various social-role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication. teacher in progress pedagogical communication carries out (directly or indirect form) their social role and functional responsibilities for managing the process of education and upbringing. The effectiveness of the processes of training and education, the features of personality development and the formation of interpersonal relations in study group.

Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specificity of which is determined by the different social role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication.

Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specificity of which is determined by various social-role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication.

The first experimental psychological study of leadership styles was carried out in 1938 by the German psychologist Kurt Lewin, who subsequently emigrated to the United States with the Nazis coming to power in Germany. In the same study, a classification of leadership styles was introduced, which is commonly used today:

2. Democratic.

3. Permissive.

Vivid examples all of these leadership styles can be found in any literary work dedicated to the life of the school.

So, main character F. Sologub's novel "The Little Demon", the teacher of the gymnasium Peredonov is a typical authoritarian teacher. He firmly believes that a high school student can only be curbed by force, and considers low grades and a rod to be the main means of influence. In the autobiographical story of G. Chernykh and L. Panteleev "The Republic of Shkid" we see a whole string of images of teachers who have to "pick up the key" to former homeless children with a criminal past. Those who adhere to the condoning style very soon leave the walls of the school, hunted down by students. Particularly indicative is the story of the young teacher Pal Vanych Arikov, who presented his familiarity as a new word in pedagogy. Instead of literature lessons, the students chatted with him as an equal, sang, and messed around, but soon realized that such “study” did not bear any fruit, and they themselves abandoned the supposedly “democratic” teacher. A true democratic style in work was shown only by the director of the school, who knew for sure that the children needed both the opportunity to show initiative and the leadership that restrained their violent impulses. The image of this wise and patient teacher was vividly embodied in the film adaptation of the book by Sergei Yursky - a man who measures the strength of students with their abilities and emotional outbursts.

It is often heard that although the leadership styles listed above were described and developed in relation to production management and communication between the boss and subordinates, they can, in principle, be transferred to the area of ​​pedagogical communication. This statement is incorrect due to one circumstance, little mentioned in works on social psychology. And the thing is that K. Levin conducted his famous study, studying the peculiarities of leading an adult group of schoolchildren. And this problem is directly included in the subject area of ​​social pedagogical psychology. So rather the opposite, the classification pedagogical styles can be transferred to leadership styles in general, to the field of industrial social psychology.

During the experiment, K. Levin created several groups (“circles”) of ten-year-old schoolchildren. The guys in these groups were engaged in the same work - making toys. For the purposes of the necessary purity of the experiment, the groups were completely identical in terms of age, physical and intellectual data of the participants, and structure. interpersonal relationships etc. All the groups worked, in addition, under the same conditions, general program did the same task. The only important difference, the variable variable, was the significant difference between the instructors, i.e. teachers. The difference was in leadership styles: the teachers adhered to some authoritarian, some democratic, and some conniving style. Each of them worked with one group for six weeks, and then the groups were exchanged. Then the work continued for another six weeks, and then new transition to another group. This procedure made the experiment extremely correct:

the groups were not only identical initially, but also underwent the same influence of all teachers and, accordingly, all styles. In this way, group factor, was reduced to zero, and the researcher had an excellent opportunity to trace the influence of leadership style on interpersonal relationships in the group, on the motivation of activities, on labor productivity, etc.

Before analyzing the influence of leadership style on all these parameters, it is absolutely necessary to describe the features of communication between a teacher of one style or another and schoolchildren in K. Levin's experiment.

With an authoritarian style characteristic The general trend to strict management and comprehensive control was expressed in the following. The teacher, much more often than in other groups, resorted to the tone of the order, made sharp remarks. Characteristic were also tactless remarks addressed to some participants and causeless, unreasonable praises of others. The authoritarian teacher determined not only common goals activity and task, but also indicated how to carry it out, toughly deciding who will work with whom. Tasks and methods of its implementation were given to students in stages. (Such an approach reduces the motivation of an activity, since a person does not know exactly its ultimate goals.) It should also be noted that in terms of social and perceptual attitudes and in terms of interpersonal attitudes, an orientation towards a phased differentiation of activities and phased control indicate a teacher’s distrust of independence and responsibility. own students. Or, at the very least, it could mean that the teacher assumes that these qualities are very poorly developed in his group. The authoritarian teacher severely suppressed any manifestation of initiative, considering its unacceptable arbitrariness. Studies by other scientists that followed the work of K. Levin showed that such behavior of an authoritarian leader is based on his ideas that the initiative undermines his authority and faith in his competence. “If one of the students suggests improvements due to a different course of work, then he indirectly indicates that I did not foresee this.” This is how the authoritarian teacher argues. In addition, it turned out that the authoritarian leader assessed the success of the participants subjectively, addressing reproaches (praise) to the performer as a person.

"Kings look at the world in a very simplistic way: for them all people are subjects." A. de Saint-Exupery

With a democratic style Facts were judged, not personality. But the main feature of the democratic style was Active participation groups in discussing the progress of the forthcoming work and its organization. As a result, participants developed self-confidence and stimulated self-management. With this style, sociability and trust in relationships increased in the group.

main feature permissive leadership style consisted in

that the teacher, in fact, has withdrawn himself from responsibility for what is happening.

Judging by the results of the experiment, the worst style turned out to be conniving. Under him, the least work was done, and its quality left much to be desired. It was also important that the participants noted low satisfaction with work in the conniving style group, although they did not bear any responsibility for it, and the work was more like a game.

The most effective was the democratic style. The group members showed a keen interest in the work, a positive intrinsic motivation activities. The quality and originality of tasks performance improved significantly. Group cohesion, a sense of pride in common successes, mutual assistance and friendliness in relationships - all this has developed to a very high degree in a democratic group.

Later studies only confirmed the results of Levin's experiment. The preference for a democratic style in pedagogical communication has been proven in different age groups, from elementary school students to high school students.

The subject of one of the studies (N.F. Maslova) was the study of the attitude of first-graders to school. At the same time, the surveys were conducted twice - the first time the attitude of future first-graders to school was recorded two weeks before admission, and the second time their attitude to school was diagnosed at the end of the first quarter. As a result, it was possible to establish that the attitude towards school has deteriorated in everyone. However, it turned out that students who came to an authoritarian teacher had a much more negative perception of school than those who began their studies with a teacher of a different style.

Also, during the experiment, it turned out that authoritarian teachers have poorly performing students. triple more often indicate that their teacher likes to put deuces. Most notable is that in reality in class magazines the number of twos for teachers of authoritarian and democratic styles turned out to be the same. Thus, the style of interaction between the teacher and students in this case determines the features of how students perceive it. It is clear that children's interest in learning depends not so much on the difficulties of school life, but on the peculiarities of the teacher's treatment of students.

In another study, the relationship between the styles of pedagogical communication and the peculiarities of the teacher's perception of the personality of students was studied (A. A. Bodalev, 1983). As a result, it was found that authoritarian teachers underestimate the development in students of such qualities as collectivism, initiative, independence, exactingness towards others. At the same time, they often spoke of children as impulsive, lazy, undisciplined, irresponsible, and so on. Note that such ideas of authoritarian educators are largely a conscious or subconscious motivation that justifies their harsh leadership style. The formulas of this logical chain can be expressed as follows. “My students are lazy, undisciplined and irresponsible, and therefore it is absolutely necessary constantly monitor their activity at all its stages. “My students are so non-initiative and independent, and therefore I simply have to take all the lead determine their strategy, give them instructions recommendations, etc.” Indeed, our behavior is the slave of our attitudes.

In fairness, it should be noted that modern social psychology asserts that there are also such circumstances when an authoritarian style may still be the most fruitful and adequate. Here, again, it is appropriate to recall the already mentioned novel "The Republic of Shkid", where the only way to curb the "difficult" orphans, recent homeless children, in a critical situation, it was precisely the authoritarian style, tough leadership, and decisive measures that became. However, for situations of ordinary communication, especially pedagogical, this is the exception rather than the rule.

Summary

Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specificity of which is determined by various social-role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication. The teacher in the process of pedagogical communication carries out (directly or indirectly) his social role and functional duties to manage the process of education and upbringing. From what are style features This communication and leadership largely depends on the effectiveness of the processes of education and upbringing, the features of personality development and the formation of interpersonal relationships in the study group. The most common classification of leadership styles, fully related to pedagogical activity, is a classification that distinguishes authoritarian, democratic and conniving styles. 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.

1. What styles of pedagogical leadership do you know and what are their features?

2. How do they influence various styles guidance on the effectiveness of teaching and communication?

3. Confirm the answer to the previous question with the results of experimental studies known to you.

KNOWLEDGE BY THE TEACHER OF STUDENTS

The problem of the teacher's knowledge of the student's personality is traditionally relevant in practical terms. Even K. D. Ushinsky, who paid considerable attention to the psychological aspect in solving the problems of pedagogy, emphasized that if pedagogy wants bring up person in all respects, then it must first of all to know him in every way. However, it was not at all easy to move from an imperative and rather journalistic formulation of the problem to its scientific formulation, and even more so, to methods for solving it.

“It is easier to know people in general than one person in particular.” F. La Rochefoucauld.

At present, the problem of the teacher's knowledge of the student's personality has acquired special significance, because it is directly related to the humanistic tendencies that form the core of the modern educational process. As noted in the previous sections, various new approaches in pedagogical practice (cooperative pedagogy, communal methods, etc.) are associated with the transition from the “subject-object” conceptual system to the “subject-subject” system, from a one-sided process of analysis to a two-sided one. Despite the fact that in psychology the concepts of "activity" and "communication" are considered as independent categories, there are areas in which they converge. This is especially noticeable in the example of pedagogical disciplines, the object of which is precisely the activity that is built according to the laws of communication. Communication as such always presupposes parallel process interpersonal cognition. Therefore, the effectiveness of pedagogical communication largely depends on how fully and adequately the teacher reflects the personality of the student.

The problem of the productivity of pedagogical activity and communication is one of the most urgent in pedagogy and pedagogical psychology. The high objective complexity of this problem is explained by a whole range of factors that affect the final result of pedagogical activity. As for the subjective difficulty of solving it, it is connected mainly with numerous, often contradictory approaches to analysis and even to the very formulation of the problem.

So, in relation to pedagogical activity, it is customary to talk about its productivity, efficiency, optimization, etc. All these concepts have much in common, but each of them also reflects a specific aspect of the problem. The question of the productivity of pedagogical activity in a number of studies is raised in the context of the acmeological approach. The works of B. G. Ananiev laid the foundations for a new section of developmental psychology - acmeology, which is regarded as the science of the most productive, creative period of a person's life. Developing these ideas in relation to pedagogy and pedagogical psychology, N. V. Kuzmina experimentally and theoretically substantiated the acmeological approach to pedagogical activity. Since in this case we are talking about the study of the features of the fruitful activity of the teacher, the main criterion is not the age, but the professionalism of the teacher.

The concept of "productivity" of pedagogical activity is ambiguous. We can talk, for example, about functional and psychological productivity. Functional products of activity usually mean the creation of a system of didactic methods and techniques, communication skills etc. Under the psychological - neoplasms in the student's personality. There is no rigid relationship between functional and psychological products: a high functional level does not always correspond to an adequate psychological one.

AT last years Along with the traditional attention to the problems of the psychology of activity, more and more attention is paid to the problems of the psychology of communication. No need to consider here theoretical aspects these concepts and their differences. We only note that in modern science communication and activity are independent psychological realities with its own structure and its own laws. There are organic links between them. Moreover, there is communication that is fundamentally built according to the laws of activity (for example, acting), and vice versa, there are types of activities that are built according to the laws of communication.

Since the object of pedagogical activity is a person / person, it is built according to the laws of communication. In the structure of communication, three components are usually distinguished:

1. Cognitive (cognitive).

2. Affective (emotional).

3. Behavioral.

There are other models, however, in any classification, the cognitive aspect of communication stands out first of all. In pedagogical communication, it acquires special significance. The effectiveness of pedagogical activity depends precisely on the depth of the teacher's study of the student's personality, on the adequacy and completeness of knowledge. As it is clear from the studies of S. V. Kondratieva and her collaborators (I mean, first of all, the works of V. M. Rozbudko), teachers with a low level of productivity usually perceive only the external pattern. They do not delve into the true goals and motives, while educators high level productivity are able to reflect the stable integrative properties of the personality, identify the leading goals and motives of behavior, objectivity value judgments etc. Similar results were obtained in the course of other studies (A. A. Bodalev, A. A. Rean and others). Thus, the close relationship between the productivity of pedagogical activity and the effectiveness of the teacher's knowledge of the personality of students is quite obvious. The mechanism of stereotyping, well known to us from general theory interpersonal cognition, "works" in the process of cognition by the teacher of the student's personality. Moreover, all its varieties are also present here: social, emotional-aesthetic, anthropological.

So, the teacher, under the influence of his own pedagogical experience specific social stereotypes: “excellent student”, “loser student”, “activist”, etc. When meeting with a student for the first time who has already received the characteristic of an “excellent student” or “loser student”, the teacher is more or less likely to assume that he has certain qualities. Of course, one should not think that this set of stereotypes is unchanged, that all teachers paint the same image of an “excellent student”, “losers”, “civil activist”, etc. On the contrary, all evaluative stereotypes are emphatically subjective, individual in nature. There is nothing surprising in this, since each stereotype represents a fixed experience of communicating with students, the experience of this particular teacher. Let's imagine such a situation. Several teachers learn that an activist, a clear leader, will be studying in their group. They will react differently. One, by virtue of his stereotype, may assume that it will become easier to manage a group, the other, relying on the bitter experience of communicating with “activists”, will decide that a newcomer is certainly a careerist, an upstart who behaves defiantly, etc.

Speaking about the individual content of pedagogical stereotypes, one should not forget about general orientation prevalence of many of them. It is well known that the following stereotype is extremely common among teachers: the good performance of students is associated with personality characteristics. A person who successfully studies is a priori perceived as a capable, conscientious, honest, disciplined person. And vice versa, a “loser” is a mediocre, unassembled lazy person.

In a number of studies, as well as in pedagogical journalism, one can find descriptions of another pedagogical stereotype: very often “unhappy” children are considered “ruffy”, restless students, those who cannot sit in class, silently, passively respond to comments, those who invariably enters into controversy. Practice shows that most often teachers ask a psychologist to “work” with precisely such “uncontrollable” children, considering them prone to antisocial behavior. But students who willingly obey the teacher, act according to his instructions and comments, are usually considered prosperous, they are not classified as “difficult”. This phenomenon, although it deserves the most detailed consideration, is nonetheless inherently connected with general, universal psychological patterns. In this regard, the work of Indian psychologists P. Janak and S. Purnima deserves special mention. Their experiments showed how much flattery and an exaggeratedly reverent attitude to the instructions of the authorities lead to the fact that the leader approves of the "flatterer". It is interesting that those leaders who enjoyed the reputation of impassive, objective, emphatically formal in their treatment of subordinates turned out to be greedy for flattery.

What professional assessment teacher personal qualities student may depend on his external attractiveness, may seem implausible. However, this effect is manifested not only in the assessments of adolescents, but also in toddlers. During one of the experiments, university students, future teachers, were given descriptions of misdemeanors committed by seven-year-olds. Photographs of the "culprits" were attached to these descriptions. Assessing their attitude towards these kids and their behavior, the students showed great indulgence towards the owners of a more attractive appearance (A. A. Bodalev, 1983).

Indicative history English king Richard III, the "black legend" of Britain. Judging by the historical data, the chronicles of Thomas More, which Shakespeare also used in his play, the king, who ascended the throne over the corpses of relatives and opponents, including two young princes, was a notorious villain, and even a hunchbacked lame freak. However, more recently, historians have established that after the death of Richard, a hostile clan of nobles rigged not only part historical information, where the king was portrayed as a villain and a freak, but also forced the court artists to rewrite the portrait of Richard, “disfiguring” his face and figure with a brush and paint.

As we can see, the connection between appearance and inner qualities man is indestructible for many. The enemies of the king, wishing to denigrate him in the eyes of posterity, did not limit themselves to slandering his deeds, since for them there was no doubt that an evil person was ugly. Thanks to the ingenious tragedy of Shakespeare, the stereotype of "an ugly man is angry" has only become stronger in our minds. And on the contrary - in O. Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" a young man, naturally endowed with extraordinary beauty, at first glance seemed kind, attentive, sympathetic to those around him. And even when his vicious behavior became known in society, many did not believe that such beautiful person capable of such atrocities.

Like any person, the teacher is almost never aware of the influence of many stereotypes on the students' own assessments. However, this circumstance does not cancel their actions, on the contrary, the less a person is aware of the presence of stereotypes, the more susceptible he is to their influence. Any stereotypes have a huge impact on perception precisely when we know little about a person - that is, in conditions of a lack of information about a person. As the teacher gets to know the students, interacts with them at the lesson and after hours, in the process of observing their behavior in different situations assessment is becoming more and more individualized. And then it begins to be determined by specific features of behavior and activity. Therefore, the pedagogical commandment, formulated by V.P. Zinchenko in a joking manner, is extremely important: “Do not be surprised when a student leaves the image that you endowed him with or built for him. It's okay."

So, pedagogical stereotypes exist and play certain role in the teacher's understanding of the student's personality. Is it bad or good? This question is difficult to answer unambiguously. AT scientifically must take into account the moment attribution of certain qualities, mediating and replacing knowledge as such. It is meaningless to judge the attribution process as "bad" or "good"; it needs to be studied comprehensively. The purpose of such a study is to reveal the content and mechanism of these processes. This contributes to the correction and self-correction in the sphere of perception and evaluation of others.

If we try to answer the question about pedagogical stereotypes from a practical point of view, then one can find both “pluses” and “minuses” in their existence. Negative side stereotypes is understandable and explainable. It is generally accepted that they lead to the limitation of the "pedagogical vision", deprive the ability to adequately and comprehensively know the student's personality. And this negatively affects the attitude towards him and reduces the effectiveness of the management of the educational process. What's good about stereotypes? Let's think about what meaning we put in the concept of "experienced teacher".

One of his main qualities is the ability to determine their main features at the first meeting with students, to outline the distribution of roles in the team. Experienced teacher, first entering new group, notes: “This one, most likely, will give me a lot of trouble, a hard nut, and this one ...” What is this if not reliance on pedagogical stereotypes, which are based on the experience of pedagogical work, constant interaction with children? The cognitive function of stereotypes is obvious.

In interpersonal cognition, stereotypes play a negative role if the teacher strictly follows them and their influence becomes absolute. And stereotypes acquire a positive meaning if the teacher, relying on them, gives only a probable approximate assessment of the student's personality (“most likely, he will give me a lot of trouble”); if the teacher is aware of the existence of subjective evaluative stereotypes. Relying on stereotypes should ideally be only one of possible mechanisms cognition, which operates in conditions of information deficit, and subsequently gives way to purposeful professional study personality.

The phenomenon of projection also plays an important role in the student's cognition. Its essence lies in attributing one's own personal characteristics to another. Projection, as well as the influence of stereotypes, can also take place in the pedagogical process. However, in the course of the teacher's knowledge of the student's personality, the possibility of projection is limited by differences in age, social status and role positions of teachers and students. When these differences are objectively (for example, due to the youth of the teacher) and subjectively (attitude towards equality - communal methodology, pedagogy of cooperation) are not so significant, the action of the projection mechanism can be quite significant.

Special Role in the process of cognition by the teacher of the personality of students and communication with him belongs empathy. The ability to empathize not only increases the adequacy of the perception of the “other”, but also leads to the establishment of effective, positive relationships with students.

On the one hand, a deeper and more adequate reflection of the personality of students allows the teacher to make their decisions more reasonably, which means it increases the productivity of the educational process. On the other hand, the manifestation of empathy finds an emotional response in the student, and between him and the teacher positive relationship. And this, in turn, also cannot but increase the productivity of pedagogical communication.

AT famous novel J. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" is the only person from the adult world to whom the main teenage character (entangled in problems and immersed in stress) turns for help and support is his former school teacher. Why, after all, Holden has not been studying with him for a long time? The fact is that Mr. Antolini empathizes boy, while parents and other teachers only express concern and dictate their will. Moreover, Holden evaluates teachers not by their professional merits, but by their spiritual qualities, their ability to empathize.

In working with "difficult" teenagers, the manifestation of empathy is of particular importance, since many of them experience a real lack of sympathy, empathy. According to one of domestic research, 92.2% of adolescents registered with the Inspectorate for Juvenile Affairs felt a lack of positive emotional contacts, were in a state of psychological isolation in their educational teams. According to L. M. Zyubin, 35% of adolescent delinquents live in families that are characterized by unhealthy relationships between parents and children, the presence of pronounced asocial attitudes operating in the family. The studies of L. M. Zyubin, like a number of others, show that in recent years the influence of an unfavorable situation in the family on the behavior of a teenager has increased. Numerous experimental and empirical research made it possible to establish that the development of a propensity for violence and its consolidation in the form of a person's lifestyle is usually directly related to a lack of empathy both in the person himself and in his environment. The reasons for this behavior are rooted in early childhood. Research data convincingly indicate that the vast majority of adolescents with delinquent (illegal) behavior experienced emotional isolation to one degree or another: lack of love, lack of parental care, etc.

No one denies the undoubted importance of empathy in pedagogical contact with such children. However, we have to state with regret that in reality they not only experience a lack of empathy on the part of teachers, but are subjected to even greater pressure than in the family. In some cases, the inability to show empathy, combined with low pedagogical professionalism, significantly aggravates the process of negative development of the adolescent's personality, directly leading to didactogeny. (Didactogeny is the infliction of harm to the neuropsychic health of students due to unprofessional actions of a teacher.) Let us give as an example a case that one of the authors had to face in the course of studying the psychological characteristics of the personality of adolescents who are registered with the inspectorate for juvenile affairs ( IDN). The teacher who supervised one of the teenagers noted that after deregistration he became uncontrollable, rude, behaved defiantly, etc. But while he was registered, everything was fine, and she found with him mutual language. What teaching method did this teacher use? It turns out that the teenager's comrades were unaware of the misconduct that led to the registration with the JN. And as soon as the behavior of a teenager in again went beyond the established framework, the teacher invited him to an individual conversation, the core of which was the threat of "everything" to tell his comrades. This one is without a doubt effective method maintaining discipline was used repeatedly for almost two years. Let's think about it: blackmail was elevated to the rank of a pedagogical device, the cynicism of which does not require either psychological or pedagogical evidence.

Mechanisms decentration and identification also play an important role in the process of learning the student's personality by the teacher. The adequacy, completeness and depth of knowledge of the student's personality depends precisely on the teacher's ability to overcome egocentrism, look at the situation through the student's eyes, understand and accept the student's point of view, and finally, take his place and reason from his position. All this becomes possible thanks not only to the initial pedagogical abilities, but also to special skills. Consequently, the theoretical patterns and applied aspects of the teacher's knowledge of students must necessarily be considered as a central element of professional and pedagogical training.

Summary

At present, the problem of the teacher's knowledge of the student's personality has acquired particular relevance, because it is directly related to the humanistic tendencies that make up the dominant of the modern educational process. It seems indisputable that there is a close relationship between the productivity of pedagogical activity and the effectiveness of the teacher's knowledge of the personality of students. Adequate knowledge of a student's personality by a teacher is often hampered by the effect of the phenomenon of stereotyping. Like any other person, the teacher is almost never aware of the influence of many stereotypes on the students' own assessments. The effect of stereotypes cannot be unequivocally assessed as negative. In interpersonal cognition, stereotypes play a negative role if the teacher strictly follows them and if their influence becomes absolute. Stereotypes acquire a positive value if the teacher, relying on them, gives only a probable assessment of the student's personality. Empathy plays a special role in the process of learning the personality of students and communicating with them. The ability to empathize not only increases the adequacy of the perception of the “other”, but also leads to the establishment of effective, positive relationships with students. In working with "difficult" teenagers, the manifestation of empathy is of particular importance, since for many of them empathy is an unsatisfied, scarce need. The mechanisms of decentration and identification play the most important role in the process of cognition of a student's personality by a teacher. With the ability to overcome one’s egocentrism, to look at the situation not from one’s own position, but through the eyes of a student, with the ability to understand and accept the student’s point of view, finally, to stand in his place and reason from his position, the adequacy, completeness and depth of knowledge of his personality are significantly related . All this is possible thanks not only to the initial pedagogical abilities, but also to special skills that can be formed in the process of professional psychological and pedagogical training.

Questions and tasks for self-control

1. How are the effectiveness of pedagogical activity and the teacher's knowledge of the personality of students related?

2. What is the phenomenon of stereotyping and how does it manifest itself in pedagogical activity?

3. What is the role of empathy in pedagogical communication and in the teacher's knowledge of the student's personality?

In a team where a democratic leadership style prevails, ________ management methods are mainly used

Leadership and leadership are based on influence and power.

Domestic political development of Russia during the leadership of V.V. Putin (2000-2008)

The leading functions of the teacher are realized not only in the classroom, but also in extracurricular activities. At the same time, there are significant differences in the methods and techniques of leadership, in connection with which there are three styles: authoritarian, democratic and liberal.

Authoritarian (autocratic, directive) leadership style. Authoritarian teachers lead, regardless of the opinions of others, they themselves determine the ways and means to achieve the goal, because they believe that they know everything and that no one will solve it better anyway. Such a teacher "closes" all the information to himself, so the class asset lives on conjectures and rumors. Willingly or unwittingly, the teacher fetters the initiative of schoolchildren, so their sense of responsibility for the common cause is weakened, public assignments become a formality for them, and social activity falls. Schoolchildren become only executors of the teacher's plans, his plans. Such a teacher expresses his decisions in the form of instructions, orders, instructions, reprimands, thanks. He has little regard for interpersonal relationships in the group. A teacher who adheres to this style of leadership is dogmatic, does not tolerate objections and does not listen to other opinions, often interferes in the work of students, tightly controls their actions, and requires punctual execution of their instructions. He cannot stand criticism, does not admit his mistakes, but he likes to criticize himself. From his precise point of view, The best way education is punishment.

For first-graders who find themselves in an authoritarian teacher, the cooling off towards school during the first quarter of their studies occurs significantly more than those who get to the teachers of the democratic or liberal style. For authoritarian teachers, poor performance

336 Part three. Pedagogical psychology

Chapter 20. Psychological characteristics of the teacher's activity 337

Waking students often complain about the teacher's predilection for deuces. These complaints have some merit, as it has been found that such teachers tend to underestimate grades. In addition, they tend to overestimate the negative qualities of students and underestimate the positive ones. Most children, in their opinion, are lazy, irresponsible, undisciplined, impulsive, etc. Perhaps this position becomes the basis for their tough leadership style.

The majority of high school students have a negative or wary attitude towards teachers with an authoritarian style, especially those who only give orders, threaten, and punish. But there are many students who have a positive attitude towards a teacher with an authoritarian leadership style, especially if they highly appreciate his business qualities, knowledge, erudition, and the ability to teach his subject in an interesting way. Classes taught by such teachers usually have good discipline and academic performance (with the exception of an extremely authoritarian style, in which academic performance falls due to the negative attitude of students towards the teacher).

However, external well-being with an authoritarian style of leadership may hide significant shortcomings in the work of the teacher in shaping the personality of the student. Schoolchildren may develop inadequate low self-esteem and the level of claims (students set goals that do not correspond to their capabilities), the development of collectivist relations between students is delayed, and a cult of strength and power develops.

Between students and a teacher who, when making decisions, is guided mainly by his own opinion and does not take into account the opinion of the class, there may be barrier of intolerance. It is expressed in the unwillingness of the teacher to bring his position on certain issues (for example, in the election of the head of the class, etc.) closer to the position of the group of schoolchildren. There is mutual intransigence, unnecessary vehemence, turning into stubbornness and causing mutual resentment.

Of course, the above should not be understood in such a way that the authoritarian style of leadership should be completely excluded from the practice of the teacher. It can be used, but it is important that it is appropriate for the situation, and not be spontaneous and unconscious. For example, when a group led by a teacher is uninitiated, accustomed to the passive execution of orders, at first it is more expedient to use an authoritarian style of leadership in order to give its activities an organized character. Sometimes teach-

The client needs to show “willpower” in order to overcome unwanted tendencies in life school team, as A. S. Makarenko did in his time. However, at the same time, it is important that the volitional and autocratic methods of leadership should not be aimed at depersonalizing and suppressing the individuality of students, but, on the contrary, at awakening an active life position personality, the victory of collectivist tendencies over spontaneity and anarchism.

Democratic leadership style. A teacher who adopts this style of leadership can be described as "first among equals". By his behavior he shows that his power is a necessity for effective implementation tasks facing the school team, and no more. He tries to lead in such a way that each student takes the maximum part in achieving a common goal. To do this, he distributes responsibility among schoolchildren, encourages and develops relations between them, creates an atmosphere of business cooperation and camaraderie. The decision is made collectively, taking into account the opinion of the asset. It relies in activities on the help of schoolchildren, taking into account their inclinations and abilities. Skillfully attracts schoolchildren who enjoy authority among their peers to strengthen cohesion and discipline.

A teacher of a democratic style sees the meaning of his activity not only in controlling and coordinating the actions of the school team, but also in educating and inculcating organizational skills and abilities in schoolchildren, therefore he sets motivated tasks for them, encourages the individual efforts of each, makes them public. This contributes to the development of initiative and creative independence of students. .

A democratic style teacher is more accessible to students; they feel freer with him and willingly communicate with him. Therefore, a teacher with such a leadership style knows better the inner life of students, their experiences, fears, aspirations, hopes. The verbal communication of the teacher with the students in this case is based on suggestions, persuasion, requests, advice, confidential intonation. It has been established that only 5% of the communication methods of such a teacher are in the nature of commands or orders. Teachers of the democratic leadership style are more adequate than teachers of the authoritarian and liberal styles in assessing the positive and negative traits of the student's character.

Liberal (permissive) leadership style. This style is characterized by the desire of the teacher to interfere as little as possible -

338 Part three. Pedagogical psychology

Chapter 20. Psychological characteristics of the teacher's activity 339

Xia in the affairs of the asset, providing students with great freedom of action, moreover, unjustified, in many situations. Such a teacher does not want to take responsibility for the decisions made and their consequences, does not show initiative, but waits for instructions from above. He is often inconsistent in his actions and deeds, easily influenced by others, including students, so he can cancel a previously made decision without serious grounds. A liberal teacher is not demanding enough, respectful and friendly with students. Weakly and irregularly controls the activities of students, which is why his orders often remain unfulfilled.

Teachers with this leadership style do not enjoy authority among schoolchildren because of their lack of exactingness and adherence to principles, as they do not know how to organize and direct the activities of students. It is typical for such teachers to overestimate the positive qualities of students and underestimate the negative ones.

It should be emphasized that in its "pure" form, authoritarian and liberal leadership styles are rare. Basically, these are mixed styles: authoritarian-democratic and liberal-democratic.

Styles of teachers - men and women. Female teachers showed a greater desire for demonstration and explanation than male teachers. educational material, they often ask questions and supplement the answers of students, more often give them both positive and negative emotional assessments, more often use jokes in the lesson.

Instructions, demands, ultimatum recommendations, commands, direct orders are more often used by male teachers. They show a greater desire for specific instructions for organizing work. AT educational work they pay more attention to the external and formal side, delving less into the motives of the student's behavior. Thus, the leadership of a male teacher is more authoritarian in nature than that of a female teacher. This is also manifested in the more frequent use by the first of disciplining remarks to students.

test questions

1. What human activity is called activity?

2. What are the components of activity?

3. What are the stages of activity?

What is a pedagogical task? What is needed to successfully solve it?

What are the functions of a teacher?

What is an activity style? What styles of activity can teachers have?

What is a leadership style? What leadership styles can you name? What are the reasons for the appearance of this or that style in the teacher?

Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specificity of which is determined by the different social role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication. The teacher in the process of pedagogical communication carries out (directly or indirectly)

later, with the coming to power in Germany of the Nazis, who emigrated to the United States. In the same study, a classification of leadership styles was introduced, which is commonly used today:

2. Democratic.

3. Permissive.

Vivid examples of all these leadership styles can be found in any literary work devoted to the life of the school.

Thus, the protagonist of F. Sologub's novel "The Little Demon", a teacher at the Peredonov gymnasium, is a typical authoritarian teacher. He firmly believes that a high school student can only be curbed by force, and considers low grades and a rod to be the main means of influence. In the autobiographical novel by G. Chernykh and L. Panteleev “Republic of Shkid”, we see a whole string of images of teachers who have to “pick up the key” to former homeless children with a criminal past. Those who adhere to the permissive style very soon leave the walls of the school, hunted down by students. Particularly indicative is the story of the young teacher Pal Vanych Arikov, who presented his familiarity as a new word in pedagogy. Instead of literature lessons, the students chatted with him as an equal, sang, and messed around, but soon realized that such “study” did not bear any fruit, and they themselves abandoned the supposedly “democratic” teacher. A true democratic style in work was shown only by the director of the school, who knew for sure that the children needed both the opportunity to show initiative and the leadership that restrained their violent impulses. The image of this wise and patient teacher was vividly embodied in the film adaptation of the book by Sergei Yursky - a man who measures the strength of students with their abilities and emotional outbursts.

It is not uncommon to hear that although the leadership styles listed above have been described and developed in relation to production management and communication between the boss and subordinates, they can, in principle, be transferred to the area of ​​pedagogical communication. This statement is incorrect due to one circumstance, little mentioned in works on social psychology. And the thing is that K. Levin conducted his famous study, studying the peculiarities of leading an adult group of schoolchildren. And this problem is directly included in the subject area of ​​social pedagogical psychology. So, rather, on the contrary, the classification of pedagogical styles can be transferred to leadership styles in general, to the field of industrial social psychology.

During the experiment, K. Levin created several groups (“circles”) of ten-year-old schoolchildren. The guys in these groups were engaged in the same work - making toys. For the purposes of the necessary purity of the experiment, the groups were completely identical in terms of age, physical and intellectual characteristics of the participants, the structure of interpersonal relationships, and so on. All groups worked, in addition, under the same conditions, according to a common program, they performed the same task. The only significant difference as a variable was the significant difference of the instructors, i.e. teachers. The difference was in leadership styles: the teachers adhered to some authoritarian, some democratic, and some conniving style. Each of them worked with one group for six weeks, and then the groups were exchanged. Then the work continued for another six weeks, and then a new transition to another group. Such a procedure made the experiment extremely correct: the groups were not only identical initially, but also underwent the same influence of all teachers and, accordingly, all styles. In this way, group factor was reduced to zero, and the researcher had an excellent opportunity to trace the influence of the leadership style on interpersonal relations in the group, on the motivation of activities, on labor productivity, etc.

Before analyzing the influence of leadership style on all these parameters, it is absolutely necessary to describe the features of communication between a teacher of one style or another and schoolchildren in K. Levin's experiment.

With an authoritarian style a characteristic general trend towards strict management and comprehensive control was expressed in the following. The teacher, much more often than in other groups, resorted to the tone of the order, made sharp remarks. Characteristic were also tactless remarks addressed to some participants and causeless, unreasonable praises of others. The authoritarian teacher determined not only the general goals of the activity and the task, but also indicated the ways of fulfilling it, making tough decisions about who would work with whom. Tasks and methods of its implementation were given to students in stages. (Such an approach reduces the motivation of an activity, since a person does not know exactly its ultimate goals.) It should also be noted that in terms of social and perceptual attitudes and in terms of interpersonal attitudes, an orientation towards a phased differentiation of activities and phased control indicate a teacher’s distrust of independence and responsibility. own students. Or, at the very least, it could mean that the teacher assumes that these qualities are very poorly developed in his group. The authoritarian teacher severely suppressed any manifestation of initiative, considering it as unacceptable arbitrariness. Studies by other scientists that followed the work of K. Levin showed that such behavior of an authoritarian leader is based on his ideas that the initiative undermines his authority and faith in his competence. “If one of the students suggests improvements due to a different course of work, then he indirectly indicates that I did not foresee this,” the authoritarian teacher argues. In addition, it turned out that the authoritarian leader assessed the success of the participants subjectively, addressing reproaches (praise) to the performer as a person.

With a democratic style Facts were judged, not personality. But the main feature of the democratic style was the active participation of the group in discussing the progress of the forthcoming work and its organization. As a result, participants developed self-confidence and stimulated self-management. With this style, sociability and trust in relationships increased in the group.

main feature permissive leadership style consisted in the fact that the teacher, in fact, withdrew himself from responsibility for what was happening.

Judging by the results of the experiment, the worst style turned out to be conniving. Under him, the least work was done, and its quality left much to be desired. It was also important that the participants noted low satisfaction with work in the conniving style group, although they did not bear any responsibility for it, and the work was more like a game.

The most effective was the democratic style. The group members showed a keen interest in the work, positive internal motivation of activity. The quality and originality of tasks performance improved significantly. Group cohesion, a sense of pride in common successes, mutual assistance and friendliness in relationships - all this has developed to a very high degree in a democratic group.

Later studies only confirmed the results of Levin's experiment. The preference for a democratic style in pedagogical communication has been proven in different age groups, from elementary school students to high school students.

The subject of one of the studies (N.F. Maslova) was the study of the attitude of first-graders to school. At the same time, the polls were conducted twice - the first time the attitude of future first-graders was recorded

Also, during the experiment, it turned out that authoritarian teachers have poorly performing students. triple more often indicate that their teacher likes to put deuces. The most notable thing is that actually in cool magazines the number of twos for teachers of authoritarian and democratic styles turned out to be the same. Thus, the style of interaction between the teacher and students in this case determines the features of how students perceive it. It is clear that children's interest in learning depends not so much on the difficulties of school life, but on the peculiarities of the teacher's treatment of students.

In another study, the relationship between the styles of pedagogical communication and the peculiarities of the teacher's perception of the personality of students was studied (A.A. Bodalev). As a result, it was found that authoritarian teachers underestimate the development in students of such qualities as collectivism, initiative, independence, exactingness towards others. At the same time, they often spoke of children as impulsive, lazy, undisciplined, irresponsible, and so on. Note that such views of authoritarian educators are largely a conscious or subconscious motivation that justifies their harsh leadership style. The formulas of this logical chain can be expressed as follows: “My students are lazy, undisciplined and irresponsible, and therefore it is absolutely necessary constantly monitor their activity at all its stages”; “My students are so non-initiative and independent that I simply have to take all the lead determine their strategy, give them instructions recommendations, etc.” Indeed, our behavior is the slave of our attitudes.

To be fair, it should be noted that modern social psychology asserts that there are also such circumstances when an authoritarian style may still be the most fruitful and adequate. Here, again, it is appropriate to recall the already mentioned novel "The Republic of Shkid", where the only way to curb the "difficult" orphans, recent homeless children, in a critical situation was precisely the authoritarian style, tough leadership, and decisive measures. However, for situations of ordinary communication, especially pedagogical, this is the exception rather than the rule.

Cognition of the personality of students

The problem of the teacher's knowledge of the student's personality is traditionally relevant in practical terms. More K.D. Ushinsky, who paid considerable attention to the psychological aspect in solving the problems of pedagogy, emphasized that if pedagogy wants bring up person in all respects, then it must first of all to know him in every way. However, it was not at all easy to move from an imperative and rather journalistic formulation of the problem to its scientific formulation, and even more so to methods for solving it.

At present, the problem of the teacher's knowledge of the student's personality has acquired special significance, because it is directly related to the humanistic trends that form the core of modern

the subject-subject system, from a one-sided process of analysis to a two-sided one. Despite the fact that in psychology the concepts of "activity" and "communication" are considered as independent categories, there are areas in which they converge. This is especially noticeable in the example of pedagogical disciplines, the object of which is exactly the activity that is built according to the laws of communication. Communication as such always presupposes a parallel process of interpersonal cognition. Therefore, the effectiveness of pedagogical communication largely depends on how fully and adequately the teacher reflects the personality of the student.

The problem of the productivity of pedagogical activity and communication is one of the most urgent in pedagogy and pedagogical psychology. The high objective complexity of this problem is explained by a whole range of factors that affect the final result of pedagogical activity. As for the subjective difficulty of solving it, it is connected mainly with numerous, often contradictory approaches to analysis and even to the very formulation of the problem.

So, in relation to pedagogical activity, it is customary to talk about its productivity, efficiency, optimization, etc. All these concepts have much in common, but each of them also reflects a specific aspect of the problem. The question of the productivity of pedagogical activity in a number of studies is raised in the context of the acmeological approach. In the works of B.G. Ananiev laid the foundations for a new section of developmental psychology ¾ acmeology, which is regarded as the science of the most productive, creative period of a person's life. Developing these ideas in relation to pedagogy and pedagogical psychology, N.V. Kuzmina experimentally and theoretically substantiated the acmeological approach to pedagogical activity. Since in this case we are talking about the study of the features of the fruitful activity of the teacher, the main criterion is not the age, but the professionalism of the teacher.

The concept of "productivity" of pedagogical activity is ambiguous. We can talk, for example, about functional and psychological productivity. Functional products of activity usually mean the creation of a system of didactic methods and techniques, communication skills, etc. Under the psychological ¾ neoplasms in the personality of the student. There is no rigid relationship between functional and psychological products: a high functional level does not always correspond to an adequate psychological one.

In recent years, along with the traditional attention to the problems of the psychology of activity, more and more attention has been paid to the problems of the psychology of communication. There is no need to consider here the theoretical aspects of these concepts and their differences. We only note that in modern science, communication and activity are independent psychological realities with their own structure and their own laws. There are organic links between them. Moreover, there is communication that is fundamentally built according to the laws of activity (for example, acting), and vice versa, there are types of activities that are built according to the laws of communication.

Since the object of pedagogical activity is a person / person, it is built according to the laws of communication. In the structure of communication, three components are usually distinguished:

1. Cognitive (cognitive).

2. Affective (emotional).

3. Behavioral.

There are other models, however, in any classification, the cognitive aspect of communication stands out first of all. In pedagogical communication, it acquires special significance. The effectiveness of pedagogical activity depends precisely on the depth of the teacher's study of the student's personality, on the adequacy and completeness of knowledge. As it appears from the studies of S.V. Kondratieva and her collaborators (I mean, first of all, the works of V.M. Rozbudko), teachers with a low level of productivity usually perceive only the external image. They do not delve into the true goals and motives, while teachers of a high level of productivity are able to reflect the stable integrative properties of the personality, identify the leading goals and motives of behavior, the objectivity of value judgments, etc. Similar results were obtained in the course of other studies (A.A. Bodalev, A.A. Rean, etc.). Thus, the close relationship between the productivity of pedagogical activity and the effectiveness of the teacher's knowledge of the personality of students is quite obvious. The mechanism of stereotyping, well known to us from the general theory of interpersonal cognition, "works" in the process of cognition by the teacher of the student's personality. Moreover, all its varieties are also present here: social, emotional-aesthetic, anthropological.

Thus, the teacher, under the influence of his own pedagogical experience, develops specific social stereotypes: “excellent student”, “loser student”, “activist”, etc. When meeting with a student for the first time who has already received the characteristics of an “excellent student” or “loser student”, the teacher is more or less likely to assume that he has certain qualities. Of course, one should not think that this set of stereotypes is unchanged, that all teachers paint themselves the same image of an “excellent student”, “loser student”, “public activist”, etc. On the contrary, all evaluative stereotypes are emphatically subjective, individual in nature. There is nothing surprising in this, since each stereotype represents a fixed experience of communicating with students, the experience of this particular teacher. Let's imagine such a situation. Several teachers learn that an activist, a clear leader, will be studying in their group. They will react differently. One, by virtue of his stereotype, may assume that it will become easier to manage the group, the other, relying on the bitter experience of communicating with “activists”, will decide that the newcomer is certainly a careerist, an upstart who behaves defiantly, etc.

Speaking about the individual content of pedagogical stereotypes, one should not forget about the general trend of the prevalence of many of them. It is well known that the following stereotype is extremely common among teachers: the good performance of students is associated with personality characteristics. A person who successfully studies is a priori perceived as a capable, conscientious, honest, disciplined person. And vice versa, a “loser” is a mediocre, unassembled lazy person.

In a number of studies, as well as in pedagogical journalism, one can find descriptions of another pedagogical stereotype: very often “unhappy” children are considered “ruffy”, restless students, those who cannot sit in class, silently, passively respond to comments, those who invariably enters into controversy. Practice shows that most often teachers ask a psychologist to "work" with such "uncontrollable" children, considering them prone to antisocial behavior. But students who willingly obey the teacher, act according to his instructions and comments, are usually considered prosperous, they are not classified as “difficult”. This phenomenon, although it deserves the most detailed consideration, is nonetheless inherently connected with general, universal psychological laws. In this regard, the work of Indian psychologists P. Janak and S. Purnima deserves special mention. Their experiments showed how much flattery and an exaggeratedly reverent attitude to the instructions of the authorities lead to the fact that the leader approves of the "flatterer". It is interesting that those leaders who enjoyed the reputation of impassive, objective, emphatically formal in their treatment of subordinates turned out to be greedy for flattery.

The fact that a teacher's professional assessment of a student's personal qualities may depend on his external attractiveness may seem implausible. And yet this effect is manifested not only in the assessments of adolescents, but also in toddlers. During one of the experiments, university students - future teachers - were given descriptions of misdemeanors committed by seven-year-olds. Photographs of the "culprits" were attached to these descriptions. Assessing their attitude towards these babies and their behavior, the students showed greater indulgence towards the owners of a more attractive appearance (A.A. Bodalev, 1983).

The story of the English king Richard III, the "black legend" of Britain, is indicative. Judging by the historical data, the chronicles of Thomas More, which Shakespeare also used in his play, the king, who ascended the throne over the corpses of his relatives and opponents, including two young princes, was a notorious villain, and even a hunchbacked lame freak. But more recently, historians have established that after the death of Richard, a clan of nobles hostile to him rigged not only part of the historical information, where the king was portrayed as a villain and a freak, but also forced court artists to rewrite Richard's portrait, "mutilating" his face and figure with a brush and paints.

As we can see, the connection of appearance with the inner qualities of a person is indestructible for many. The enemies of the king, wishing to denigrate him in the eyes of posterity, did not limit themselves to slandering his deeds, since for them there was no doubt that an evil person was ugly. Thanks to the ingenious tragedy of Shakespeare, the stereotype of "an ugly man is angry" has only become stronger in our minds. And on the contrary - in O. Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" a young man, naturally endowed with extraordinary beauty, at first glance seemed kind, attentive, sympathetic to those around him. And even when his vicious behavior became known in society, many did not believe that such a handsome man was capable of such villainy.

Like any person, the teacher is almost never aware of the influence of many stereotypes on the students' own assessments. However, this circumstance does not cancel their actions, on the contrary, the less a person is aware of the presence of stereotypes, the more susceptible he is to their influence. Any stereotypes have a huge impact on perception precisely when we know little about a person - i.e. in conditions of lack of information about the individual. As the teacher gets to know the students, interacts with them during and after school hours, in the process of observing their behavior in various situations, the assessment becomes more and more individualized. And then it begins to be determined by specific features of behavior and activity. Therefore, the pedagogical commandment formulated by V.P. Zinchenko jokingly: “Do not be surprised when a student leaves the image that you endowed him with or built for him. This is fine".

So, pedagogical stereotypes exist and play a certain role in the teacher's knowledge of the student's personality. Is it bad or good? This question is difficult to answer unambiguously. In scientific terms, it is necessary to take into account the moment attribution of certain qualities, mediating and replacing knowledge as such. It is meaningless to judge the attribution process as "bad" or "good"; it needs to be studied comprehensively. The purpose of such a study is to reveal the content and mechanism of these processes. This contributes to the correction and self-correction in the sphere of perception and evaluation of others.

If we try to answer the question about pedagogical stereotypes from a practical point of view, then one can find both “pluses” and “minuses” in their existence. The negative side of stereotypes is clear and understandable. It is generally accepted that they lead to the limitation of the "pedagogical vision", deprive the ability to adequately and comprehensively know the student's personality. And this negatively affects the attitude towards him and reduces the effectiveness of the management of the educational process. What's good about stereotypes? Let's think about what meaning we put in the concept of "experienced teacher".

One of his main qualities is the ability to determine their main features at the first meeting with students, to outline the distribution of roles in the team. An experienced teacher, entering a new group for the first time, notes: “This one, most likely, will give me a lot of trouble, a tough nut to crack, and this one ...” What is this, if not reliance on pedagogical stereotypes based on experience pedagogical work, constant interaction with children? The cognitive function of stereotypes is evident.

In interpersonal cognition, stereotypes play a negative role if the teacher strictly follows them and their influence becomes absolute. And stereotypes acquire a positive meaning if the teacher, relying on them, gives only a probable approximate assessment of the student's personality (“most likely, he will give me a lot of trouble”); if the teacher is aware of the existence of subjective evaluative stereotypes. Relying on stereotypes, ideally, should be only one of the possible mechanisms of cognition that operates in conditions of information deficiency, and subsequently gives way to a purposeful professional study of personality.

The phenomenon of projection also plays an important role in the student's cognition. Its essence lies in attributing one's own personal characteristics to another. Projection, as well as the influence of stereotypes, can also take place in the pedagogical process. However, in the course of the teacher's knowledge of the student's personality, the possibility of projection is limited by differences in age, social status and role positions of teachers and students. When these differences are objectively (for example, due to the youth of the teacher) and subjectively (attitude towards equality - communal methodology, pedagogy of cooperation) are not so significant, the action of the projection mechanism can be quite significant.

A special role in the process of cognition by the teacher of the personality of students and communication with him belongs to empathy. The ability to empathize not only increases the adequacy of the perception of the “other”, but also leads to the establishment of effective, positive relationships with students.

On the one hand, a deeper and more adequate reflection of the personality of students allows the teacher to make their decisions more reasonably, which means it increases the productivity of the educational process. On the other hand, the manifestation of empathy finds an emotional response in the student, and a positive relationship is established between him and the teacher. And this, in turn, also cannot but increase the productivity of pedagogical communication.

In J. Salinger's famous novel The Catcher in the Rye, the only person from the adult world whom the teenage protagonist (entangled in problems and immersed in stress) turns to for help and support is his former school teacher. Why, after all, Holden has not been studying with him for a long time? The fact is that Mr. Antolini empathizes boy, while parents and other teachers only express concern and dictate their will. Moreover, Holden evaluates teachers not by their professional merit, and depending on their spiritual qualities, the ability to empathize.

In working with "difficult" teenagers, the manifestation of empathy is of particular importance, since many of them experience a real lack of sympathy, empathy. According to one domestic study, 92.2% of adolescents registered with the juvenile affairs inspectorate felt a lack of positive emotional contacts and were in a state of psychological isolation in their study groups. According to L.M. Zyubina, 35% of adolescent offenders live in families that are characterized by unhealthy relationships between parents and children, the presence of pronounced asocial attitudes that operate in the family. Research L.M. Zyubina, as well as a number of others, show that in recent years the influence of an unfavorable situation in the family on the behavior of a teenager has increased. Numerous experimental and empirical studies have established that the development of a propensity for violence and its consolidation in the form of a person's lifestyle is usually directly related to a lack of empathy both in the person himself and in his environment. The reasons behind this behavior are rooted in early childhood. Research data convincingly show that the vast majority of adolescents with delinquent (illegal) behavior experienced emotional isolation to one degree or another: lack of love, lack of parental care, etc.

No one denies the undoubted importance of empathy in pedagogical contact with such children. However, we have to state with regret that in reality they not only experience a lack of empathy on the part of teachers, but are subjected to even greater pressure than in the family. In some cases, the inability to show empathy, combined with low pedagogical professionalism, significantly aggravates the process of negative development of the adolescent's personality, directly leading to didactogeny. (Didactogeny is the harm to the neuropsychic health of students due to unprofessional actions of the teacher). Let us give as an example a case that one of the authors had to face in the course of studying psychological characteristics the identity of adolescents registered with the Inspectorate for Juvenile Affairs. The teacher who supervised one of the teenagers noted that after deregistration he became uncontrollable, rude, behaved defiantly, etc. But while he was registered, everything was fine, and she found a common language with him. What teaching method did this teacher use? It turns out that the teenager's comrades were unaware of the misconduct that led to registration with the juvenile inspectorate. And as soon as the teenager's behavior once again went beyond the established limits, the teacher invited him to an individual conversation, the core of which was the threat to tell his comrades "everything". This, no doubt, effective method of maintaining discipline was used repeatedly for almost two years. Let's think about it: blackmail was elevated to the rank of a pedagogical device, the cynicism of which does not require either psychological or pedagogical evidence.

Mechanisms decentration and identification also play an important role in the process of learning the student's personality by the teacher. The adequacy, completeness and depth of knowledge of the student's personality depend precisely on the teacher's ability to overcome egocentrism, look at the situation through the student's eyes, understand and accept the student's point of view, and finally, take his place and reason from his position. All this becomes possible thanks not only to the initial pedagogical abilities, but also to special skills. Consequently, the theoretical patterns and applied aspects of the teacher's knowledge of students must necessarily be considered as a central element of professional and pedagogical training.

Summary

Paying tribute to the uniqueness of the creativity of a particular teacher, it must be emphasized that it is possible scientific analysis pedagogical activity, built not on descriptions, but on principles comparative study, qualitative-quantitative analysis. Promising in this regard is the direction associated with the application of the principles of a systematic approach to the analysis of pedagogical activity and the construction of models of this activity. By definition, a system is a set of elements with relationships and connections between them, forming a certain integrity. With regard to pedagogical systems, it is possible and necessary to strengthen this definition and consider that only such a complex of selective involvement of components can be called a system, in which the interaction and relationship acquire the character cooperation components aimed at obtaining a focused useful result. structural components pedagogical system are: the subject and object of pedagogical influence, the subject of their joint activities, learning objectives and means of pedagogical communication. The following components are distinguished in the structure of the teacher's work: professional psychological and pedagogical knowledge; professional pedagogical skills; professional psychological positions, attitudes of the teacher, required from him by the profession; personal characteristics that ensure the teacher's mastery of professional knowledge and skills. Pedagogical activity This is not an individual activity, but a collaborative one. It is always joint already because in the pedagogical process there are necessarily two active sides: teacher, lecturer - and pupil, student. Pedagogical activity is also joint because it is almost always "ensemble". A pupil, a student in the learning process simultaneously interacts not with one teacher, but with a whole group of teachers and teachers. And their pedagogical activity turns out to be the most effective, and their efforts leave the greatest mark on the student's personality when the activity of teachers is joint, coordinated, "ensemble". The highest criterion for such consistency is not just the interaction of teachers among themselves, but their mutual assistance aimed at achieving ultimate goal, which is not at all the methodical perfection of the process, but student identity- its development, training and education.

Pedagogical communication is usually understood as professional communication. teacher with students the process of training and education, aimed at solving certain pedagogical problems and the implementation of pedagogical functions. Between the categories of "communication" and "activity" there is a dialectical relationship. Moreover, it can be argued that there are activities that are fundamentally built according to the laws of communication. Obviously, teaching is one of them. Interpersonal relations in the study group should be formed purposefully by the teacher in the process of pedagogical communication. At the same time, at certain - higher - stages, the leading source becomes self-development team. But at the initial stages, the central place in the formation of a high level of interpersonal relations belongs to the teacher. Empirically established differences in the structure of communication between teachers different levels pedagogical skill. Thus, in the structure of the influences of high-level teachers, the first place is occupied by the influences of an organizing nature, and the teacher low level- disciplining. At the same time, organizing influences in the structure of interaction between low-level teachers occupy the last ranking place. The breadth of the repertoire of the teacher's verbal influences on students is also related to the level of the teacher's activity and the level of understanding of the student's personality. The ratio of the duration of the teacher's speech to the duration of the speech of the students during the lesson varies from 2.3 to 6.3, and the average value of this ratio is more than 4. The higher the level of the teacher's professionalism, the less the disproportionality of this ratio. Effective pedagogical communication is always aimed at the formation of a positive self-concept of the individual, at the development of the student's self-confidence, in his abilities, in his potential. By

Coursework on the topic Examining Teacher's Pedagogical Leadership Styles

Content:

Introduction

Communication styles and leadership styles……… ……………

Styles of pedagogical leadership in the works of domestic and foreign psychologists and teachers……….

The value of the individual style of communication and the means of increasing the communication of the teacher…..

Conclusion………..

Bibliography………..

Introduction

Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specificity of which is determined by the different social role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication. The teacher in the process of pedagogical communication carries out (directly or indirectly) his social role and functional duties to manage the process of education and upbringing. The effectiveness of the processes of training and education, the features of personality development and the formation of interpersonal relations in the study group largely depend on the style features of this communication and leadership. Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specificity of which is determined by the different social role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication. Purpose of the study: the study of teacher pedagogical leadership styles.

Object of study: leadership styles.

Subject of study: teacher's pedagogical leadership styles.

Research objectives:

Based on the analysis of the literature, to reveal and clarify the concepts of "styles of education" and "styles of teacher's pedagogical leadership".

To systematize ideas about the styles of pedagogical leadership in the works of domestic and foreign psychologists and teachers.

Select psychodiagnostic methods for the study.

Organize the procedure and conduct research.

Analyze the results.

Research methods:

Theoretical analysis of scientific sources.

Methodology…..

Communication styles and leadership styles.

Communication (in particular, pedagogical) is one of the most fashionable topics of modern psychology. From the late 1960s to the present, hundreds of works have been devoted to this topic. Especially many such works were published in the USA, Germany and Italy. From time to time, very solid works appear, summarizing entire layers of research work on communication problems. One of such generalizing works of American psychologists J. Brophy and T. Goodd "Teacher-Student Relations" is analyzed by Professor A. A. Leontiev. He draws attention to the data collected by the authors, which relate to the "subjectivity" of the teacher's communication, which manifests itself primarily in a selective attitude.
To date, a productively organized process of pedagogical communication is designed to provide real psychological contact in pedagogical activity, which should arise between the teacher and the children. Turn them into subjects of communication, help overcome various psychological barriers (arising in the process of interaction), transfer children from their usual position of being led to the position of cooperation and turn them into subjects of pedagogical creativity. In this case, pedagogical communication forms an integral socio-psychological structure of pedagogical activity. Pedagogical communication in training and education serves as a tool to influence the personality of the student. Pedagogical communication - complete system(techniques and skills) of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and the pupils, which contains the exchange of information, educational influences and the organization of relationships with the help of communicative means. In addition to the usual functions, the specificity of pedagogical communication gives rise to another function of the socio-psychological support of the educational process, the organizational function of the relationship between the teacher and the students and acts as a means of solving educational problems. Among the most challenging tasks, facing the teacher, includes the organization of productive communication, which implies the presence of a high level of development of communication skills. And it is very important to organize communication with children in such a way that this unique process takes place. Communication style plays an important role here.
The effectiveness of pedagogical activity largely depends on the style of communication and the style of leadership of pupils.
What is a communication style? To answer this question, let us turn to the most general interpretation of the concept of "style".
Style is a set of techniques, ways of working, it is a characteristic manner of human behavior. According to the definition of psychologist A. A. Bodalev, style is an individually peculiar manner of acting.
The style of communication between a teacher and children is a socially and morally saturated category. Proceeding from this, V. A. Kan-Kalik wrote: “Under the style of communication, we understand the individual typological features of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students.”
The style features of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership depend, on the one hand, on the individuality of the teacher, on his competence, communicative culture, emotional and moral attitude towards pupils, creative approach to professional activity, on the other hand, on the characteristics of the pupils, their age, gender, education, upbringing and characteristics of the student team with which the teacher comes into contact.
Consider the typical styles of pedagogical communication, the characteristics of which are given by V. A. Kan-Kalik.
most fruitfully communication based on passion for joint activities. It presupposes commonwealth, joint interest, co-creation. The main thing for this style is the unity of the teacher's high level of competence and his moral attitudes.
The pedagogical style is also effective. communication based on friendship. It manifests itself in a sincere interest in the personality of the pupil, in the team, in the desire to understand the motives of the child's activities and behavior, in the openness of contacts. This style stimulates passion for joint creative activity, fruitful relationship between the teacher and pupils, but with this style, the measure is important, “the expediency of friendliness”.
In the selected styles of communication, the interaction "teacher-student" is considered as a two-way subject-subject interaction, involving the activity of both parties. In the educational process, these humanistically oriented styles create a situation of comfort, contribute to the development and manifestation of individuality.
In the system of relations between teachers and students in training and education, the style distance communication. Beginning teachers often use this style to assert themselves in a student environment. The distance must exist, it is necessary, since the teacher and pupils occupy different social positions. The more natural for the pupil the leading role of the teacher, the more organic and natural for him the distance in relations with the teacher. It is very important for a teacher to master the art of distance. A. S. Makarenko pointed out the importance of this moment, emphasizing how important it is to avoid familiarity in communication.
There are also negative communication styles. These include: a) communication-intimidation, which is based on strict regulation of activities, on unquestioning obedience, fear, dictatorship, orientation of children to what cannot be done; with this style there can be no joint enthusiasm for activities, there can be no co-creation; b) flirting communication, based on the desire to please the pupils, to gain authority (but it will be cheap, false); young teachers choose this style of communication due to lack of professional experience, experience of communicative culture; in) communication-superiority characterized by the desire of the teacher to rise above the pupils; he is absorbed in himself, he does not feel the students, he is little interested in his relations with them, he is removed from the children.
Negative styles of communication are focused on subject-object relations, that is, they are dominated by the position of the teacher, who considers pupils as an object of influence.
Styles of pedagogical communication find their expression in the styles of pedagogical leadership.
The style of pedagogical leadership is manifested in the positions of the teacher and pupils, in the prevailing ways of interacting with the individual and the team, in the ratio of disciplinary and organizational influences, direct and feedback, in assessments, tone, and form of address.
The most common classification of leadership styles includes authoritarian, democratic and liberal styles.
At authoritarian leadership style The teacher takes care of everything. The goals of the activity, the methods of its implementation are single-handedly set by the teacher. He does not explain his actions, does not comment, shows excessive demands, is categorical in his judgments, does not accept objections, and disdainfully treats the opinions and initiative of students. The teacher constantly shows his superiority, he lacks empathy, sympathy. Pupils find themselves in the position of being led, in the position of objects of pedagogical influence.
The official, commanding, bossy tone of address prevails, the form of address is an indication, a lesson, an order, an instruction, a shout. Communication is based on disciplinary influences and submission.
This style can be expressed by the words: "Do as I say, and do not argue."
This style hinders the development of personality, suppresses activity, fetters initiative, creates adequate self-esteem; in relationships, he erects, according to G. I. Shchukina, an impenetrable wall, semantic and emotional barriers between the teacher and students.
At democratic leadership style communication and activity are built on creative collaboration. Joint activity is motivated by the teacher, he listens to the opinion of students, supports the pupil's right to his position, encourages activity, initiative, discusses the idea, methods and course of activity. Organizing influences prevail. This style is characterized by a positive-emotional atmosphere of interaction, benevolence, trust, exactingness and respect, taking into account the individuality of the individual. The main form of address is advice, recommendation, request.
This style of leadership can be expressed in the words: “Together we conceived, together we plan, organize, sum up.”
This style disposes students to the teacher, promotes their development and self-development, causes a desire for joint activities, encourages independence, stimulates self-government, high adequate self-esteem and, most importantly, contributes to the formation of trusting, humanistic relationships.
At liberal leadership style there is no system in the organization of activities and control. The teacher takes the position of an outside observer, does not delve into the life of the team, into the problems of an individual, is content with minimal achievements. The tone of the appeal is dictated by the desire to avoid difficult situations, largely depends on the mood of the teacher, the form of the appeal is exhortation, persuasion.
This style leads to familiarity or alienation; it does not contribute to the development of activity, does not encourage initiative, independence of pupils. With this leadership style, there is no purposeful teacher-student interaction.
This style can be expressed by the words: "As everything goes, so let it go."
Note that in pure form one style of leadership is rare.
Democratic style is the most preferred. However, elements of an authoritarian leadership style may also be present in the activities of a teacher, for example, when organizing a complex type of activity, when establishing order and discipline. Elements of the liberal style of leadership are acceptable in the organization of creative activity, when the position of non-interference is appropriate, providing the pupil with independence.
Thus, the leadership style of the teacher is characterized by flexibility, variability, depends on specific conditions, on who he deals with - with younger students or high school students, what are their individual characteristics, what is the nature of the activity.
Styles of pedagogical leadership in the works of domestic and foreign psychologists and teachers.
The decisive role and great importance of pedagogical communication in the educational process was pointed out by many outstanding teachers. A. S. Makarenko emphasized the need for a teacher to master the technique of pedagogical skill, the technique of pedagogical communication: "You need to be able to read human face, on the face of a child, and this reading can even be described in a special course. There is nothing cunning, nothing mystical in recognizing certain signs of mental movements by the face. Pedagogical skill lies in setting the voice of the educator, and in managing one's face. The teacher can not play. There can't be a teacher who doesn't know how to act... But you can't just play on stage, outwardly. There is some kind of drive belt that should connect your beautiful personality with this game ... I became a real master only when I learned to say "come here" with 15-20 shades, when I learned to give 20 nuances in the setting of the face, figure, voices". Despite the well-known truth "the persuasiveness of a teacher is not proportional to the loudness of his voice", many, if one may say so, "teachers" use the most vulgar cry in pedagogical communication. The pages of the books of the outstanding teacher V.A. "Be careful that the word does not become a whip, which, touching the delicate body, burns, leaving rough scars for life. It is from these touches that adolescence seems like a desert ... The word spares and protects the soul of a teenager only when it is truthful and comes from the soul of the educator, when there is no falsehood, prejudice, desire to "bake", "smoke" ... the word of the teacher should, first of all, reassure". It is not so rare that pedagogical communication is replaced by the teacher's edifying idle talk, which causes students only one desire: to wait for its end as soon as possible. V. A. Sukhomlinsky wrote about this: "Every word that sounds within the walls of the school , must be thoughtful, wise, purposeful, full-bodied and - this is especially important - addressed to the conscience of a living concrete person with whom we are dealing ... so that there is no depreciation of words, but on the contrary - so that the price of a word constantly increases.
Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specificity of which is determined by the different social role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication. The teacher in the process of pedagogical communication carries out (directly or indirectly) his social role and functional duties to manage the process of education and upbringing. The effectiveness of the processes of training and education, the features of personality development and the formation of interpersonal relations in the study group largely depend on the style features of this communication and leadership. Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specificity of which is determined by the different social role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication. First experimental psychological research leadership styles was carried out in 1938 by the German psychologist Kurt Lewin, later, with the Nazis coming to power in Germany, he emigrated to the United States. In the same study, a classification of leadership styles was introduced, which is commonly used today:
1. Authoritarian.
2. Democratic.
3. Permissive.
Vivid examples of all these leadership styles can be found in any literary work devoted to the life of the school. Thus, the protagonist of F. Sologub's novel The Little Demon, the teacher at the Peredonov gymnasium, is a typical authoritarian teacher. He firmly believes that a high school student can only be curbed by force, and considers low grades and a rod to be the main means of influence. In the autobiographical story "The Republic of Shkid" by G. Chernykh and L. Panteleev, we see a whole string of images of teachers who have to "pick up the key" to former homeless children with a criminal past. Those who adhere to the condoning style very soon leave the walls of the school, hunted down by students. Particularly indicative is the story of the young teacher Pal Vanych Arikov, who presented his familiarity as a new word in pedagogy. Instead of literature lessons, the students chatted with him as with an equal, sang, and messed around, but soon realized that such "study" did not bear any fruit, and they themselves abandoned the supposedly "democratic" teacher. A true democratic style in work was shown only by the director of the school, who knew for sure that the children needed both the opportunity to show initiative and the leadership that restrained their violent impulses. The image of this wise and patient teacher was vividly embodied in the film adaptation of the book by Sergei Yursky - a man who measures the strength of students with their abilities and emotional outbursts. It is often heard that although the leadership styles listed above were described and developed in relation to production management and communication between the boss and subordinates, they can, in principle, be transferred to the area of ​​pedagogical communication. This statement is incorrect due to one circumstance, little mentioned in works on social psychology. And the thing is that K. Levin conducted his famous study, studying the peculiarities of leading an adult group of schoolchildren. And this problem is directly included in the subject area of ​​social pedagogical psychology. So, rather, on the contrary, the classification of pedagogical styles can be transferred to leadership styles in general, to the field of industrial social psychology. During the experiment, K. Levin created several groups ("circles") of ten-year-old schoolchildren. The guys in these groups were engaged in the same work - making toys. For the purposes of the necessary purity of the experiment, the groups were completely identical in terms of age, physical and intellectual data of the participants, the structure of interpersonal relationships, etc. e. All groups worked, in addition, under the same conditions, according to a common program, and performed the same task. The only important difference, the variable variable, was the significant difference between the instructors, i.e. teachers. The difference was in leadership styles: the teachers adhered to some authoritarian, some democratic, and some conniving style. Each of them worked with one group for six weeks, and then the groups were exchanged. Then the work continued for another six weeks, and then a new transition to another group. Such a procedure made the experiment extremely correct: the groups were not only identical initially, but also underwent the same influence of all teachers and, accordingly, all styles. Thus, the group factor was reduced to zero, and the researcher had an excellent opportunity to trace the influence of leadership style on interpersonal relationships in the group, on activity motivation, on labor productivity, etc. Before analyzing the influence of leadership style on all these parameters, it is absolutely necessary to describe the features of communication between a teacher of one style or another and schoolchildren in K. Levin's experiment. In the authoritarian style, the characteristic general tendency towards rigid management and comprehensive control was expressed in the following. The teacher, much more often than in other groups, resorted to the tone of the order, made sharp remarks. Characteristic were also tactless remarks addressed to some participants and causeless, unreasonable praises of others. The authoritarian teacher determined not only the general goals of the activity and the task, but also indicated the ways of fulfilling it, making tough decisions about who would work with whom. Tasks and methods of its implementation were given to students in stages. (Such an approach reduces the motivation of an activity, since a person does not know exactly its ultimate goals.) It should also be noted that in terms of social and perceptual attitudes and in terms of interpersonal attitudes, an orientation towards a phased differentiation of activities and phased control indicate a teacher’s distrust of independence and responsibility. own students. Or, at the very least, it could mean that the teacher assumes that these qualities are very poorly developed in his group. The authoritarian teacher severely suppressed any manifestation of initiative, considering its unacceptable arbitrariness. Studies by other scientists that followed the work of K. Levin showed that such behavior of an authoritarian leader is based on his ideas that the initiative undermines his authority and faith in his competence. "If one of the students suggests improvements due to a different course of work, then he indirectly indicates that I did not foresee this." This is how the authoritarian teacher argues. In addition, it turned out that the authoritarian leader assessed the success of the participants subjectively, addressing reproaches (praise) to the performer as a person.
In the democratic style, the facts were evaluated, not the personality. But the main feature of the democratic style was the active participation of the group in discussing the progress of the forthcoming work and its organization. As a result, participants developed self-confidence and stimulated self-management. With this style, sociability and trust in relationships increased in the group. The main feature of the permissive leadership style was that the teacher, in fact, withdrew himself from responsibility for what was happening. Judging by the results of the experiment, the worst style turned out to be conniving. Under him, the least work was done, and its quality left much to be desired. It was also important that the participants noted low satisfaction with the work in the conniving style group, although they did not bear any responsibility for it, and the work was more like a game.
In the authoritarian style, the researcher noted manifestations of hostility in the relationship of the participants, combined with humility and even fawning over the leader. The most effective was the democratic style. The group members showed a keen interest in the work, positive internal motivation of activity. The quality and originality of tasks performance improved significantly. Group cohesion, a sense of pride in common successes, mutual assistance and friendliness in relationships - all this has developed to a very high degree in a democratic group. The subject of one of the studies (N.F. Maslova) was the study of the attitude of first-graders to school. At the same time, the surveys were conducted twice - the first time the attitude of future first-graders to school was recorded two weeks before admission, and the second time their attitude to school was diagnosed at the end of the first quarter. As a result, it was possible to establish that the attitude towards school has deteriorated in everyone. However, it turned out that students who came to an authoritarian teacher had a much more negative perception of school than those who began their studies with a teacher of a different style. Also, during the experiment, it turned out that in authoritarian teachers, poorly performing students are three times more likely to indicate that their teacher likes to put deuces. The most remarkable thing is that in fact, in class magazines, the number of twos for teachers of authoritarian and democratic styles turned out to be the same. Thus, the style of interaction between the teacher and students in this case determines the features of how students perceive it. It is clear that children's interest in learning depends not so much on the difficulties of school life, but on the peculiarities of the teacher's treatment of students.
In another study, the relationship between the styles of pedagogical communication and the peculiarities of the teacher's perception of the personality of students was studied (A. A. Bodalev, 1983). As a result, it was found that authoritarian teachers underestimate the development in students of such qualities as collectivism, initiative, independence, exactingness towards others. At the same time, they often spoke of children as impulsive, lazy, undisciplined, irresponsible, and so on. Note that such views of authoritarian educators are largely a conscious or subconscious motivation that justifies their harsh leadership style. The formulas of this logical chain can be expressed as follows. "My students are lazy, undisciplined and irresponsible, and therefore it is absolutely necessary to constantly monitor their activities at all stages." "My students are so non-initiative and independent, and therefore I simply have to take all the leadership on myself, determine the strategy for their activities, give them instructions, recommendations, etc." Indeed, our behavior is the slave of our attitudes. Modern social psychology asserts that there are also such circumstances when the most fruitful and adequate may still be an authoritarian style. Here, again, it is appropriate to recall the already mentioned novel "The Republic of Shkid", where the only way to curb the "difficult" orphanage children, recent homeless children, in a critical situation was precisely the authoritarian style, tough leadership, and decisive measures. However, for situations of ordinary communication, especially pedagogical, this is the exception rather than the rule.
The specificity of pedagogical communication is due to the various social role and functional positions of its subjects. In the process of pedagogical communication, the teacher directly or indirectly carries out his social role and functional duties to manage the process of education and upbringing. The style of communication and leadership largely determines the effectiveness of training and education, as well as the features of personality development and the formation of interpersonal relationships in the study group. In the lesson, the teacher needs to master the communicative structure of everything pedagogical process, be as sensitive as possible to the slightest changes, constantly correlate the selected methods of pedagogical influence with the characteristics of communication on this stage. All this requires the teacher to be able to simultaneously solve two problems:
1 to design the features of their behavior (their pedagogical individuality), their relationship with students, i.e. the style of communication;
2 design expressive means of communicative influence. The second component is constantly changing under the influence of emerging pedagogical and, accordingly, communicative tasks. In choosing a system of expressive means of communication, an important role is played by the established type of relationship between the teacher and students.
The following characteristics of communication in the process of pedagogical activity can be distinguished:

the general established system of communication between the teacher and students (a certain style of communication);
a communication system characteristic of a particular stage of pedagogical activity;
a situational system of communication that arises when solving a specific pedagogical and communicative task.
Under the style of communication, we 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 established nature of the relationship between the teacher and pupils;
creative individuality of the teacher;
characteristics of the student body.

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. The first experimental study of communication styles was carried out in 1938 by the German psychologist Kurt Lewin.
Nowadays, there are many styles of pedagogical communication, but let's focus on the main ones.
1. Authoritarian
With an authoritarian style, a characteristic tendency towards strict management and comprehensive control is expressed in the fact that the teacher much more often than his colleagues resorts to an orderly tone and makes harsh remarks. The abundance of tactless attacks against some members of the group and unreasoned praise of others are striking. An authoritarian teacher not only defines the general goals of the work, but also indicates how to complete the task, rigidly determines who will work with whom, etc. Tasks and methods for its implementation are given by the teacher in stages. Characteristically, such an approach reduces activity motivation, since a person does not know what is the purpose of the work performed by him as a whole, what is the function of this stage and what lies ahead. It should also be noted that in a socio-perceptual sense, as well as in terms of interpersonal attitudes, the phased regulation of activities and its strict control indicate the distrust of the teacher in the positive possibilities of students. In any case, in his eyes, students are characterized by a low level of responsibility and deserve the most severe treatment. At the same time, any initiative is considered by an authoritarian teacher as a manifestation of undesirable self-will. Studies have shown that this behavior of the manager is explained by his fear of losing authority, having discovered his lack of competence: "If someone proposes to improve something by building the work differently, then he indirectly indicates that I did not foresee this." In addition, an authoritarian leader, as a rule, subjectively assesses the success of his wards, making comments not so much about the work itself, but about the personality of the performer. With an autocratic leadership style, the teacher exercises sole control over the management of the team, without relying on the asset. Students are not allowed to express their views, critical remarks, to take the initiative, and even more so to claim the solution of issues that concern them. The teacher consistently makes demands on students and exercises strict control over their implementation. The authoritarian style of leadership is characterized by the main features of the autocratic. But students are allowed to participate in the discussion of issues that affect them. However, the final decision is always made by the teacher in accordance with his own attitudes.
2. Permissive
The main feature of the conniving style of leadership is, in fact, the self-elimination of the leader from the educational and production process, the removal of responsibility for what is happening. The conniving style turns out to be the least preferred among those listed. The results of its approbation are the smallest amount of work performed and its worst quality. It is important to note that students are not satisfied with the work in such a group, although they do not bear any responsibility, and the work is more like an irresponsible game. With a conniving style of leadership, the teacher seeks to interfere as little as possible in the life of students, is practically eliminated from leading them, limiting himself to the formal fulfillment of duties and instructions from the administration. An inconsistent style is characterized by the fact that the teacher, depending on external circumstances or his own emotional state, carries out any of the leadership styles described above.
etc.................

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..
Chapter 1. Dependence of the pedagogical process on the style of the teacher's pedagogical leadership
1.1. The concept of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership
1.2. Styles of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership…..
1.3. The influence of the style of pedagogical leadership on the effectiveness of the pedagogical process………………………………………………………..
Chapter 2. Experimental work to determine the style of pedagogical leadership of the teacher
2.1. Determining the style of pedagogical leadership of the teacher…………..
2.2. Analysis of the obtained results……………………………………….
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..
Literature……………………………………………………………………...
Applications……………………………………………………………………….

Introduction

Relevance of the research topic. Currently, there is a significant decrease in interest in learning among students, which, in turn, negatively affects the quality of education they receive.

It can be argued that children's interest in learning depends not so much on the difficulties of school life, but on the peculiarities of the teacher's treatment of students. The effectiveness of the processes of education and upbringing, the features of personality development and the formation of interpersonal relations in the study group, and the moral and psychological atmosphere of the children's team largely depend on the style features of pedagogical communication and leadership.

Thus, the study and formation of the individual style of pedagogical communication and pedagogical guidance of the teacher becomes relevant.

Purpose of the study- determine the style of pedagogical leadership of the teacher.

Object of study- the activity of the teacher in managing the process of education and upbringing.

Subject of study – individual style teacher's pedagogical guide.

Research objectives:

1. To study the features of different styles of pedagogical leadership and their impact on the effectiveness of the pedagogical process.

2. Determine the style of the teacher's pedagogical leadership.

Research methods- theoretical analysis of the literature on the topic of research, pedagogical observation, questioning of teachers and high school students.

Research base - teacher and students of the 9th grade of the MOU secondary school No. 129 in Omsk.

Chapter 1. The dependence of the pedagogical process on the style of teacher's pedagogical leadership

1.1. The concept of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership.

One of the most important requirements that the pedagogical profession imposes on the personality of a teacher is the clarity of his social and professional position. The position of the teacher is a system of intellectual and emotional-evaluative attitudes towards the world, pedagogical reality and pedagogical activity. The social and professional position of the teacher cannot but be reflected in the style of his pedagogical communication.

Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specificity of which is determined by the various social role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication.

Pedagogical communication is also understood as the professional communication of a teacher with students in the process of education and upbringing, aimed at solving certain pedagogical problems and implementing pedagogical functions.

The teacher in the process of pedagogical communication carries out (in a direct or indirect form) his social role and functional responsibilities for leadership the process of education and upbringing.

1.2. Styles of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership.

To answer this question, what is communication style, let's turn to the most general interpretation of the concept of "style".

Style is a set of techniques, ways of working, it is a characteristic manner of human behavior. According to the definition of psychologist A. A. Bodalev, style is an individually peculiar manner of acting.

V. A. Kan-Kalik determined style of pedagogical communication as individual typological features of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students.

In the style of pedagogical communication, the features of the communicative capabilities of the teacher (possession of perceptual and verbal communication skills) are expressed; the existing nature of the relationship between the teacher and students; creative individuality of the teacher; features of pupils. Being a socially and morally saturated category, the style of communication reflects the general and pedagogical culture of the teacher and his professional competence.

Thus, the style features of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership depend, on the one hand, on the individuality of the teacher, on his professionalism, communicative culture, emotional and moral attitude towards pupils, creative approach to professional activities, on the other hand, on the characteristics of pupils, their age. , gender, training, upbringing and characteristics of the student team with which the educator comes into contact.

The style of communication and leadership also depends on the moral attitudes of the teacher - on love for children, a benevolent attitude towards them, on the humanistic orientation of the teacher's personality. Style also depends on knowledge of the basics of pedagogy and the psychology of communication.

The style of pedagogical leadership is manifested in the positions of the teacher and pupils, in the prevailing ways of interacting with the individual and the team, in the ratio of disciplinary and organizational influences, direct and feedback, in assessments, tone, and form of address.

V.A. Kan-Kalik established and characterized the following styles of pedagogical communication:

communication based on passion for joint creative activity which implies commonwealth, joint interest, co-creation. The main thing for this style is unity high professionalism teacher and his moral attitudes.

friendship based communication, which can be considered as a prerequisite for the above style. This style is manifested in a sincere interest in the personality of the pupil, in the team, in the desire to understand the motives of the child's activities and behavior, in the openness of contacts. Such communication stimulates enthusiasm for joint creative activity, fruitful relationships between the teacher and students. However, with this style, friendliness should be pedagogically consistent, since a certain measure of distance preserves the sovereignty of each of the participants in communication.

communication-distance often used by both experienced and novice educators. The distance is necessary, since the teacher and pupils occupy different social positions, but it must be based on authority. The more natural for the pupil the leading role of the teacher, the more organic and natural for him the distance in relations with the teacher.

communication-intimidation, which is built on strict regulation of activities, on unquestioning obedience, fear, diktat, orientation of children to what cannot be done. With this style, there can be no joint enthusiasm for activities, there can be no co-creation.

flirting communication, based on the desire to please the pupils, to gain authority (but it will be cheap, false). With this style of communication, the teacher begins to flirt with children, conduct conversations on personal topics in the lesson, and abuse encouragement without proper reason.

communication-superiority, characterized by the desire of the teacher to rise above the pupils; he is absorbed in himself, he does not feel the students, he is little interested in his relations with them, he is removed from the children.

Styles of pedagogical communication find their expression in the styles of pedagogical leadership.

The first experimental psychological study of leadership styles was carried out in 1938 by the German psychologist Kurt Lewin. In the same study, a classification of leadership styles was introduced, which is commonly used today:

Democratic (cooperation tactics).

Conniving (tactics of non-intervention).

At authoritarian leadership style the teacher alone decides all issues related to the life of both the class team and each student. Based on his own attitudes, he sets the goals of the activity, methods for its implementation, subjectively evaluates the results. He does not explain his actions, does not comment, shows excessive demands, is categorical in his judgments, does not accept objections, and disdainfully treats the opinions and initiative of students. The teacher constantly shows his superiority, he lacks empathy, sympathy. The official, commanding, bossy tone of address prevails, the form of address is an indication, a lesson, an order, an instruction, a shout. Communication is based on disciplinary influences and submission.

This style can be expressed by the words: "Do as I say, and do not argue."

At democratic leadership style communication and activity are built on creative collaboration. Joint activity is motivated by the teacher, he listens to the opinion of students, supports the pupil's right to his position, encourages activity, initiative, discusses the idea, methods and course of activity. The teacher is focused on increasing the student's subjective role in interaction, on involving everyone in solving common problems. This style is characterized by a positive-emotional atmosphere of interaction, benevolence, trust, exactingness and respect, taking into account the individuality of the individual. The main form of address is advice, recommendation, request.

This style of leadership can be expressed in the words: “Together we conceived, together we plan, organize, sum up.”

At conniving (liberal) leadership style there is no system in the organization of activities and control. The teacher takes the position of an outside observer, does not delve into the life of the team, into the problems of an individual, strives to be minimally involved in activities, which is explained by the removal of responsibility for its results. The teacher performs his functional duties formally, limiting himself only to teaching. The tone of the appeal is dictated by the desire to avoid difficult situations, largely depends on the mood of the teacher, the form of the appeal is exhortation, persuasion.

This style can be expressed by the words: "As everything goes, so let it go."

It is easy to see that such communication styles as friendly disposition, joint creative activity are inherent in the democratic style of leadership. And communication-distance, communication-intimidation, communication-superiority are expressions of an authoritarian leadership style.

In real pedagogical practice, mixed styles of communication and leadership most often take place.

1.3. The influence of the style of pedagogical leadership on the effectiveness of the pedagogical process.

The effectiveness of pedagogical activity largely depends on the style of communication and the style of leadership of pupils.

Studies show that educators who adhere to authoritarian leadership style, is distinguished by a lack of understanding of children, the inadequacy of assessments based only on performance indicators. Authoritarian teachers focus on the negative actions of students, not taking into account their motives. Such external indicators of the success of their pedagogical activity as academic performance and discipline are most often positive, but the socio-psychological atmosphere in the team, as a rule, is unfavorable. Pupils find themselves in the position of being led, in the position of objects of pedagogical influence. This style hinders the development of the individual, suppresses activity, fetters initiative, gives rise to inadequate self-esteem of students, instills a cult of power, and forms neurotics. Pupils' opposition to the teacher's imperious pressure most often leads to the emergence of stable conflict situations.

conniving style leads to familiarity or alienation; it does not contribute to the development of activity, does not encourage initiative, independence of pupils. With this leadership style, there is no purposeful teacher-student interaction. The consequence of this is the lack of control over the activities of students and the dynamics of their personality development. Progress and discipline in the classes of such teachers, as a rule, are unsatisfactory.

For educators who follow democratic leadership style, are characterized by an active-positive attitude towards schoolchildren, an adequate assessment of their capabilities, successes and failures. This style disposes students to the teacher, promotes their development and self-development, causes a desire for joint activities, encourages independence, stimulates self-government, high adequate self-esteem and, most importantly, contributes to the formation of trusting, humanistic relationships. With a democratic style, the teacher stimulates students to creativity, initiative, organizes the conditions for self-realization. In terms of external indicators of their activities, teachers of this style of leadership 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.

Democratic style is the most preferred. However, elements of an authoritarian leadership style may also be present in the activities of a teacher, for example, when organizing a complex type of activity, when establishing order and discipline. The teacher cannot absolutely exclude from his arsenal some methods of the authoritarian leadership style, since sometimes they turn out to be quite effective, especially when working with classes and individual students of a relatively low level of socio-psychological and personal development. But even in this case, the teacher should be generally focused on the democratic style of leadership, dialogue and cooperation with students, since this style allows you to maximize the implementation of a personal development strategy. pedagogical interaction. Elements of the liberal style of leadership are acceptable in the organization of creative activity, when the position of non-interference is appropriate, providing the pupil with independence.

Thus, the leadership style of the teacher is characterized by flexibility, variability, depends on the specific conditions, on who he is dealing with - with younger schoolchildren or high school students, what are their individual characteristics, what is the nature of the activity.

Chapter 2 Experimental work to determine the style of pedagogical leadership of the teacher

2.1. Determining the style of teacher's pedagogical leadership.

The study was conducted at the Secondary School No. 129 of the city of Omsk. Pupils of 9 "A" (18 people) and 9 "B" (19 people) classes, whose age was 14-16 years old, and a teacher of Russian language and literature took part in the experimental work. She has more than 20 years of experience as a teacher in the school, 11 of which as a school principal. In this educational institution, he teaches less than a year.

To study the individual style of pedagogical leadership of the teacher, anonymous questionnaires were used for students, questionnaires for teachers to assess their own style of pedagogical leadership, as well as external pedagogical observation.

The questionnaire for schoolchildren was developed on the basis of V.P. Zakharov’s methodology for determining the style of leadership of the labor collective. The questionnaire contained 16 groups of statements reflecting various aspects of teacher-student interaction. Each group consisted of three statements, marked with letters a, b, c, which corresponded to the authoritarian, democratic and permissive style of pedagogical leadership (see Appendix 1, 2). The respondents were asked to carefully read all three statements in each group and choose one that most closely matches their opinion about the teacher and mark the selected statement on the questionnaire with a “+” sign under the corresponding letter.

The first to participate in the study was 9 "A" class. The results of the survey are presented in Table 1, which shows the number of students who chose the answer option corresponding to one of the styles of pedagogical leadership.

Table 1.

The results of the survey 9 "A" class

№ question

Diagram 1 clearly illustrates the overall result of the study in 9 "A" class.

Diagram 1

The ratio of styles of pedagogical leadership in the activities of the teacher, according to students of grade 9 "A"

Democratic style of pedagogical leadership

Table 2 displays the results of the survey 9 "B" class.

table 2

The results of the survey 9 "B" class

№ question	pedagogical leadership style	Democratic style of pedagogical leadership	Permissive style of pedagogical leadership
№ question	pedagogical leadership style	Democratic style of pedagogical leadership	Permissive style of pedagogical leadership

The overall result of the study in 9 "B" class is shown in Diagram 2.

Diagram 2

FROM the ratio of styles of pedagogical leadership in the activities of the teacher, according to students of grade 9 "B"

Permissive style of pedagogical leadership

To determine how the teacher evaluates own style pedagogical guidance, the supplemented methodology of N.L. Malenkova was used. “Determining your own style of pedagogical leadership” (see Appendix 3). The teacher was asked to imagine himself in an educational or educational situation and assess how often, or, conversely, how rarely he acts as indicated in the statements. When answering, it was necessary to circle a number from 1 to 5 corresponding to the frequency of the indicated actions.

To determine the result, the circled values ​​are added up in three groups: authoritarian style - the sum of statements No. 1, No. 4, No. 7, No. 11; conniving - No. 2, No. 5, No. 8, No. 10; authoritative-democratic - No. 3, No. 6, No. 9, No. 12. If a total scores low, it is difficult to talk about the established style of pedagogical leadership. Style is diagnosed if at least 12 points are scored on one of the scales. If two or three total scores are more than 12 points, then we can talk about a mixed leadership style. The obtained values ​​are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

The results of the teacher's survey

№ question	score

Thus, the sum of points corresponding to the authoritarian style of pedagogical leadership is 7, conniving - 13, authoritative-democratic - 14. This indicates a mixed style of leadership, namely: democratic and liberal.

The ratio of teacher leadership styles can also be presented in the form of a diagram (see Diagram 3).

Diagram 3

The ratio of styles of pedagogical leadership in the activities of the teacher, according to the teacher himself

Democratic style of pedagogical leadership

Permissive style of pedagogical leadership

In the course of monitoring the activities of the teacher and students during the lesson, a favorable psychological climate and a lively atmosphere of joint activity in both classes were noted. The teacher encouraged the initiative and activity of students, adequately assessed their answers, listened with interest to the opinions of schoolchildren, offered them creative tasks and expressed satisfaction with their activities. At the same time, the teacher was demanding and kept a certain distance in relations with students. The main forms of appeal were a request, a recommendation, however, in the 9th "B" grade, the teacher resorted to shouting several times in order to maintain discipline in the lesson. The teacher is also characterized by a friendly attitude towards students, but there was an impression of some stiffness in communicating with them. At the end of the lesson, after discussing the plan for the next lesson, the teacher thanked the students for their work in the lesson.

Analysis of the results

The study revealed a slight discrepancy in the assessment of the teacher's leadership style in two parallel classes. The share of the authoritarian style of management in the 9th "A" class corresponds to 19%, democratic - 50%, conniving - 31%. In 9 "B" class 23%, 60% and 17% respectively. This may be due to the lower level of socio-psychological and personal development of students in the 9th "B" class, since the observation showed a lower preparedness of the students for the lesson, as well as a relatively low level of discipline compared to the 9th "A" class.

When questioning a teacher, his leadership style was defined as mixed (democratic and conniving), which in general does not contradict the opinion of students.

During the observation, the predominance of the democratic style of the teacher's pedagogical leadership with elements of an authoritarian one was established (especially in the 9th "B" grade). This is in line with the results of the survey.

The reason for stiffness in communication with students can be a short period of work in this team (less than a year), as well as the presence of an observer at the lesson.

To increase the efficiency of the pedagogical process, the teacher can use the system for the formation of an individual style of communication proposed by V. A. Kan-Kalik and consisting of the following steps:

1) study and analysis of their personal qualities and characteristics;

2) establishing positive and negative moments in personal communication; work to overcome shyness, stiffness;

3) mastering the elements of pedagogical communication, taking into account individual characteristics;

4) mastering the technology of pedagogical communication (use a variety of techniques, forms of interaction, combine verbal and non-verbal means, reflect, empathically perceive pupils);

5) fixing the individual style of communication in real pedagogical activity.

Conclusion

The study of the styles of pedagogical leadership of teachers, identifying the reasons for preferring one or another of them, as well as developing measures to improve the effectiveness of the educational process is an important area of ​​research today due to a sharp drop in learning motivation and cognitive interest among students.

In this educational and research work, the individual style of pedagogical leadership was investigated, a survey of students and the teacher was conducted, and an assessment of the teacher's leadership style was revealed.

The survey data showed that the teacher is characterized by a mixed style of pedagogical leadership. Pedagogical observation confirmed the obtained results. Also, an assumption was made about the reasons for the discrepancy between the results between the classes, which corresponds to the opinion that the style of pedagogical leadership depends on the characteristics of the educational group: gender and age of children, their level of intellectual and social development.

A method was proposed to increase the effectiveness of the teacher's activity by forming an individual style of pedagogical communication corresponding to the individual characteristics of both the teacher and students.

Literature

Bordovskaya, N.V. Rean A.A. Pedagogy: Textbook for universities. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Piter", 2000. - 304 p. - (Series "Textbook of the new century")

Ilyin E.P. Psychology of individual differences. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004. - 701 p.: ill. - (Series "Masters of Psychology").

Robotova A.S., Leontieva T.V., Shaposhnikova I.G. and others. Introduction to pedagogical activity: Proc. allowance for students. higher ped. studies, institutions / ed. A. S. Robotova. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2002. - 208 p.

Slastyonin V.A., Isaev I.F., Shiyanov E.N. Pedagogy: Proc. allowance for students. higher ped. textbook institutions / ed. Slastenina V.A. – 3rd ed., stereotype. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2004. - 576 p.

Yulia Korchagina. Against a teenager. Conflict between teacher and student//Health of children. - 2009. - No. 19. Access mode: http://zdd.1september.ru/articles/2009/19/12

http://azps.ru/tests/3/test7.html

Attachment 1

Questionnaire "Determining the style of teacher's pedagogical leadership"

1. The teacher demands that all matters be reported to him.

   He tries to solve everything together with the students, single-handedly solves only the most urgent and operational issues.

   Some important matters are actually solved without the participation of the teacher, his functions are performed by the asset of the class.

1. He always demands something, orders, insists, but never asks.

   Requires what you want to do.

   Can't demand.

1. He tries to select capable, responsible students in the asset of the class.

   The teacher does not care who is in the asset of the class.

   He achieves trouble-free execution and subordination of the class asset.

1. He is only interested in the implementation of the curriculum, and not the relationship of students to each other.

   Not interested in work, approaches the matter formally.

   Deciding learning objectives, trying to create a good relationship between students in the class.

1. Probably, he is conservative, because he is afraid of the new.

   The class asset initiative is not accepted by the teacher.

   Encourages you to work independently.

1. The teacher is usually not offended by criticism, he listens to it.

   He does not like being criticized and does not try to hide it.

   He listens to criticism, even intends to take action, but does nothing.

1. One gets the impression that the teacher is afraid to be responsible for his actions, he wants to reduce his responsibility.

   Responsibility is shared between himself and his students.

   The teacher alone makes decisions or cancels them.

1. Regularly consults with the class.

   Students not only advise, but also impose their opinion on the teacher.

   He does not allow his students to advise him, let alone object.

1. Usually consulted with the class asset, and not with all students.

   Regularly communicates with the class asset, talks about the state of affairs in the team, about the difficulties to be overcome.

   To perform any work, he often has to persuade students.

1. Always treats students with courtesy and kindness.

   In dealing with students often shows indifference.

   In relation to students, he can be tactless and even rude.

1. AT critical situations The teacher does not do his job well.

   In critical situations, the teacher, as a rule, switches to more stringent methods of leadership.

   Critical situations do not change the way he leads.

1. He solves even those issues with which he is not very familiar.

   If he does not know something, he is not afraid to show it and turns to others for help.

   He cannot act on his own, but waits for a “push” from the outside.

1. Perhaps he is not a very demanding person.

   He is demanding, but at the same time fair.

   It can be said about him that he is too strict and even picky.

1. Controlling the results, he always notices the positive side, praises the students.

   Always very strictly supervises the work of individual students and the class as a whole.

   Controls work from case to case.

1. The teacher knows how to maintain discipline and order.

   Often makes comments to students.

   Cannot affect discipline.

1. In the presence of a teacher, students have to work in tension all the time.

   It is interesting to work with a teacher.

   The students are left to their own devices.

Appendix 2

Table

Interpretation of questionnaire responses

"Determining the Style of Teacher's Pedagogical Leadership"

№ question	Answer options

D - Democratic style of pedagogical leadership

P - Permissive style of pedagogical leadership

Appendix 3

Methodology "Determining your own style of pedagogical leadership"

	statement	Rarely Often
	I make decisions without consulting pupils / students; I encourage and punish them.
	To make decisions, I seek advice from other people (director, head teacher, colleagues ...).
	I try to resolve all issues together with pupils / students.
	I strive to ensure that all issues in the class / group are resolved only together with me.
	To carry out assignments, you have to persuade pupils / students.
	I clearly share the functions, rights and responsibilities - my own and those of my students.
	I order, I order, I reprimand, I instruct.
	It happens that I transfer part of my powers to one of the pupils / students.
	I appeal to pupils / students with requests, advice, assignments.			activity style Definition style activities Pedagogical activity teachers(teacher), ... features, accounting methods work. By definition M.I. Lisina, the task of communication ... Influence style communication on self-esteem of younger students Abstract >> Psychology Recommendations on work co style pedagogical guides and on ... work- 15 years. Colleagues describe as experienced ... on definition features of influence style pedagogical interactions teachers on personality elementary school student. During our work ... Ecological education in the process of extracurricular work on biology Abstract >> Pedagogy ... - pedagogical activity... style organization of educational work... Home Work on definition hygienic... leadership teachers ... work on environmental education: home Work; Work in a living corner; Work at the school experienced ... Pedagogical communication. Communicative culture of a teacher-psychologist Coursework >> Pedagogy ... on about the work how much is relative to the identity of the performer. Under autocratic style guides teacher ... certain sustainable integral structure, namely, individual style pedagogical... sides experienced specialists. Diction. For teachers ... Pedagogical psychology and its features Book >> Psychology ... work objectively. External guides no longer needed. By ... Style pedagogical activities Pedagogical activity teachers(teacher), like any other activity, is characterized by certain style... ; b) experienced teacher always wears...