of communication by the context of the activity, which includes communication and the properties of individuality. It is also characteristic that there is an emphasis on the study of its instrumental (operational and technical) side.

Within the framework of the interactive approach, “styles of interpersonal interaction” or “styles of interpersonal relations” with a partner are considered. The individual style of pedagogical communication, according to this approach, is considered as the result of interaction, mutual influence, relationships between the participants in pedagogical communication.

It seems necessary to distinguish between the distinguished and often confused today concepts of "style of pedagogical communication" and "individual style of pedagogical communication". The first one reflects, in our opinion, the styles of interaction between a teacher and students that are typical for pedagogical communication. We relied on the position of B.F. Lomov that "communication acts as an independent specific form of activity of the subject ..." and on the concept of the structure of communication by V.N. Myasishchev: reflection of each other by people, the relationship of man to man, the treatment of man to man. The teacher's pedagogical communication style is expressed through the behavioral component of the attitude towards the student, through the teacher's attitude towards the students and through the teacher's treatment of them.

The individual style of pedagogical communication is, in our opinion, that internal feature of the teacher, which is due to a certain symptom complex of the individual properties of the teacher, such as self-esteem, anxiety, level of claims, rigidity, emotional stability, impulsiveness.

In our study, under the style of communication, we will understand the individual typological features of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students. In the style of communication find expression:

Features of the teacher's communication capabilities;

The existing nature of the relationship between the teacher and pupils;

Creative individuality of the teacher;

Features of the student team.

Moreover, it must be emphasized that the style of communication between a teacher and children is a socially and morally saturated category. It embodies the socio-ethical attitudes of society and the educator as its representative.

2.2 Classification of styles of pedagogical communication

The generally accepted classification of styles of pedagogical communication is their division into authoritarian, democratic and conniving [according to: 17; with. 569-573].

With an authoritarian style of communication, the teacher single-handedly decides all issues related to the life of both the class team and each student. Based on his own attitudes, he determines the position and goals of interaction, subjectively evaluates the results of activities. In the most pronounced form, this style manifests itself in an autocratic approach to education, when students do not participate in the discussion of problems that are directly related to them, and their initiative is evaluated negatively and rejected. The authoritarian style of communication is implemented through the tactics of dictate and guardianship. The opposition of schoolchildren to the teacher's imperious pressure most often leads to the emergence of stable conflict situations.

Studies have shown that teachers who adhere to this style of communication do not allow students to show independence and initiative. They are distinguished by a lack of understanding of children, the inadequacy of assessments based only on performance indicators. An authoritarian teacher focuses on the negative actions of the student, but does not take into account his motives. External indicators of the success of the work of authoritarian teachers (success, discipline in the classroom, etc.) are most often positive, but the socio-psychological atmosphere in such classes is usually unfavorable. The role position of these teachers is objective. The student's personality and individuality are outside the interaction strategy. In this regard, the mutual positive personalization of the teacher and the student is unlikely.

The authoritarian style of communication gives rise to inadequate self-esteem of students, instills a cult of power, forms neurotics, and causes an inadequate level of claims in communicating with people around them. Moreover, the dominance of authoritarian methods in communicating with students leads to a distorted understanding of values, to a high assessment of such personality traits as "the ability to get away with it", "the ability to use others to do what one must do", "the ability to force others obey unquestioningly”, “external attractiveness and physical strength”, etc.

The conniving (anarchic, ignoring) style of communication is characterized by the desire of the teacher to be minimally involved in the activity, which is explained by the removal of responsibility for its results. Such teachers formally perform their functional duties, limited only to teaching. The conniving style of communication implements the tactics of non-intervention, which is based on indifference and disinterest in the problems of both the school and students. The consequence of such tactics is the lack of control over the activities of schoolchildren and the dynamics of their personality development. Progress and discipline in the classes of such teachers, as a rule, are unsatisfactory.

The common features of conniving and authoritarian styles of communication, despite the seeming opposite, are distant relationships, lack of trust, obvious isolation, alienation, demonstrative emphasis on one's dominant position.

An alternative to these styles of communication is the style of cooperation between the participants in pedagogical interaction, more often called democratic. With this style of communication, the teacher is focused on increasing the subjective role of the student in interaction, on involving everyone in solving common problems. The main feature of this style is mutual acceptance and mutual orientation. As a result of an open and free discussion of emerging problems, students, together with the teacher, come to one or another solution. The democratic style of communication between a teacher and students is the only real way to organize their cooperation.

Teachers who adhere to this style are characterized by an active-positive attitude towards students, an adequate assessment of their capabilities, successes and failures. They are characterized by a deep understanding of the student, the goals and motives of his behavior, the ability to predict the development of his personality. According to the external indicators of their activity, teachers of a democratic style of communication are inferior to their authoritarian colleagues, but the socio-psychological climate in their classes is always more prosperous. Interpersonal relationships in them are distinguished by trust and high demands on themselves and others. With a democratic style of communication, the teacher stimulates students to creativity, initiative, organizes conditions for self-realization, which creates opportunities for mutual personalization of the teacher and students.

The characteristics of the above styles of pedagogical communication are given in a “pure” form, however, in real pedagogical practice, mixed styles of communication most often occur. The teacher cannot absolutely exclude from his arsenal some private methods of the authoritarian style of communication. Studies have shown that they are sometimes quite effective, especially when working with classes and individual students with a relatively low level of socio-psychological and personal development. But even in this case, the teacher should be generally focused on a democratic style of communication, dialogue and cooperation with students, since this style of communication allows you to maximize the personal development strategy of pedagogical interaction.

Along with the above styles of pedagogical communication, there are other approaches to their description. So, L.B. Itelson, having based the classification of communication styles on those educational forces on which the teacher relies in his activities, identified a number of intermediate styles between authoritarian and democratic styles: emotional, based on mutual love and sympathy; business, based on the usefulness of the activity and the achievement of the tasks that students face; guiding, implying the inconspicuous management of behavior and activities; demanding, when tasks are set directly in front of pupils; inciting, based on attraction, special creation of situations; coercive, based on pressure. If in relation to authoritarian and democratic styles of communication their assessment is unambiguous, then in relation to intermediate ones one should proceed from the fact that educational forces are always generated by personal relationships, i.e. entirely depend on the personality of the teacher [according to: 17; with. 573].

V.A. Kan-Kalik established and characterized such styles of pedagogical communication as communication based on the enthusiasm for the joint creative activity of teachers and students; communication, which is based on a friendly disposition; communication-distance; communication-intimidation; flirting communication.

Communication based on passion for joint creative activity. At the heart of this style is the unity of the high professionalism of the teacher and his ethical attitudes. After all, the enthusiasm for joint creative search with students is the result not only of the communicative activity of the teacher, but to a greater extent of his attitude to pedagogical activity in general.

This style of communication can be considered as a prerequisite for successful joint educational activities. Enthusiasm for a common cause is a source of friendliness and at the same time friendliness, multiplied by interest in work, gives rise to a joint enthusiastic search.

Emphasizing the fruitfulness of this style of relationship between the teacher and pupils and its stimulating nature, which brings to life the highest form of pedagogical communication - based on the enthusiasm for joint creative activity, it should be noted that friendliness, like any emotional mood and pedagogical attitude in the process of communication, should have a measure. Often, young teachers turn friendliness into familiarity with students, and this negatively affects the entire course of the educational process (often a novice teacher is driven to this path by fear of conflict with children, complicating relationships).

Friendliness should be pedagogically expedient, not contradict the general system of relationships between the teacher and children.

Communication is distance. This style of communication is used by both experienced teachers and beginners. Its essence lies in the fact that in the system of relations between the teacher and students, distance acts as a limiter. But here too, moderation must be observed. Hypertrophy of the distance leads to the formalization of the entire system of socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students and does not contribute to the creation of a truly creative atmosphere. Distance must exist in the system of relations between the teacher and children, it is necessary. But it should follow from the general logic of the relationship between the student and the teacher, and not be dictated by the teacher as the basis of the relationship. The distance acts as an indicator of the leading role of the teacher, based on his authority.

The transformation of the "distance indicator" into the dominant of pedagogical communication sharply reduces the overall creative level of the joint work of the teacher and students. This leads to the assertion of an authoritarian principle in the system of relations between the teacher and children, which, ultimately, has a negative effect on the results of activity.

What is the popularity of this style of communication? The fact is that novice teachers often believe that communication-distance helps them immediately establish themselves as a teacher, and therefore use this style to a certain extent as a means of self-affirmation in the student, and in the pedagogical environment. But in most cases, the use of this style of communication in its purest form leads to pedagogical failures.

Authority must be won not through the mechanical establishment of distance, but through mutual understanding, in the process of joint creative activity. And here it is extremely important to find both a general style of communication and a situational approach to a person. Communication-distance to a certain extent is a transitional stage to such a negative form of communication as communication-intimidation.

Communication is intimidating. This style of communication, which is also sometimes used by novice teachers, is mainly associated with the inability to organize productive communication based on enthusiasm for joint activities. After all, it is difficult to form such communication, and a young teacher often follows the line of least resistance, choosing communication-intimidation or distance in its extreme manifestation.

In a creative sense, communication-intimidation is generally futile. In essence, it not only does not create a communicative atmosphere that ensures creative activity, but, on the contrary, regulates it, since it orients children not to what should be done, but to what cannot be done, deprives pedagogical communication of the friendliness on which it is based. mutual understanding, so necessary for joint creative activity.

Flirting is again typical mainly for young teachers and is associated with the inability to organize productive pedagogical communication. In essence, this type of communication corresponds to the desire to win a false, cheap authority among children, which is contrary to the requirements of pedagogical ethics. The emergence of this style of communication is caused, on the one hand, by the desire of a young teacher to quickly establish contact with children, the desire to please the class, and on the other hand, the lack of the necessary general pedagogical and communicative culture, the skills and abilities of pedagogical communication, experience in professional communicative activity.

Communication-flirting, as observations show, arises as a result of: a) the teacher's misunderstanding of the responsible pedagogical tasks facing him; b) lack of communication skills; c) fear of communication with the class and at the same time the desire to establish contact with students.

Communication styles such as intimidation, flirting and extreme forms of communication-distance, in the absence of the teacher's communication skills necessary to create a creative atmosphere of cooperation, become clichés when used frequently, reproducing ineffective methods of pedagogical communication.

Such styles of communication as intimidation, flirting and extreme forms of communication-distance often give rise to conflict relations between the teacher and students. The responsibility for them always lies with the teacher.

Styles do not exist in their pure form. Yes, and the listed options do not exhaust all the richness of communication styles spontaneously developed in long-term practice. A variety of nuances are possible in its spectrum, giving unexpected effects, establishing or destroying the interaction of partners. As a rule, they are found empirically. At the same time, the found and acceptable communication style of one teacher turns out to be completely unsuitable for another. In the style of communication, the individuality of the individual is clearly manifested.

According to another classification, the following styles of pedagogical communication can be distinguished: situational, operational and value.

Situational is manifested in the fact that the student acts for the teacher as a means of solving pedagogical problems. The general pedagogical position is reduced to managing the student's behavior in a particular situation. In general terms, this style of relationship can be described as "do the same as me." It is typical in those cases when a child is encouraged to think, try, remember, be attentive, but they do not show how to do it, i.e. the activity of the child himself is not organized, which practically excludes his purposeful orientation to the essential, universal mechanisms for constructing activity, which are moral categories and principles.

The operational style is characterized by the relationship between the teacher and the student, built on the principle of "do it the way I do it." An adult reveals methods of action, shows the possibilities of their generalization and application in a variety of situations, shows the content (primarily operational) of the actions of control, evaluation, planning, i.e. teaches the child to build his activity, taking into account the conditions of action. In the situation of the lesson, the operational style manifests itself when the teacher involves the class and individual students in the analysis of the methods of action, in the studied rule with the question: “Why are we doing this?”.

The value style of communication in general terms can be expressed as follows: "Man is the measure of everything." It is based on the common sense-forming mechanisms of different types of activity. This is the justification of actions not only from the point of view of their objective structure, but also from the point of view of interdependence in terms of human activity in general. The manifestation of this style is possible in different forms, but it is always regulated by the moral requirements of the organization of activities.

Of the classifications of styles of pedagogical communication developed in recent years abroad, the typology of professional positions of teachers proposed by M. Talen seems interesting [according to: 18; with. 238-247].

Model I - Socrates. This is a teacher with a reputation for arguing and discussion, deliberately provoking them in the classroom. He is characterized by individualism, unsystematic nature in the educational process due to constant confrontation; students strengthen the defense of their own positions, learn to defend them.

Model II – “Group Discussion Leader”. He considers the achievement of agreement and the establishment of cooperation between students to be the main thing in the educational process, assigning himself the role of an intermediary, for whom the search for democratic agreement is more important than the result of the discussion.

Model III - "Master". The teacher acts as a role model, subject to unconditional copying, and, above all, not so much in the educational process as in relation to life in general.

Model IV - "General". He avoids any ambiguity, is emphatically demanding, rigidly seeks obedience, because he believes that he is always right in everything, and the student, like an army recruit, must unquestioningly obey the orders given. According to the author of the typology, this style is more common than all combined in pedagogical practice.

Model V - "Manager". A style that has become widespread in radically oriented schools and is associated with an atmosphere of effective class activity, encouraging their initiative and independence. The teacher seeks to discuss with each student the meaning of the problem being solved, quality control and evaluation of the final result.

Model VI - "Coach". The atmosphere of communication in the classroom is imbued with the spirit of corporatism. The students in this case are like the players of one team, where each individually is not important as an individual, but together they can do a lot. The teacher is given the role of inspirer of group efforts, for whom the main thing is the final result, brilliant success, victory.

Model VII - "Guide". The embodied image of a walking encyclopedia. Laconic, precise, restrained. He knows the answers to all questions in advance, as well as the questions themselves. Technically impeccable and that is why it is often frankly boring.

M. Talen specifically points to the basis laid down in the typology: the choice of the role of the teacher, based on their own needs, and not the needs of students.

So, based on the above, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. In the course of pedagogical activity, there is a special communication between the teacher and the child. A characteristic of pedagogical communication is its style - individual typological features of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students.

2. The most common classification of leadership styles, fully related to pedagogical activity, is a classification that distinguishes authoritarian, democratic and conniving styles. Kan-Kalik singled out such styles of pedagogical communication as communication based on the enthusiasm for the joint creative activity of teachers and students; communication, which is based on a friendly disposition; communication-distance; communication-intimidation; communication-flirting. M. Talen classified styles based on the choice of role by the teacher, based on their own needs.

3. Most often in pedagogical practice there is a combination of styles in varying proportions, when one of them dominates.

4. The most effective in pedagogical communication, in most cases, is the democratic style. The consequence of its application is an increase in interest in work, positive internal motivation of activity, an increase in group cohesion, the emergence of a sense of pride in common successes, mutual assistance and friendliness in relationships.

Conclusion

As a result of the theoretical study, we came to the following conclusions:

1. The essence of pedagogical interaction is the direct or indirect influence of the subjects of this process on each other, giving rise to their mutual connection.

2. The most important characteristic of the personal side of pedagogical interaction is the ability to influence each other and produce real transformations not only in the cognitive, emotional-volitional, but also in the personal sphere.

3. Pedagogical interaction has two sides: functional-role and personal, i.e. the teacher and students perceive in the process of interaction, on the one hand, the functions and roles of each other, and on the other hand, individual, personal qualities.

4. In pedagogical science, two types of interaction between a teacher and a child are distinguished: subject-object and subject-subject.

5. There are also 8 models of communication between the teacher and students.

6. In the course of pedagogical activity, there is a special communication between the teacher and the child. A characteristic of pedagogical communication is its style - individual typological features of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students.

7. The generally accepted classification of styles of pedagogical communication is their division into authoritarian, democratic and conniving, also distinguish such styles of pedagogical communication as communication based on the enthusiasm for the joint creative activity of teachers and students; communication, which is based on a friendly disposition; communication-distance; communication-intimidation; communication-flirting.

8. In real pedagogical practice, mixed communication styles most often occur. Most often, in pedagogical practice, a combination of styles is observed in one or another proportion, when one of them dominates.

List of used literature

1. Abramova, G.S. Some features of pedagogical communication with adolescents. - [Text] / G.S. Abramov //http://www.proshkolu.ru/ user/ lpsinkova60 /blog/ 29212/

2. Badmaev, B.Ts. Psychology in the work of a teacher. - [Text] / B.Ts. Badmaev. - M., 2000.

3. Batrakova, S.N. Fundamentals of professional and pedagogical communication. - [Text] / S.N. Batrakova. -Yaroslavl, 1989

4. Bordovskaya, N., Rean, A. Pedagogy.- [Text] / N. Bordovskaya, A. Rean //http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Pedagog/

5. Winter, I. A. Pedagogical psychology. - [Text] / I.A. Winter. - Rostov-on-Don, 1997.

6. Ismagilova, A.G. The style of pedagogical communication of a kindergarten teacher - [Text] / A.G. Ismagilova //Questions of psychology.-2000.-№5.

7. Kan-Kalik, V.A. Teacher about pedagogical communication. - [Text] / V.A. Kan-Kalik. - M., 1987.

8. Klimov, E.A. Individual style of activity depending on the typological properties of the nervous system. - [Text] / E.A. Klimov.- Len.: Leningrad State University, 1969.

9. Kurkina E.V. Theory and practice of pedagogical communication - [Text] / //http://festival.1september.ru/articles/506043

10. Kurganov S.Yu. Child and adult in educational dialogue: Book. for the teacher. - [Text] / S.Yu. Kurganov. - M., 1989. - 249 p.

11. Libin, A.V. Elements of the theory of human style.//Psychology today in the materials of the 1st All-Russian Conference. - [Text] / A.V. Libin.-M., 1996.

12. Lobanova, E.A. Preschool pedagogy: teaching aid - [Text] / E.A. Lobanova. - Balashov: Nikolaev, 2005. - 76 p.

13. Lomov, B.F. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. - [Text] / B.F. Lomov.-M., -1984.

14. Mulkova, S.A. Modern approaches to the styles of pedagogical communication - [Text] / S.A. Mulkov //http://www.psi.lib.ru/statyi/ sbornik/ spspo.htm

15. Radugina A.A. Psychology and pedagogy. - [Text] / A.A. Radugina.- M., 2000.

16. Rean, A.A., Kolominsky, Ya.L. Social Psychology. - [Text] / A.A. Rean, Ya.L. Kolominsky. - St. Petersburg, 1999.

17. Slastenin, V.A. etc. Pedagogy: Proc. allowance for students. higher ped. textbook establishments. - [Text] / V.A. Slastenin, I.F. Isaev, E.N. Shiyanov; Ed. V.A. Slastenin. - M.: Academy, 2002. - 576 p.

18. Stolyarenko, L.D. pedagogical communication. - [Text] // L.D. Stolyarenko Pedagogical psychology for university students. - Rostov n / a: Phoenix, 2004. 19. Tolochek, V.A. Styles of professional activity. - [Text] V.A. Tolochek. –M.: Meaning, 2000.-199 p.

In grade 11, they prefer a reasoning - methodical style (RMS) of interaction with students, which leads to tense relationships between them and the students of the class. 10 lessons were attended by each teacher.After...

The situation is changing dramatically. Conclusions Summing up this chapter, it must be said that as a result of our study, the psychological characteristics of the personality of teachers with different styles of pedagogical communication were identified and studied. The results of our study allow us to draw the following conclusions: 1. There are differences between the personality traits of teachers with authoritarian and ...

In identifying the style of pedagogical interaction of educators with children), methods of sociometry (allows you to identify the nature of relationships in children's groups, the questions were chosen on the topic "Ship") Chapter 1. The influence of the style of pedagogical communication on interpersonal relations of preschoolers 1.1 Characteristics of styles of interpersonal communication. Pedagogical communication Individual originality...

The psychological structure of pedagogical activity. Pedagogical communication in training and education serves as a tool to influence the personality of the student. Pedagogical communication is an integral system (techniques and skills) of socio-psychological interaction between a teacher and students, which contains the exchange of information, educational influences and the organization of relationships with the help of ...

This type of relationship can be called intersubjective. The other (others) in this case is represented before the “gaze” of the subject not as an object (objects) of consideration, but as a creature similar to itself - a person equally endowed with living subjectivity. The relationship to another person is personalized. The other person here acts as the ultimate goal, and not as a means to achieve a certain personal goal. Instrumentalism and utilitarianism in this case is replaced by a certain disinterestedness and altruism. The manipulative approach to the other, characteristic of the subject-object type of relationship, gives way to concern for increasing the level of personalization of the other by stimulating in him the tendency of growth, independence, self-realization, self-development, etc. If, with the subject-object type of relationship, the main goal of the subject is to influence another person, “assimilating” and “fitting” his actions and views within the framework of his own intentions and worldview, then with the intersubjective type of relationship, the individuality of the other, his autonomy and the right to his own voice are recognized. Interpersonal subject-subject relations, as M. M. Bakhtin put it, are polyphonic. A participant in the subject-subject type of communication faces two tasks: on the one hand, to understand the partner, to delve into his inner world and see him “as he really is”; on the other hand, he strives to be adequately understood by the communication partner. The authenticity of communication is the most important condition (as well as the result) of subject-subject interpersonal interaction. A person who is subject-subjectively related to another seeks to be treated in the same way. On this basis, it sets in motion not only special acts of understanding the inner world of another, but also acts of self-understanding. It should be noted that the understanding of oneself is carried out through and in the process of functioning of the mechanism that E. Hoffman defines as the presentation of oneself to another. Such self-presentation to others is that part of the activity of the individual, which is aimed at presenting oneself to society in one way or another. A person deepens considerably in his self-understanding when presenting himself to another realizes his aspirations to “be himself” and “be understood by others”. Implementing in its interaction with society the strategy of “being oneself” and “being understood by others”, a person begins to understand himself deeper and more adequately, the motives of his actions, his individual personal qualities, etc.

Analysis of the subject-subject type of interpersonal relations attracts the attention of philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, and literary critics. Philosophical understanding of this type of relationship is presented in the phenomenology of E. Husserl. However, the most striking embodiment of the subject-subject approach to another person was the method of non-directive, client-centered psychotherapy.

Client-centered psychotherapy, as you know, considers the person as an inherently positive and pro-social being. The technical side of psychotherapy (for example, the analysis of the unconscious, suggestion, etc.) is actually given a very small place here. The main emphasis in Rogers's non-directive psychotherapy is placed on the relationship between the consultant (therapist) and the client. The consultant does not manipulate the mind of the client and is not alienated from him (as, for example, is the case in the classical psychoanalytic method, which in general has a subject-object character). The consultant-advised relationship is of a trusting nature, it is built on an "unconditionally" positive acceptance of the client's personality.

Respect for his individuality, acceptance of the client “as he is”, readiness to see the world and events through his eyes, empathy and “feeling” into the world of his experiences, mutual personal “transparency” makes it possible for a person to get a unique experience of interpersonal communication. K. Rogers distinguishes three types of human cognition of reality: 1) “subjective” knowledge, verified by comparing a certain event with the content of internal experience; 2) "objective" knowledge, verified by comparing certain information with the normative knowledge of the group to which the individual belongs; 3) "interpersonal" or phenomenological knowledge, based on the comparison of my knowledge with the knowledge of another in that point, what and how he knows about me. It is in terms of such phenomenological interpersonal knowledge, the experience of the "I" of the other and self-understanding that the counselee is enriched in the process of Rogers' psychotherapy, which is the personification of the subject-subject approach from the consultant to the counselee.

Our own experience of psycho-consulting and psycho-corrective work convinces us that in practice there are certain difficulties in implementing the strategy of the subject-subject approach to the counselee. The effect and high quality of the work done by the psychologist is largely determined by overcoming these difficulties. Their essence lies in the fact that people who turn to a counseling psychologist more often show stable subject-object relationships to the people around them and to themselves. In the first psycho-consulting sessions, the client tends to transfer such a subject-object attitude to the psychologist. In particular, in his request to the psychologist, the counselee demonstrates either a readiness to be an object of manipulation (“do something with me”), or a desire for the psychologist to influence one of the people closest to him in a subject-object way - (spouse, child ...) which he himself is no longer able to influence (“do something with him”). In the process of further communication with the consultant, the client can combine these two separate items that appear in the original request. With this approach of the client to the psychoconsultant, the latter is trying to translate the relationship into a subject-subject mode. In such a situation of communication, there is a certain contradiction: a subject-object strategy of communication is expected from the psychologist on the part of the client, and the attitude towards the psychologist is “consumer”, the psychologist, on the other hand, approaches the client in a completely different way, does not manipulate him, does not “alienate” him from himself and does not treat it as a mere "object of consideration"; on the contrary, the consultant recognizes and accepts the individuality of the client, listens deeply to his voice without imposing his own, tries to understand the essence of the world of experiences of the consulted, at the same time avoiding any (sometimes banal) assessment or advice. The fixed subject-object attitude of the client towards the consultant in such a situation is not immediately defixed; on the contrary, the client, despite the general positive attitude caused by obtaining an unusual and unique experience of interpersonal communication, from time to time sets in motion such patterns of interaction, with which he tries, as it were, to involve the consultant in the desired (subject-object, manipulatory) channel of communication. The process of internal acceptance of the subject-subject position towards oneself and another (including the consultant) is a complex process that requires a certain restructuring of the subject's existing attitudes.

Interpersonal disunity, the growth of individualistic (egocentric) consciousness, the violation of the mechanism of identification with one's people and culture leads to the fact that our modern society is not an integrating principle that unites many personalities. In the system of interpersonal contacts, the category of "significant other" is lost; the position, feelings, worldview of an individual person are not important and require attention and understanding.

Society as a collective subject is possible only if interpersonal disunity and separation are overcome, the subject-object interaction between people is replaced, where a person appears to us only as a certain set of functions and is considered from the point of view of usefulness or uselessness for us, to subject-subject relations, where each person, expressing himself as a personality, will see in another person a personality and will not only take from him, but also give something in return, where the process of co-development, the process of personalization will take place.

The study of this problem and related problems was carried out by such psychologists and philosophers as: S.L. Rubinshtein, A.V. Brushlinsky, I.V. Vachkov, V.E. Kemerov, A. Karmin, V.I. Vernadsky, K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya and others.

S.L. Rubinstein noted that the relation of the other "I" to my "I" acts as a condition of my existence. Each "I" in so far as it is also the universality of the "I" is a collective subject, a community of subjects, a community of individuals. This "I" is really "we". IN AND. Vernadsky, he spoke of the noosphere as a sphere of reason inherent in all mankind, K. Jung postulated the existence of a collective unconscious, but consciousness is also a social product, consciousness as joint knowledge: there is no consciousness without regard to its subject, by analogy, there is no unconscious without someone to whom it is inherent. A. Karimn comes to the understanding that on this stage development, humanity becomes united not only on an anthropological basis (as a biological species), but also on a social basis, uniting into an integral global social system.

I believe that the problem of our today's society is that there is no that very single goal of activity that would subordinate all the private activities of individual subjects to itself, thereby posing the problem of individual people's unawareness of their involvement in the category of a collective subject.

The subject-subject relationship reaches the highest level precisely in relation to love for another person, and this is already the axiological side of the problem we are considering, this is the level of a moral attitude towards another person.

I believe that for the unity of humanity as a collective subject, it is necessary:

The overcoming of subject-object relations and the assertion of subject-subject relations, where a person finds his true expression, understanding and acceptance, will be a "significant other";

The relationship of the other "I" to my "I" should act as a condition for my existence, each "I" insofar as it is and the universality of the "I" is a collective subject, therefore, there is no priority of one "I" over another;

For the successful functioning of the personality, its objective activity and its communication must necessarily have, in addition to objective expediency, some subjective, personal meaning, be experienced as a certain aspect of the "I";

It is necessary to establish trust in each other and form an integrative public goal, an idea that would unite and unite the subjects of private activities;

Formation and development of the ability in the near to see and bring to life a distant person, the ideal of a person, but not in its abstract, but in its concrete refraction;

Formation of polysubject interaction between people, we-concepts, as a factor of awareness of one's responsibility for oneself and another person;

With necessity, the process of personalization of the subject must be carried out, where he would receive an ideal representation in the life of other people and could act in public life as a person.

A true society, a unity of people, must necessarily include a given subject-subject type of relationship in its structure, and only on such a foundation will it be able to exist as such. The implementation of these relations depends on each of us as subjects of social, purposeful activity, on the special manifestation of our essential forces, our life in its human understanding. As well as from the activities of governing state bodies, the education system and other social institutions.

Ulyanov Nikolai Nikolaevich