As the basis for designing the educational process of a preschool educational institution.”
Introduction……………………………..…………………………………. 3
1 . The concept of subject, subjectivity, subject - subject connections…………….. 4
2. Principles for establishing subject-subject relationships…………………… 7
3. Main functions of teaching activity…………….………… 10
4. Stages of children's activities……………………………………………. 12
5. Models of cooperation between parents and children…………………………….. 16
6. The subject of the educational process is peers ………………………. 20
Conclusion …………………………………………………………...…. 22
References……………………………………………………... 23
Introduction.
Currently, in the practice of preschool educational institutions, despite the ideas of humanization in the preschool education system, the educational and disciplinary model of interaction sometimes dominates. The reason lies in the existence of deep personal attitudes towards the implementation of the so-called subject - subjective connections into practice.
The most desirable for full communication between children and teachers is a person-oriented model of interaction. The child feels emotionally protected because the teacher treats the child as an equal. The person-oriented model of interaction is characterized by subject-subject connections. In this case, both the adult and the child are equally subjects of interaction. Contradictions are resolved through cooperation.
1 . The concept of subject, subjectivity, subject - subject connections.
During subject-subject interaction, the teacher understands his students more personally; such interaction is called personality-oriented.
Observations of the activities of preschool teachers have shown that teachers to a greater extent study, measure their needs, motives, states, and to a lesser extent encourage them to take an active position, without analyzing “reverse actions”, without being able to determine the real subjectivity of the child. In order to implement the program efficiently, there was a need to increase the level of theoretical knowledge of teachers on this issue. At the teachers' meeting “The child is a subject of activity” we considered the theoretical foundations of this issue.
Subjectivity is the ability of a person to be aware of himself, to consciously choose, to be aware of his actions, to be a strategist of his own existence, to comprehend the connections of his “I” with other people. As noted by Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences N.E. Shchurkova, this ability is formed in social life in the process of the child’s spiritual efforts and is brought up purposefully if teachers set the task of its development.
Subjectivity does not appear out of nowhere; it has its own procedural side. First, it is the free expression of one’s “I”, then the correlation of oneself with the rules of culture and social life. Subjectivity is enriched by understanding another person. And then there is one more acquisition: the ability to foresee the actions of others, and therefore to choose, focusing on the expected result. By assessing what has been done and correcting what is done, the child learns to plan his actions.
The conventionally stepwise ascent of a child to self-awareness, according to N.E. Shchurkova, looks like this: I freely express my “I”; I enter into dialogue with another “I”; I foresee the consequences of my actions; I make a free choice; I evaluate the result and plan a new one.
Constancy, not situational nature;
Based on taking into account the interests and needs of the parties, including the creation of space;
A partnership type of communication, which involves an active position on both sides, dialogue.
Principles for establishing subject-subject connections.
Scientific researchers (Maralov V.G. and others) have identified several principles for establishing subject-subject relationships:
1. The principle of dialogization of pedagogical interaction - the position of the adult and the child must be equal, i.e. the position of co-learning, co-educating, cooperating people.
2. The principle of problematization - the adult does not educate, does not transmit, but actualizes the child’s tendency towards personal growth, and also actualizes the child’s research activity, creates conditions for improving moral actions, for independently discovering and posing cognitive problems.
3. The principle of personalization is role interaction, i.e. the interaction is not of a person, but of a “role”. In this regard, it is necessary to abandon role masks and include in interaction those elements of personal experience that do not correspond to role expectations and standards.
4. The principle of individualization is the identification and development of the child’s general and special abilities. Selection of content, forms and methods of education that are adequate to age and individual capabilities.
Models of “not interfering” in a child’s life correspond to object-subject connections. The child actually acts as the subject, and the adult is assigned a passive role. In this case, the adult’s task is to adapt to the child’s wishes, i.e. creating conditions and prerequisites for its spontaneous development. This type of connection, as a rule, is most characteristic of family education.
Of the three above models of interaction between an adult and a child, the optimal one is person-oriented, built on subject-subject relationships. It is with this model that favorable preconditions are created for overcoming the main contradiction between the goals and objectives set by the adult and the goals and objectives set by the child. That is, within the framework of this model, the personal characteristics of both children and adults (educators) are formed. As a result of the interpenetration of professional and individual personality traits of the educator, a special education is formed - the “educational position of the individual.” Since each social system is characterized by the multiplicity of structures represented in it, the contradictory interests of various social groups, a combination of conservative and innovative tendencies, in each society the conditions arise for the generation of a certain diversity of educational positions.
It is well known that a child develops through activity. And the more complete and varied a child’s activity is, the more significant it is for the child and corresponds to his nature, the more successful his development is. According to the authors of the program, intensive intellectual, emotional and personal development, well-being and social status in the peer group are associated with mastering the position of a subject of children's activities.
DI. Feldstein notes: “Defining our starting positions when building our relationships with children as a subject - subjective, declaring that a child is a subject, in fact, in reality we, adults, treat the child as an object to which our influence is directed, speaking all time is about actions towards the child, and not about interaction.”
NOT. Shchurkova emphasizes that modern pedagogical technology is a scientifically grounded professional choice of the teacher’s operational influence on the child in the context of his interaction with the world in order to foster relationships that harmoniously combine freedom of personal expression and sociocultural norms. The main pedagogical impact is to transfer the child to the position of a subject. Subject-subject relationships contribute to the development in children of the ability to cooperate, initiative, creativity, and the ability to constructively resolve conflicts. The most complex work of cognitive processes is activated, knowledge is activated, the necessary methods for solving problems are selected, and various skills are tested. All activities acquire personal significance for the child, valuable manifestations of activity and independence are formed, which, with a sustainable strengthening of the subject position, can become his personal qualities. A modern person-oriented model of interaction is providing the child with freedom, independence, a larger “field” for independent actions, and communication as equals.
The environment is the most important factor mediating a child’s activity. It provides great opportunities for the education and development of a preschooler, the formation of significant personality qualities: activity, independence, creative expression, and communication skills. However, the full development and upbringing of a child in the environment is possible by creating conditions for his activity in the environment, opportunities for modeling, and building its elements. Interaction with elements of the environment, making changes to the environment, joint activities of the teacher and the child in this direction opens up great opportunities for revealing the personal potential of a preschooler. However, for the child to be active in the environment, it is important to organize effective interaction, in which the leading role is given to an adult. At the same time, he is a partner for the child, guides him and teaches him. Building effective interaction between a teacher and a child when constructing elements of the environment is an important condition for using its potential in the upbringing and development of a preschooler.
Subject - subjective connections and relationships that arise between the teacher and children when constructing elements of the subject-developmental environment are characterized by the following features:
Constancy, not situational nature;
Based on taking into account the interests and needs of the parties, including the creation of space;
A partnership type of communication, which involves an active position on both sides, dialogue.
Subject-subject relations.
Introduction.
The social changes taking place in modern society have once again actualized the problem of subject-subject relationships. Interpersonal disunity, the growth of individualistic consciousness, a violation of the mechanism of identification with one’s people and culture leads to the fact that our modern society is not an integrative principle that can unite many individuals. In the system of interpersonal contacts, the category of “significant other” is lost; the position, feelings, worldview of an individual person are not important and require attention and understanding. Meanwhile, a person’s desire for interpersonal relationships is considered in psychology as one of the basic ones, based on three needs - inclusion, control and affect. According to the theory of W. Schutz, these needs develop in childhood in interaction with adults, primarily with parents. So the development of the need for inclusion depends on how much the child was included in the family; the need for control depends on whether the emphasis in the parent-child relationship was on freedom or control; the need for affect depends on the degree to which the child has been emotionally accepted or rejected by his immediate environment. If these needs are not met during childhood, the individual feels insignificant, incompetent, and unworthy of love.
In the context of this issue, we consider it appropriate in this work to analyze the concepts of “subject” and “relationship” from a philosophical and psychological point of view and to trace the transformation of these concepts into modern ideas about subject-subject relationships in pedagogy.
Philosophical and psychological meanings of the concepts “subject” and “relationship”.
The concept of "Subject"
Many social and humanitarian branches of knowledge consider man not only as an object, but also as a subject of knowledge.
The classic philosophical definition of the concept of “subject” is as follows: subject is “the bearer of objective-practical activity and cognition, the source of activity aimed at the object.” If we consider this concept from the point of view of interpersonal interaction, the source of activity and direction of the subject will also be the subject with its own activity and direction. For modern philosophy, a subject “is, first of all, a specific bodily individual, existing in space and time, included in a certain culture, having a biography, and being in communicative and other relationships with other people. Directly internally in relation to the individual, the subject acts as an “I”. In relation to other people, he acts as an “other”. In relation to physical things and cultural objects, the subject acts as a source of knowledge and transformation. The subject exists only in the unity of the Self, interhuman (intersubjective) relationships and cognitive and real activity.”
The category of subject is one of the central ones in philosophy. Aristotle, G. Hegel, N.A. Berdyaev represented man as a free, active subject cognizing reality. Many thinkers emphasized the creative role of the subject and saw the ultimate goal in man's domination over nature, in new discoveries and inventions, in knowledge and improvement of the surrounding reality.
In psychology, the foundations of the subjective approach were laid by S. L. Rubinstein. In his work “Fundamentals of General Psychology,” he connects a person’s personal development with his subjectivity, defining it as independent activity and conscious self-regulation.
Currently, the study of personality’s subjectivity is becoming a priority in psychological science. The understanding of the subject is associated with a person’s attitude towards himself as an actor, with the endowment of the human individual with the qualities of being independent, active, capable, and skillful in carrying out special human forms of life activity, first of all, objective-practical activity.
According to V.I. Slobodchikov, subjectivity is a category in psychology that expresses the essence of a person’s inner world. The author highlights such subjective characteristics of a person as self-regulation and creative transformation of the surrounding reality and notes that human subjectivity in its original basis is associated with the individual’s ability to transform his own life activity into a subject of practical transformation.
Another researcher of the “psychology of the subject” was A. V. Brushlinsky.
In his opinion, a person can be considered as a subject at the highest level of activity, integrity, autonomy: “The most important of all human qualities is to be a subject, i.e. the creator of one’s history, the arbiter of one’s life path. This means to initiate and carry out initially practical activities, communication , behavior, cognition, contemplation and other types of specifically human activity (creative, moral, free) and achieve the necessary results.
The concept of "Attitude"
The category “attitude” is one of the most general and abstract. This concept is used in philosophy, mathematicians, sociologists, linguists, psychologists and other sciences. Thus, the philosophical problem of relationships was touched upon in their works by Aristotle, G. Hegel, I. Kant, K. Marx, L. Feuerbach and others.
Attitude is one of the main logical and philosophical categories, reflecting the way of being and knowing. It is in this or a sense close to this that the term “Relation” was introduced into philosophy by Aristotle.
The concept of a relationship arises as a result of comparing any two objects according to a selected or given characteristic. There are many different bases of comparison (in particular, the basis of comparison can be any kind of relationship, which leads to the concept of a kind of hierarchy of relationships). Accordingly, there are many different relations: “The relation is either the relation of the double to the half, the triple to the third part, and in general the multiple to the multiple, the superior to the superior, then the ratio of the heating to the heated, the cutting to the cut, and in general the acting to the suffering; further, the ratio of the measuring to the measure, the knower to knowledge and the sensory to sensory perception,” etc.
Some philosophers, such as Leibniz, considered the concept of “relation” to be purely ideal, located outside of subjects. However, the reality of relationships can be understood differently, namely in the sense that if the basis of comparison is not arbitrary (if it is rooted in the objects being compared), then the relationship as a result of comparison on this basis is also not arbitrary, but implies the existence of a basis. Here, speaking about the existence of any relations, of course, one does not have to mean that it “is actually located outside the subjects” who are members of the relations.
The category "psychological relationships" is one of the concepts in psychology. Unlike other sciences, psychology necessarily includes in its content a subjective meaning, which implies a person’s connection with the world, other people, society, and himself. Since these connections are not considered outside of social relations, the analysis of the category “psychological relations” is carried out within the framework of all other human relations with reality.
S.L. Rubinstein wrote: “The attitude towards another person, towards people is the main fabric of human life, its core. The “heart” of a person is all woven from his human relations to other people; what it is worth is entirely determined by what "In human relations, a person strives to determine what kind of relationship he is able to establish with people, with another person. Psychological analysis of human life, aimed at revealing relationships with other people, constitutes the core of truly life psychology."
Considering a person from the perspective of relationships, we talk about his connections with the surrounding reality.
The concept of “subjective relationships of a person” includes how a person relates to certain events and phenomena of the world in which he lives. In this case, the term “relationship” implies not only and not so much the objective connection of a person with his environment, but first of all his subjective position in this environment. “Attitude” here includes an assessment and expresses the bias of the individual.
Subjective relationships act as a kind of “backbone” of the subjective world of the individual. In the broadest sense of the word, the subjectivity of relationships means that they belong to the individual as a subject. They are formed and developed in the process of accumulation and integration of the entire life experience of the individual. They characterize the life position of an individual in society.
Subject-subject relations in education.
Moving on to the issue of considering the problem of subject-subject relations, it should be noted that from the position of modern science, it is most often considered in the context of the educational process. In the encyclopedic dictionary of a teacher we find the following definition: “Subject-subject relations are a type of relationship that develops in the educational process of an educational institution, consisting in the creation of parity participation of students and teachers in the organization and implementation of joint activities. These are the relationships that form the so-called “pedagogy of cooperation” and “pedagogy of nonviolence.” This is what we call “dialogue learning.” This happens when the student’s personality is subjectified, which is possible by the following means:
a) delegation to students of a number of teaching, including didactic, powers;
b) recognition and enforcement of the rights of the child and his parents in relation to school and learning;
c) development of children's self-government both in the educational and extracurricular process;
d) increasing trust in children from teachers, respect for their dignity and honor; nurturing spiritual and moral qualities in children;
f) creation in an educational institution of a way of life that corresponds to and develops the cultural traditions of the people from which the children come.
All these are ways and means of implementing the principles of democratization, environmental conformity and cultural conformity of domestic education. In the practice of educational institutions, both types of relationships, subject-object and subject-subject, should be reasonably combined, with the leading role of the second type.”
Undoubtedly, the problems that arise when considering the issue of subject-subject relations in the educational process have philosophical, social and psychological aspects. Currently, many scientists are studying the problem of relations between participants in the educational process (A.Yu. Gordin, V.V. Gorshkova, Y.L. Kolominsky, S.V. Kondratyeva, N.Yu. Popikova, G.I. Shchukina, N.E. Shchurkova, etc.) This is not surprising, because the period of education, most often, occurs at the age when the most active development and formation of a person’s personality occurs. In the educational process, the effectiveness of the formation of personal qualities and character of a person, his temperament, attitude to study, work and the subject being studied depend on the relationships that develop between the teacher, students and parents of students. And although the significance and relevance of this problem is recognized and supported by many scientists, in practice the conscious formation of relations between subjects of the educational process is not sufficiently implemented.
Our work aimed only to once again actualize the problem of subject-subject relations and emphasize its complexity and multidimensionality.
Bibliography.
1. Aristotle, op. from the book: "Euclid's Elements", book. 1–6. - M.–L. 1950.
2. Great Soviet Encyclopedia. In 30 vols. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. ed. A.M. Prokhorov, 3rd ed. 1976.
3. Brushlinsky, A.V. Psychology of the subject / A.V. Brushlinsky. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2003.
4. New philosophical encyclopedia. In 4 vols. - M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001.
5. Fundamentals of spiritual culture (encyclopedic dictionary of a teacher). - Yekaterinburg. V.S. Bezrukova. 2000.
6. Rubinstein S. L. Fundamentals of general psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002.
7. Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.I. Fundamentals of psychological anthropology. Human psychology: Introduction to the psychology of subjectivity. Textbook for universities. – M.: Shkola-Press, 1995.
8. Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F.V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970.
9. http://dic.academic.ru/
Social education and its essence.
Today the relevant question is: How does the social life of society itself educate an individual? How to educate a person so that he can successfully function in a diverse system of social relations?
Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) - “Nowadays we receive education from three different and even contradictory sources: from our fathers, from our teachers, and from what is called light. And the lessons of the latter often destroy the ideas of the other two.”
Unfortunately, today we can state that there is no relationship and continuity between the main links of the education system - the family, educational institutions of various types; that insufficient attention is paid to the environmental factor in the education and socialization of the younger generation; that there is a Westernization of the most important spheres of society’s life, the introduction of spiritual values alien to it with the aim of displacing and oblivion of national history, culture, and traditions.
In order to consider upbringing as the beginning and as a path of socialization, it is necessary to look for new approaches to the interpretation of its essence, to understanding its role and functions in the changed conditions of social development. It is important to understand and realize that
education today is becoming a kind of mechanism for updating ideas for the development of children and youth, the formation of their social qualities and properties;
in connection with the strengthening of the social orientation, education should be considered as an activity to introduce people to social experience in all its forms (knowledge, values, norms, qualities, skills and abilities of activity and communication), as well as to develop the individual capabilities and abilities of each person. It should be remembered that social experience is the result of active interaction with the outside world;
The main elements of the psychological and pedagogical assimilation of social experience are activity, a set of various social roles, which allows one to penetrate into the nature of the subject’s assimilation of the experience of his relationships with the surrounding reality, Self-awareness (the person perceives the world around him, interaction with people through the prism of the “I-concept”; a system of value relationships: to the world, to life, to man, to work, etc.;
the main objectives of socially oriented education should be the creation of a sociocultural environment where the individual develops and gains social experience; assisting the individual in social self-identification and self-realization of natural inclinations and creative abilities; removing the contradiction between the social and the individual.
Then what should be understood by social education?
As A.I. Levko notes, the term social education is currently used in two aspects:
1. Social education– is the upbringing of an individual in society, a social environment, a social community in the course of his interaction with them. With this consideration of social education, the emphasis is on the individual’s assimilation of group patterns, norms, stereotypes of collective activity, and the thinking style of a particular social group or community. The result of such education is to learn social roles, social values and norms of behavior, and personality as an object of culture, which is the result of socialization.
2. Social education is the process of an individual mastering a certain type of culture in the course of socialization and individualization based on familiarization with cultural values, as well as the fulfillment of certain social roles. In this approach, the individual is an active subject of culture, possessing freedom, will, and the ability for creative activity. The emphasis is on the development of spiritual and social qualities of the individual
Social education based on spiritual values can be carried out with the help of:
a general civilizational approach, which is based on universal human values and an understanding of culture as a certain ideal, an ideal goal;
a multicultural approach, when each local culture is recognized as one of the possible ones and thereby determines the diversity and pluralism of social education methods. A special role here belongs to national, regional, and settlement education.
Social education is understood as the systematic creation of conditions for relatively purposeful development and spiritual and value orientations of a person in the process of socialization (A.V. Mudrik). These conditions are created in the process of interaction of social, group and individual subjects in such areas as education (training, enlightenment, self-education), organization of social experience (organization of the life of formalized groups, influence on informal groups), individual assistance to a person (individual conversations, individual consultations, guardianship and guardianship, patronage).
Target social education:
To promote the development of a person as an individual, the realization of his abilities and capabilities in society, i.e. through the accumulation of social experience and the formation of social competence.
Social experience- unity of different areas of knowledge, ways of thinking and activity; behavioral stereotypes, internalized value orientations and social attitudes, imprinted sensations and experiences.
Ovcharova R.V. defines social education as a process of promoting productive personal growth of a person when solving vital problems of interaction with the outside world:
1. formation of social competence;
2. achieving social self-determination;
3. achieving success in life
4. survival in society.
The result social education is sociality as a person's ability to interact with the social world. With the development of sociality, a person gains the ability for social self-development and self-education.
General and distinctive features between “education as a pedagogical process” and “social education”.
1. Social education considers the individual, the personality, as a member of a modern social group, social community, society as a whole, as a representative of a particular culture. Social education places emphasis on the formation of social qualities and social competence of the individual.
Traditional pedagogy studies the essence, patterns, tasks, content, conditions of mental, moral, etc. education.
2. Social education is interested in the question “How individuals are educated by the social life of society itself, and not by an individual taken without connection with a social group.
3. Social education characterizes focus to regulate socio-cultural interaction in a social group, community; support on social imitation, social feelings, social needs and interests; reliance on social creativity; social education in all its modifications, models, technologies, serves as a public-state instrument for stabilizing society; social education system is under constant control of society, i.e. the social system of which it is a part.
4. Social education is focused on solving two interrelated problems - the successful socialization of the younger generation in modern conditions and the self-development of a person as a subject of activity and communication, and as an individual.
Schematically, the process of social education can be represented as: (according to A.V. Mudrik)
1. inclusion of a person in the life activity system of educational organizations;
2. acquisition and accumulation of knowledge, skills and other elements of social experience;
3. interiorization (transfer of social consciousness into individual consciousness) of social experience: transformation of the internal structures of the human psyche through the assimilation of social experience and activity;
4. exteriorization of social experience, i.e. transformation of internal structures of the psyche into certain behavior.
According to Ovcharova R.V.
The process of social education of the individual has its own a) cycles: family, educational, labor and post-work:
B ) its structure - goals and objectives; means of implementation (forms, methods, technologies); content; objects and subjects; result (defined as the degree of success of personal growth in activity, communication, cognition, self-determination and self-development);
C) its stages - orientation, design, planning stage, task implementation stage, results evaluation stage.
Objects and subjects of social education.
Object - existing outside of us and independently of our consciousness
the external world, which is the subject of cognition and practical influence of the subject; an object, a phenomenon towards which the subject’s activity is directed.
Object social education is a person, a child, (the process of its relatively purposeful and systematic development in educational organizations).
Subjects of social education- specific people (teachers, social educators), social groups and communities, social organizations, educational institutions.
Subject-subject relations
this is a type of relationship that develops in the educational process of an educational institution, consisting in the creation of parity participation of students and teachers in the organization and implementation of joint activities. These are the relationships that form the so-called “pedagogy of cooperation” and co-management, “pedagogy of non-violence.” This is what we call “dialogue learning.” This happens when the student’s personality is subjectified, which is possible by the following means: a) delegation to students of a number of teaching, including didactic powers; b) recognition and enforcement of the rights of the child and his parents in relation to school and learning; c) development of children's self-government both in the educational and extracurricular process; d) increasing trust in children from teachers, respect for their dignity and honor; nurturing spiritual and moral qualities in children; f) creation in an educational institution of a way of life that corresponds to and develops the cultural traditions of the people from which the children come. All these are ways and means of implementing the principles of democratization, environmental conformity and cultural conformity of domestic education. In the practice of educational institutions, both types of relationships, subject-object and subject-subject, should be reasonably combined, with the leading role of the second type.
Principles of social education.(independent from the textbook by A.V. Mudrik) - synopsis.
Understanding social education as an integral part of human development and socialization, as well as approaching it as subject-subject interaction and defining it as creating conditions for purposeful development and spiritual and value orientations allows us to identify a number of principles that can be considered the basis for organizing social education
1. The principle of conformity with nature
Aristotle, J.A. Komensky, A. Disterweg. K.D. Ushinsky.
Essence: social education should be based on a scientific understanding of the relationship between natural and social processes, be consistent with the general laws of development of nature and man, develop in him responsibility for the development of himself, the further evolution of the noosphere. A person needs to be raised not only as a man or woman of a certain age, not only as a resident of a particular country, but also of the planet as a whole.
This principle presupposes the need to take into account the individual and age characteristics of the child when solving educational problems.
2. The principle of cultural conformity (J. Locke, A. Disterweg, K.D. Ushinsky, etc.)
The bottom line: social education should be based on universal cultural values and built in accordance with the values, norms, and traditions of a particular national or regional culture that do not contradict universal human values.
3. The principle of complementarity in social education.
Essence: It assumes an approach to human development as a set of complementary processes. Social education is considered as one of the factors of development, along with natural, social, and cultural factors. This principle allows us to consider socialization as a combination of spontaneous, partially guided, relatively socially controlled processes of human development. The principle of complementarity allows us to consider education as a set of complementary processes of family, religious, and social education.
4. The principle of centering social education on personality development.
The essence: recognition of the priority of the individual. Educational institutions and organizations, communities of educated people can only be considered as a means of personal development with recognition of its priority in relation to society, the state, and social institutions
5. The principle of orientation towards social-value relations.
The bottom line: children are presented with a variety of objects in the world from the point of view of their significance for human life.
6. The principle of humanistic education
7. The principle of collectivity of social education.
Essence: Social education is carried out in groups of various types, gives children the experience of living in society, experience of interaction with the outside world, creates conditions for positive self-knowledge, self-determination, self-realization and self-affirmation.
8. The principle of dialogical social education
10. Social adaptation and maladjustment.
SOCIAL ADAPTATION (Latin adaptare - to adapt) is the process of adaptation, mastery, usually active, by an individual or a group of new social conditions or social environment. In modern sociology S.A. in most cases, it is understood as a social process in which both the adapter (person, social group) and the social environment are adaptive systems, that is, they actively interact and actively influence each other in the process of S.A.
The immediate impetus for the start of the process was S.A. Most often, an individual or a social group becomes aware of the fact that the behavioral stereotypes learned in previous social activities no longer ensure the achievement of success and the restructuring of behavior in accordance with the requirements of new social conditions or a new social environment for the adapter becomes relevant.
In general terms, there are most often four stages of personality adaptation in a new social environment:
1) the initial stage, when an individual or group realizes how they should behave in a new social environment, but are not yet ready to recognize and accept the value system of the new environment and strive to adhere to the previous value system;
2) the stage of tolerance, when the individual, group and new environment show mutual tolerance to each other’s value systems and patterns of behavior;
3) accommodation, i.e. recognition and acceptance by the individual of the basic elements of the value system of the new environment while simultaneously recognizing some of the values of the individual and group as the new social environment;
4) assimilation, i.e. complete coincidence of the value systems of the individual, group and environment.
DISADAPTATION
Any violation of adaptation, the body’s adaptation to constantly changing conditions of the external or internal environment. A state of dynamic discrepancy between a living organism and the external environment, leading to disruption of physiological functioning, changes in behavior, and the development of pathological processes. A complete discrepancy between the organism and the external conditions of its existence is incompatible with life. The degree of maladaptation is characterized by the level of disorganization of the functional systems of the body
In relation to a person, the categories of mental, psychological and social maladaptation are applicable. Objective manifestations of maladjustment are expressed by a certain type of behavior, and subjective manifestations are expressed by a wide range of psycho-emotional shifts (Ambrumova A. G., 1980). Personal maladaptation can lead to the formation of suicidal behavior if it is impossible to realize basic value attitudes.
Social maladjustment is manifested in violation of moral and legal norms, in asocial forms of behavior and deformation of the system of internal regulation, referent and value orientations, social attitudes. With social maladjustment we are talking about a violation of the process of social development, socialization of the individual, when there is a violation of both functional, and the content side of socialization. At the same time, socialization disorders can be caused by both direct desocializing influences, when the immediate environment demonstrates patterns of asocial, antisocial behavior, views, attitudes, thus acting as an institution of desocialization, and indirect desocializing influences, when there is a decrease in the referent significance of leading institutions socialization, which for a student, in particular, are family and school.
Considering the predominantly negative impact of maladjustment on the personality development of a child and adolescent, it is necessary to carry out preventive work to prevent it. The main ways to help prevent and overcome the consequences of maladjustment in children and adolescents include:
Creating optimal environmental conditions for the child;
Avoiding overload in the learning process due to the discrepancy between the level of learning difficulties and the child’s individual capabilities and the organization of the educational process;
Support and assistance to children in adapting to new conditions;
Encouraging the child to self-activate and express himself in the environment of life, stimulating their adaptation, etc.;
Creation of an accessible special service for socio-psychological and pedagogical assistance to various categories of the population who find themselves in difficult life situations: helplines, offices for socio-psychological and pedagogical assistance, crisis hospitals;
Training parents, teachers and educators in methods of working to prevent maladaptation and overcome its consequences;
Training of specialists for specialized services of socio-psychological and pedagogical assistance to various categories of people in difficult life situations.
1. Subject-object relations. In pedagogical activity, the role of the subject is the teacher, and the role of the object is the student (child).
The teacher as a subject of pedagogical activity is characterized by goal setting, activity, pedagogical self-awareness, adequacy of self-esteem and level of aspirations, etc. In this situation, the child acts as a performer of the requirements and tasks set by the teacher. With reasonable subject-object interaction, the positive qualities of children are formed and consolidated: diligence, discipline, responsibility; The child accumulates experience in acquiring knowledge, masters the system, the orderliness of actions. However, as long as the child is the object of the pedagogical process, i.e., the motivation for activity constantly comes from the teacher, the child’s cognitive development will not be effective. A situation where there is no need to show initiative and limited independence often creates negative aspects of the personality. The teacher “sees” his students in a very one-sided way, mainly from the point of view of compliance/non-compliance with the norms of behavior and the rules of the organized activity.
2. Subject-subject relationships contribute to the development in children of the ability to cooperate, initiative, creativity, and the ability to constructively resolve conflicts. The most complex work of thought processes and imagination is activated, knowledge is activated, the necessary methods are selected, and various skills are tested. All activities acquire personal significance for the child, valuable manifestations of activity and independence are formed, which, with a sustainable strengthening of the subject position, can become his personal qualities. During subject-subject interaction, the teacher understands his students more personally; such interaction is called personality-oriented. A personality-oriented teacher maximizes the development of the child’s ability to realize his “I” in connections with other people and the world in its diversity, to comprehend his actions, to foresee their consequences, both for others and for himself. Pedagogical activity in this kind of interaction is dialogical in nature. M. Bakhtin believes that a child only in dialogue, entering into interaction with another subject, gets to know himself, through comparison with another, through a comparison of his choice and his own choice.
Kurkina E.V. identifies the following models of teacher communication:
Model one. The teacher seems to rise above the class. He soars in the world of knowledge and science, is passionate about them, but is at an unattainable height. Here the communication system develops as follows: the teacher is, as it were, removed from the students; for him they are only perceivers of knowledge. As a rule, such a teacher has little interest in the child’s personality and his relationship with him, reducing his pedagogical functions to the communication of information. For such a teacher, only the process of transmitting information is important, and the student acts only as a “general context” for science. This position, as evidenced by observations, characterizes some beginning teachers who are passionate about science.
Negative consequences are the lack of psychological contact between the teacher and the children. Hence - the passivity of students in the learning process, lack of initiative.
Model two. The meaning of this fairly common model of communication is that between teachers and children, the invisible limiter in the relationship is the distance that the teacher establishes between himself and the students. Such limiters can be:
The teacher emphasizing his superiority over the students;
The predominance of the desire to communicate information rather than educate;
Lack of desire to cooperate, assertion of the situation of unconditional enrollment of schoolchildren;
Condescending - a patronizing attitude towards students, which interferes with organizing “adult” interaction.
Negative consequences - lack of interpersonal contact between the teacher and children, weak feedback, indifference of schoolchildren to the teacher.
Model three. Its essence is that the teacher builds relationships with children selectively. In particular, it concentrates its attention on a group of students (strong or, conversely, weak), like a locator, catching precisely these students, leaving the rest without attention. The reasons for this attitude may be different:
The teacher is passionate about children who are interested in his subject, gives them special tasks, involves them in clubs and extracurricular activities, without paying attention to others;
The teacher is preoccupied with weak students, constantly studying with them, while losing sight of the rest of the schoolchildren, trusting that they will cope with everything themselves;
Does not know how to combine a frontal approach with an individual one.
Negative consequences - a holistic and continuous system of communication is not created in the lesson; it is replaced by fragmented, situational interaction. The “pattern” of communication in the lesson is constantly disrupted, its integral rhythm is disrupted, interruptions in interpersonal interaction occur, which leads to destabilization of the socio-psychological basis of the lesson.
Model four. In the process of interacting with students, the teacher hears only himself: when explaining new material, when interviewing students, during individual conversations with children. The teacher is absorbed in his thoughts, ideas, pedagogical tasks, and does not feel his communication partners.
Negative consequences - feedback is lost, a kind of psychological vacuum is created around the teacher in the lesson, the teacher does not perceive the psychological atmosphere in the class, the educational effect of interaction with students is reduced.
Model five. The teacher acts purposefully and consistently on the basis of a planned program, not paying attention to changing circumstances that require changes in communication.
Negative consequences - such a teacher seems to be doing everything correctly: he has a well-founded plan, correctly formulated pedagogical tasks. But he does not take into account that pedagogical reality is constantly changing, new and new circumstances arise, conditions that must be immediately grasped by him and cause corresponding changes in the methodological and socio-psychological arrangement of education and training. During the educational process, two lines are clearly distinguished: the first is ideal, planned and the second is real. For such a teacher these lines do not intersect.
Model six. The teacher makes himself the main, and sometimes the only initiator of the pedagogical process, suppressing all other forms of educational initiative. Here everything comes from the teacher: questions, tasks, judgments, etc.
Negative consequences - the teacher turns into the only driving force of the educational process, the personal initiative of students is extinguished, cognitive and social activity decreases, and, consequently, a sufficiently rich motivational and need-based sphere of education and upbringing is not formed, the psychological meaning of the interaction between the teacher and children is lost, students They focus only on the one-sided activity of the teacher and perceive themselves only as a performer, the possibilities for the creative nature of teaching and upbringing are reduced, schoolchildren wait for instructions, turning into passive consumers of information.
Model seven. The teacher is tormented by constant doubts: whether they understand him correctly, whether they correctly interpret this or that remark, whether they are offended, etc.
Negative consequences - the teacher is concerned not so much with the content side of the interaction as with the relational aspects, which acquire exaggerated meaning for him; the teacher constantly doubts, hesitates, analyzes, which ultimately can lead to neuroses.
Model eight. The system of relationships is dominated by friendly characteristics.
Children are taught not by the instructions of an adult (teacher), but by the style of interaction. The teacher’s personality, his professional communication, and his success are the key to the success of teaching and raising children. And relationships built on the basis of mutual respect, equality, complicity, and faith in abilities provide the opportunity for self-realization and personal development of each participant.
So, based on the above, we can conclude the following:
pedagogical communication educational style
Chapter 2. General idea of the style of pedagogical communication and interaction 2.1 Approaches to determining the style of pedagogical communication
As noted by V.A. Tolochek, pedagogical communication, in particular, the problem of the “Teacher-Student” relationship was the subject of study back in the last century. For example, the question of establishing a collaborative style of interaction between teacher and student was raised back in the 60s of the 19th century. The most fruitful periods of active development of concepts of the 20th century alternative to the authoritarian-administrative style of communication were: the 20s, the end of the 50s - the beginning of the 60s (L.I. Bozhovich, B.P. Esipov, F.N. Gonobolin, N.V. Kuzmina and others), the second half of the 80s (Sh.A. Amonashvili, E.N. Ilyina, I.P. Volkova, S.N. Lysenkova) [from: 19; p.23].
In foreign psychology, the problem of interaction style originates in the works of K. Lewin in the 30s of the 20th century, who proposed the concept of “leadership style.” One of the reasons for the unproductive style of interaction in foreign educational psychology is the teacher’s sense of inferiority, his lack of self-respect, self-love, self-esteem (R. Burns, J. Coleman, G. Morris, A. Glasser) [from: 19 ; p.24].
In addition, in foreign psychology the consequences of liberal-permissive and authoritarian leadership styles are studied, which is of undoubted interest for domestic psychology (S. Coopersmith, D. Baumrind).
In domestic psychology, the systematic, purposeful study of style began later, in the 50-60s of the 20th century by V.S. Merlin, E.A. Klimov within the framework of the materialistic approach, based on the psychological theory of activity. It is no coincidence that the first stylistic characteristic taken as a subject of research in our country in the 60s was the concept of individual style of activity. E.A. Klimov gives the following definition of this concept: “This is an individually unique system of psychological means to which a person consciously or spontaneously resorts in order to best balance the properties of individuality with the objective external conditions of activity.” In recent works by V.S. Merlin distinguishes the style of communication as a separate phenomenon, although it turns out to be a special case of an individual style of activity and inherits from it all its components.
Gradually, the concept of style acquires interdisciplinary significance, because studied by various sciences in different aspects. Researchers distinguish: emotional styles, interaction styles, management styles and other styles. V.A. Tolochek classifies the styles identified by the authors into 4 areas: “cognitive styles”, “individual activity styles”, “management styles (leadership)”, “life styles (behavior, communication, activity, self-regulation). At the same time, style researchers mainly turn to the description of verbal forms of influence, structural components and behavioral manifestations of communication style. In Russian psychology, the concept of style is developed within the framework of the activity approach, where style is understood as an integral phenomenon of interaction between the requirements of activity and a person’s individuality [according to: 19; p.30].
In the further development of ideas about style, some authors see a tendency towards generalization: from a typologically determined individual style of activity (V.S. Merlin) to an individual lifestyle in general (D.A. Leontyev). According to the unanimous recognition of researchers of communication styles, the urgent task today is to find conceptual foundations for combining the entire variety of currently identified stylistic manifestations of personality into a coherent structure. This approach to identifying and describing a single style of a person can be called the definition given by A.V. Libin: “Style has two main manifestations in the structure of individuality, acting, on the one hand, in the form of a coupling mechanism, mediating multi-level parameters of various psychological new formations (temperament, character, intelligence, etc.), and on the other hand, forming a stable holistic a pattern of individual manifestations, expressed in the individual’s preference for a specific form (method) of interaction with the physical and social environment.”
A number of researchers see a similarity between the style of pedagogical communication and the style of activity. So, for example, I.A. Zimnyaya believes that the style of pedagogical communication is a component of the style of pedagogical activity, which also includes the style of management, the style of self-regulation and the cognitive style of the teacher.
It is common today to understand the style of pedagogical communication as the style of the teacher’s attitude towards children. A slightly different emphasis in describing the stylistic features of communication is emphasized by authors who use the concept of “interaction style” or “style of interpersonal relationships.”
The individual style of pedagogical communication, as shown by the analysis of psychological and pedagogical literature, is also considered as a type of communication style in more detail than other theoretical directions. For example, this phenomenon is presented to many researchers as a systemic study (multi-level and multi-component), which is characterized by a compensatory mechanism and which is determined by the properties of individuality.
In general, the analysis of steps towards the study of individual communication style can be divided into two directions: activity-based and interactive. Research in the activity direction is characterized by consideration of communication style as an element, subsystem, special case of activity style, strict determination of communication style by the context of the activity in which communication is included and by the properties of individuality. It is also characteristic that there is a noticeable emphasis on the study of its instrumental (operational and technical) side.
Within the framework of the interactive approach, “styles of interpersonal interaction” or “styles of interpersonal relationships” with a partner are considered. The individual style of pedagogical communication, according to this approach, is considered as the result of interaction, mutual influence, and relationships between participants in pedagogical communication.
It seems necessary to distinguish between the distinguished and often mixed concepts of “style of pedagogical communication” and “individual style of pedagogical communication”. The first reflects, in our opinion, the styles of interaction between a teacher and students that are typical for pedagogical communication. We relied on the position of B.F. Lomov that “communication acts as an independent specific form of activity of the subject...” and on the concept of the structure of communication by V.N. Myasishcheva: people’s reflection of each other, man’s attitude to man, man’s treatment of man. The style of pedagogical communication of the teacher is expressed through the behavioral component of the attitude towards the student, through the teacher’s attitude towards the students and through the teacher’s treatment of them.
The individual style of pedagogical communication is, in our opinion, that internal feature of the teacher, which is determined by a certain symptom complex of the teacher’s individual properties, such as self-esteem, anxiety, level of aspirations, rigidity, emotional stability, impulsiveness.
In our study, by communication style we will understand the individual typological characteristics of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students. The style of communication is expressed by:
Features of the teacher’s communication capabilities;
The existing nature of the relationship between the teacher and students;
Creative individuality of the teacher;
Features of the student body.
Moreover, it is necessary to emphasize that the style of communication between a teacher and children is a socially and morally rich category. It embodies the social and ethical attitudes of society and the educator as its representative.
2.2 Classification of pedagogical communication styles
A generally accepted classification of pedagogical communication styles is their division into authoritarian, democratic and permissive [according to: 17; With. 569-573].
With an authoritarian style of communication, the teacher alone decides all issues relating to the life of both the class team and each student. Based on his own attitudes, he determines the position and goals of interaction, and subjectively evaluates the results of activities. In its most pronounced form, this style is manifested in an autocratic approach to education, when students do not participate in the discussion of problems that are directly related to them, and their initiative is assessed negatively and rejected. The authoritarian style of communication is implemented using the tactics of dictatorship and guardianship. Schoolchildren’s resistance to teacher pressure most often leads to the emergence of persistent conflict situations.
Research has shown that teachers who adhere to this style of communication do not allow students to exercise independence and initiative. They are distinguished by their lack of understanding of children and the inadequacy of assessments based only on performance indicators. An authoritarian teacher focuses on the negative actions of the student, but does not take into account his motives. External indicators of the success of authoritarian teachers (academic performance, discipline in the classroom, etc.) are most often positive, but the socio-psychological atmosphere in such classes is usually unfavorable. The role position of these teachers is objective. The student’s personality and individuality are outside the interaction strategy. In this regard, mutual positive personalization of the teacher and the student turns out to be unlikely.
An authoritarian style of communication gives rise to inadequate self-esteem in students, instills a cult of power, creates neurotics, and causes an inadequate level of aspirations in communicating with other people. Moreover, the dominance of authoritarian methods in communicating with students leads to a distorted understanding of values, to a high assessment of such personality qualities as “the ability to get away with anything”, “the ability to use others to do what one should do”, “the ability to force others obey unquestioningly”, “external attractiveness and physical strength”, etc.
The permissive (anarchic, ignoring) style of communication is characterized by the teacher’s desire to be minimally involved in the activity, which is explained by the removal of responsibility for its results. Such teachers formally perform their functional duties, limiting themselves only to teaching. The permissive style of communication implements tactics of non-interference, the basis of which is indifference and disinterest in the problems of both the school and students. The consequence of such tactics is the lack of control over the activities of schoolchildren and the dynamics of their personality development. Academic performance and discipline in the classes of such teachers are, as a rule, unsatisfactory.
The common features of permissive and authoritarian communication styles, despite the apparent opposite, are distant relationships, lack of trust, obvious isolation, alienation, and demonstrative emphasis on one’s dominant position.
An alternative to these communication styles is the style of cooperation between participants in pedagogical interaction, more often called democratic. With this style of communication, the teacher is focused on increasing the student’s subjective role in interaction, on involving everyone in solving common problems. The main feature of this style is mutual acceptance and mutual orientation. As a result of an open and free discussion of emerging problems, students together with the teacher come to one solution or another. The democratic style of communication between the teacher and students is the only real way to organize their cooperation.
Teachers who adhere to this style are characterized by an active and positive attitude towards students, an adequate assessment of their capabilities, successes and failures. They are characterized by a deep understanding of the student, the goals and motives of his behavior, and the ability to predict the development of his personality. In terms of external indicators of their activities, teachers with a democratic communication style are inferior to their authoritarian colleagues, but the socio-psychological climate in their classes is always more favorable. Interpersonal relationships in them are characterized by trust and high demands on themselves and others. With a democratic style of communication, the teacher stimulates students to creativity, initiative, organizes conditions for self-realization, which creates opportunities for mutual personalization of the teacher and schoolchildren.
The characteristics of the above styles of pedagogical communication are given in a “pure” form, however, in real pedagogical practice, mixed communication styles most often occur. The teacher cannot completely exclude from his arsenal some private techniques of the authoritarian style of communication. As research has shown, they sometimes turn out to be quite effective, especially when working with classes and individual students with a relatively low level of socio-psychological and personal development. But even in this case, the teacher should be generally focused on a democratic style of communication, dialogue and cooperation with students, since this style of communication allows for the maximum implementation of the personal development strategy of pedagogical interaction.
Along with the styles of pedagogical communication discussed above, there are other approaches to their description. So, L.B. Itelson, having based the classification of communication styles on the educational forces on which the teacher relies in his activities, identified a number of intermediate styles between authoritarian and democratic styles: emotional, based on mutual love and sympathy; business, based on the usefulness of the activity and the achievement of the tasks that students face; directing, which involves inconspicuous control of behavior and activity; demanding, when tasks are placed directly in front of students; stimulating, based on attraction, special creation of situations; coercive, based on pressure. If with regard to authoritarian and democratic communication styles their assessment is unambiguous, then with regard to intermediate ones one should proceed from the fact that educational forces are always generated by personal relationships, i.e. entirely depend on the personality of the teacher [according to: 17; With. 573].
V.A. Kan-Kalik established and characterized such styles of pedagogical communication as communication based on passion for the joint creative activity of teachers and students; communication based on friendship; communication-distance; communication-intimidation; communication-flirting.
Communication based on passion for joint creative activities. This style is based on the unity of the teacher’s high professionalism and his ethical principles. After all, passion for creative research together with students is the result not only of the teacher’s communicative activity, but to a greater extent of his attitude to teaching activity in general.
This style of communication can be considered as a prerequisite for successful joint educational activities. Passion for a common cause is a source of friendliness, and at the same time, friendliness, multiplied by interest in work, gives rise to a joint, enthusiastic search.
Emphasizing the fruitfulness of this style of relationship between teacher and students and its stimulating nature, which brings to life the highest form of pedagogical communication - based on passion for joint creative activity, it should be noted that friendliness, like any emotional mood and pedagogical attitude in the communication process, must have a measure. Often, young teachers turn friendliness into familiar relations with students, and this negatively affects the entire course of the teaching and educational process (often a novice teacher is driven to this path by the fear of conflict with children, complicating relationships).
Friendliness should be pedagogically appropriate and not contradict the general system of relationships between the teacher and children.
Communication-distance. This style of communication is used by both experienced teachers and beginners. Its essence lies in the fact that in the system of relationships between the teacher and students, distance acts as a limiter. But here, too, moderation must be observed. Exaggeration of distance leads to the formalization of the entire system of socio-psychological interaction between teacher and students and does not contribute to the creation of a truly creative atmosphere. Distance must exist in the system of relationships between teachers and children; it is necessary. But it should follow from the general logic of the relationship between the student and the teacher, and not be dictated by the teacher as the basis of the relationship. Distance acts as an indicator of the leading role of the teacher and is built on his authority.
The transformation of the “distance indicator” into the dominant feature of pedagogical communication sharply reduces the overall creative level of collaboration between the teacher and students. This leads to the establishment of an authoritarian principle in the system of relationships between the teacher and children, which ultimately negatively affects the results of activities.
Why is this communication style popular? The fact is that novice teachers often believe that distance communication helps them immediately establish themselves as a teacher, and therefore use this style to a certain extent as a means of self-affirmation in the student and even in the teaching environment. But in most cases, using this style of communication in its pure form leads to pedagogical failures.
Authority should be gained not through a mechanical establishment of distance, but through mutual understanding, in the process of joint creative activity. And here it is extremely important to find both a general style of communication and a situational approach to a person. Communication-distance is to a certain extent a transitional stage to such a negative form of communication as communication-intimidation.
Communication is intimidating. This style of communication, which novice teachers also sometimes resort to, is mainly associated with the inability to organize productive communication based on passion for joint activities. After all, such communication is difficult to form, and a young teacher often follows the line of least resistance, choosing intimidating communication or distance in its extreme manifestation.
In terms of creativity, communication-intimidation is generally futile. In essence, it not only does not create a communicative atmosphere that ensures creative activity, but, on the contrary, regulates it, since it orients children not on what should be done, but on what cannot be done, and deprives pedagogical communication of the friendliness on which it is based. mutual understanding, so necessary for joint creative activity.
Flirting, again, is typical mainly for young teachers and is associated with the inability to organize productive pedagogical communication. Essentially, this type of communication corresponds to the desire to gain false, cheap authority among children, which contradicts the requirements of pedagogical ethics. The emergence of this communication style is caused, on the one hand, by the young teacher’s desire to quickly establish contact with children, the desire to please the class, and on the other hand, by the lack of the necessary general pedagogical and communicative culture, pedagogical communication skills and experience, and experience in professional communicative activities.
Communication-flirting, as observations show, arises as a result of: a) the teacher’s misunderstanding of the responsible pedagogical tasks facing him; b) lack of communication skills; c) fear of communicating with the class and at the same time the desire to establish contact with students.
Communication styles such as intimidation, flirtation and extreme forms of communication-distance, in the absence of the teacher’s communication skills necessary to create a creative atmosphere of cooperation, when used frequently, become cliches, reproducing ineffective methods of pedagogical communication.
Communication styles such as intimidation, flirting and extreme forms of communication-distance often give rise to conflictual relationships between the teacher and students. Responsibility for them always lies with the teacher.
Styles do not exist in their pure form. And the options listed do not exhaust the wealth of communication styles spontaneously developed over long-term practice. In its spectrum, a wide variety of nuances are possible, giving unexpected effects that establish or destroy the interaction of partners. As a rule, they are found empirically. At the same time, the found and acceptable communication style of one teacher turns out to be completely unsuitable for another. The style of communication clearly reveals the individual’s individuality.
According to another classification, the following styles of pedagogical communication can be distinguished: situational, operational and value-based.
Situational is manifested in the fact that the student acts for the teacher as a means of solving pedagogical problems. The general pedagogical position comes down to managing the student’s behavior in a specific situation. In general, this style of relationship can be described as “do the same as me.” It is typical in cases where a child is encouraged to think, try, remember, and be attentive, but is not shown how to do this, i.e. the activity of the child himself is not organized, which practically excludes his purposeful orientation towards essential, universal mechanisms for constructing activity, which are moral categories and principles.
The operational style is characterized by a teacher-student relationship built on the principle of “do it the same way as I do.” An adult reveals methods of action, shows the possibilities of their generalization and application in a variety of situations, shows the content (primarily operational) of actions of control, evaluation, planning, i.e. teaches the child to structure his activities taking into account the conditions of action. In a lesson situation, the operational style manifests itself when the teacher involves the class and individual students in analyzing methods of action, in the rule being studied, with the question: “Why are we doing this?”
The value style of communication in general can be expressed as follows: “Man is the measure of everything.” It is built on the commonality of meaning-forming mechanisms of different types of activities. This is the justification of actions not only from the point of view of their objective structure, but also from the point of view of interdependence in terms of human activity as a whole. The manifestation of this style is possible in different forms, but it is always regulated by the moral requirements of organizing activities.
Among the classifications of pedagogical communication styles developed abroad in recent years, the typology of professional positions of teachers proposed by M. Talen [from: 18; With. 238-247].
Model I – “Socrates”. This is a teacher with a reputation as a lover of controversy and discussion, deliberately provoking it in the classroom. He is characterized by individualism, unsystematicism in the educational process due to constant confrontation; Students strengthen their defense of their own positions and learn to defend them.
Model II – “Group Discussion Leader”. He considers the achievement of agreement and the establishment of cooperation between students to be the main thing in the educational process, assigning himself the role of a mediator for whom the search for democratic agreement is more important than the result of the discussion.
Model III – “Master”. The teacher acts as a role model, subject to unconditional copying, and, above all, not so much in the educational process, but in relation to life in general.
Model IV – “General”. He avoids any ambiguity, is emphatically demanding, strictly seeks obedience, because he believes that he is always right in everything, and the student, like an army recruit, must unquestioningly obey the orders given. According to the author of the typology, this style is more common than all of them combined in teaching practice.
Model V – “Manager”. A style that has become widespread in radically oriented schools and is associated with an atmosphere of effective class activity, encouraging their initiative and independence. The teacher strives to discuss with each student the meaning of the problem being solved, quality control and evaluation of the final result.
Model VI – “Coach”. The atmosphere of communication in the classroom is permeated with a corporate spirit. Students in this case are like players of one team, where each individual is not important as an individual, but together they can do a lot. The teacher is assigned the role of inspirer of group efforts, for whom the main thing is the final result, brilliant success, victory.
Model VII – “Guide”. The embodiment of a walking encyclopedia. Laconic, precise, restrained. He knows the answers to all questions in advance, as well as the questions themselves. Technically impeccable and that is why it is often downright boring.
M. Talen specifically points out the basis laid down in the typologization: the choice of role by the teacher based on his own needs, and not the needs of the students.
So, based on the above, we can draw the following conclusions:
1. In the course of teaching activities, special communication arises between the teacher and the child. A characteristic of pedagogical communication is its style - the individual typological features of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students.
2. The most common classification of leadership styles, which is fully relevant to teaching activities, is the classification that distinguishes authoritarian, democratic and permissive styles. Kan-Kalik identified such styles of pedagogical communication as communication based on passion for the joint creative activity of teachers and students; communication based on friendship; communication-distance; communication-intimidation; communication-flirting. M. Talen classified styles based on the choice of role by the teacher, based on his own needs.
3. Most often in teaching practice there is a combination of styles in one proportion or another, when one of them dominates.
4. The most effective in pedagogical communication, in most cases, is the democratic style. The consequence of its use is increased interest in work, positive internal motivation for activity, increased group cohesion, the emergence of a sense of pride in common successes, mutual assistance and friendliness in relationships.
Conclusion
As a result of the theoretical research, we came to the following conclusions:
1. The essence of pedagogical interaction is the direct or indirect influence of the subjects of this process on each other, giving rise to their mutual connection.
2. The most important characteristic of the personal side of pedagogical interaction is the ability to influence each other and make real transformations not only in the cognitive, emotional-volitional, but also in the personal sphere.
3. Pedagogical interaction has two sides: functional-role and personal, i.e. In the process of interaction, the teacher and students perceive, on the one hand, the functions and roles of each other, and on the other, individual, personal qualities.
4. In pedagogical science, there are two types of interaction between teacher and child: subject-object and subject-subject.
5. There are also 8 models of communication between teacher and students.
6. In the course of teaching activities, special communication arises between the teacher and the child. A characteristic of pedagogical communication is its style - the individual typological features of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students.
7. The generally accepted classification of styles of pedagogical communication is their division into authoritarian, democratic and permissive; they also distinguish such styles of pedagogical communication as communication based on passion for the joint creative activity of teachers and students; communication based on friendship; communication-distance; communication-intimidation; communication-flirting.
8. In real pedagogical practice, mixed communication styles most often occur. Most often in pedagogical practice, there is a combination of styles in one proportion or another, when one of them dominates.
List of used literature
1. Abramova, G.S. Some features of pedagogical communication with teenagers. - [Text] / G.S. Abramova //http://www.proshkolu.ru/ user/ lpsinkova60 /blog/ 29212/
2. Badmaev, B.Ts. Psychology in the work of a teacher. - [Text] / B.Ts. Badmaev. - M., 2000.
3. Batrakova, S.N. Fundamentals of professional and pedagogical communication.- [Text] / S.N. Batrakova. -Yaroslavl, 1989
4. Bordovskaya, N., Rean, A. Pedagogy.- [Text] / N. Bordovskaya, A. Rean //http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/Pedagog/
5. Zimnyaya, I. A. Pedagogical psychology. - [Text] / I.A. Winter. - Rostov-on-Don, 1997.
6. Ismagilova, A.G. Style of pedagogical communication of a kindergarten teacher - [Text] / A.G. Ismagilova //Questions of Psychology.-2000.-No. 5.
7. Kan-Kalik, V.A. To the teacher about pedagogical communication. - [Text] / V.A. Kan-Kalik. - M., 1987.
8. Klimov, E.A. Individual style of activity depending on the typological properties of the nervous system. - [Text] /E.A. Klimov. - Len.: Leningrad State University, 1969.
9. Kurkina, E.V. Theory and practice of pedagogical communication - [Text] / //http://festival.1september.ru/articles/506043
10. Kurganov, S.Yu. Child and adult in educational dialogue: Book. for the teacher. - [Text] / S.Yu. Kurganov. - M., 1989. - 249 p.
11. Libin, A.V. Elements of the theory of human style.//Psychology today in the materials of the 1st All-Russian Conference. - [Text] / A.V. Libin.-M., 1996.
12. Lobanova, E.A. Preschool pedagogy: educational and methodological manual - [Text] / E.A. Lobanova. - Balashov: Nikolaev, 2005. - 76 p.
13. Lomov, B.F. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. - [Text] / B.F. Lomov.-M.,-1984.
14. Mulkova, S.A. Modern approaches to pedagogical communication styles - [Text] / S.A. Mulkova //http://www.psi.lib.ru/statyi/ sbornik/ spspo.htm
15. Radugina, A.A. Psychology and pedagogy. - [Text] / A.A. Radugina. - M., 2000.
16. Rean, A.A., Kolominsky, Ya.L. Social Psychology. - [Text] / A.A. Rean, Ya.L. Kolominsky. - St. Petersburg, 1999.
17. Slastenin, V.A. and others. Pedagogy: Proc. aid for students higher ped. textbook establishments. - [Text] / V.A. Slastenin, I.F. Isaev, E.N. Shiyanov; Ed. V.A. Slastenina. - M.: Academy, 2002. - 576 p.
18. Stolyarenko, L.D. Pedagogical communication. - [Text] // L.D. Stolyarenko Pedagogical psychology for university students. - Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2004. 19. Tolochek, V.A. Styles of professional activity. - [Text] V.A. Push. –M.: Smysl, 2000.-199 p.
In the 11th grade, they prefer a reasoning - methodical style (RMS) of interaction with students, which leads to tense relationships between them and the students of the class." In the process of work, various sources were analyzed on the issues of pedagogical communication styles, methods were selected for studying aspects of the teacher's personality. We I attended 10 lessons from each teacher. After...
The situation is changing dramatically. Conclusions To summarize this chapter, it must be said that as a result of our research, the psychological characteristics of the personality of teachers with different styles of pedagogical communication were identified and studied. The results of our research allow us to draw the following conclusions: 1. There are differences between the personality traits of teachers with authoritarian and...
In identifying the style of pedagogical interaction between educators and children), sociometric techniques (allows us to identify the nature of relationships in children's groups, the questions were chosen on the topic “Ship”) Chapter 1. The influence of the style of pedagogical communication on the interpersonal relationships of preschoolers 1.1 Characteristics of interpersonal communication styles. Pedagogical communication Individual identity...
Psychological structure of pedagogical activity. Pedagogical communication in teaching and upbringing serves as a tool for influencing the student’s personality. Pedagogical communication is an integral system (techniques and skills) of socio-psychological interaction between a teacher and students, containing the exchange of information, educational influences and the organization of relationships with the help of...
The activities of the teacher and students are constantly in mutual influence and intertwined with each other. It proceeds fruitfully on the basis of subject-subject relations, which is not an exclusive factor, but, on the contrary, rather obligatory, since it is in these conditions that the complementarity and mutual enrichment of the activities of the teacher and students occurs. The richness of the pedagogical process is created by the deep erudition of the teacher, his skill in organizing the independent activities of students. And it is here that a single activity takes place, merging in its goals and motivation. Here the teacher, relying on the activity and independence of the students, relies entirely on their creative capabilities and predicts the results. The student has tempting prospects for learning with passion, entering into relationships, not adhering to standards, but incorporating his life experience, and finding not one, but several solutions.
The relationship process itself is built on the basis of mutual trust: trust in the teacher, who introduces schoolchildren into the world of complex relationships, and the teacher’s trust in the student, in their abilities to understand and penetrate these relationships.
These relationships of mutual understanding, the desire to meet each other halfway and jointly comprehend the truth give rise to the need to communicate with the teacher and a deep sense of satisfaction from the awareness of one’s capabilities. On this basis, there is a need for communication that creates a valuable trusting relationship that ensures the well-being of educational and cognitive activity and communication in general.
The interdependence of the activities of the teacher and students is promoted, according to I.F. Radionova, creating the necessary situations where the teacher looks for more advanced ways of his work, based on the knowledge, ideas of students, and aspirations for creative activity. These are situations in which the student:
- - defends his opinion, conducts arguments and evidence in its defense, uses acquired knowledge;
- - asks questions, clarifies what is unclear, and with their help goes deeper into the process of cognition;
- - shares his knowledge with others;
- - helps a friend in case of difficulty, explains to him what he does not understand;
- - performs tasks designed to read additional literature, monographs, and long-term observations;
- - encourages students to find not only solutions, but several independently found ones;
- - practices free choice of tasks, mainly creative ones;
- - creates situations of self-testing, analysis of one’s own actions;
- - diversifies activities, not excluding elements of labor, games, artistic and other activities;
- - creates interest in verbal communication, on the basis of which the formation of intersubjective relationships occurs.
The purposeful, active, conscious activity of a student performing educational and cognitive tasks creates an internal predisposition to learning and communication.
Under these conditions, the entire process of interaction acquires personal significance for the student and is colored with vivid experiences: surprise at one’s own discoveries, the joy of independent advancement, satisfaction with one’s acquisitions. Such activities build self-esteem, which undoubtedly strengthens the relationship process itself. Under these conditions, valuable manifestations of activity and independence are formed, which, with a sustainable strengthening of the subject position, can become personal qualities.
In conditions where students have the opportunity to perform complete independence, the teacher, however, does not cease to remain the bearer of stimulation of the relationships themselves, the bearer of high erudition, the standard for organizing educational activities, and the image of speech forms of activity. And as an object of student activity, the teacher acts as an example of moral and ethical standards of communication and relationships.
Pedagogical interaction also provides for the expedient organization of communication between participants in the educational process: relationships of cooperation and mutual assistance, a wide exchange of new information between participants in the educational process, a counter process, students’ disposition to the actions of the teacher, empathy in the joy of learning, participation in resolving problematic issues and cognitive tasks, the desire to come to help each other in times of difficulty.
Creating special situations of communication in the educational process (“help a friend,” “check each other’s work”), permission to help a friend in case of failures or difficulties, removes the psychological barrier that arises between the teacher and students. This barrier is erected by the unreasonable organization of communication in the elementary grades, when one covers the notebook from the other, when children’s complaints about each other are frequent, when any valuable impulse to help a friend, to get him out of a difficulty, is suppressed. And if children expect every meeting with a teacher as welcome and joyful, then this happens precisely because these teachers provide a fertile atmosphere of learning, where the joys of knowledge and communication are inseparable.
The learning process is a complex unity of the activities of the teacher and the activities of students, aimed at a common goal - equipping students with knowledge, abilities, skills, their development and education.
Learning is a two-way process. The teacher's activity is teaching. The student's activity is learning. The teacher not only teaches, but also develops and educates students. Teaching is not only the process of mastering what is given by the teacher, it is a complex process of cognitive activity in which the development of the generalized experience accumulated by humanity in the form of knowledge occurs.
At the center of the learning process is the student’s cognitive activity, his learning, his constant movement towards knowledge of ever deeper and more significant connections and dependencies between the processes being studied and areas of scientific knowledge, a wide range of phenomena and processes.
Cooperation in knowledge, where the experience of mankind is mastered, L.S. Vygotsky considered the most important act of transformation of historically established social formations. He saw the logic of the transition of social formations into the individual experience of a child precisely in the fact that the cognition of the most complex forms is first accomplished in collaboration, in decision with adults, where one can see the zone of proximal development, and only then does this new formation enter the fund of the child’s actual development.
Psychologist B.G. Ananyev considered cognition, communication and work to be the sources of human development. It is their interdependent influence that promotes comprehensive development.
The problem of interaction can be considered from different positions, including from the standpoint of the activity of the teacher and student within the framework of the relationship style. In one case, the focus is on the combination of demands and respect on the part of the teacher for the student. Highlight:
- - authoritarian style of relationships, when the manifestation of initiative and activity of the teacher occurs to the detriment of the initiative and activity of the student;
- - democratic style, when they look for the optimal solution to the activity of the teacher and student;
- - liberal style, when the student’s initiative and activity dominate the interaction.
The style of pedagogical relations is also distinguished depending on the manifestation of volitional principles in interaction:
- - autocratic (that is, when the student’s personality is not taken into account);
- - domineering (when the teacher tries to establish his power over the students);
- - democratic (combination of power with the development of initiative on the part of the student);
- - ignoring (inconsistent).
Humanistic theories are only one of the directions in accordance with the ideas of which interaction can be designed. In this theory, in contrast to theories based on social needs and cultural and social development of the individual, the main emphasis is on two individualistic human needs - the need for a positive attitude, which is satisfied in a child when he experiences approval from others and love, and the need for self-esteem , which develops as the first one is satisfied.
A special problem is the ability of a participant in the educational process to engage in dialogical thinking and communication. The creation of the scientific sociocultural concept of dialogical relations belongs to M.M. Bakhtin.
This theory has become the starting point for many studies of the influence of dialogue on the development and formation of personality, the development of sociocultural phenomena and processes, including processes in the educational environment and systems.
To understand the meaning of designing dialogue in pedagogical processes, Shcherbina identifies several significant provisions:
- 1. dialogue can be realized in the presence of different semantic positions (dialogical relations) regarding a certain object of consideration;
- 2. dialogue requires a formulated attitude towards the statement;
- 3. for the formation of consciousness, understanding of the subject of study, discussion, it is not enough to acquire knowledge; an expressed attitude towards it (dialogical communication with it) is necessary;
- 4. in dialogical relationships there are 2 forms of dialogue - internal and external, for which it is important to create the conditions for their occurrence.
When creating conditions for internal dialogue, Yu. Shcherbina advises designing situational tasks of the following nature:
- - choosing a solution from alternatives;
- - resolution of problem situations;
- - search for judgments on a certain fact or phenomenon;
- - solving problems of an uncertain nature (not having an unambiguous solution);
- - putting forward hypotheses and proposals.
To create conditions for external dialogue, the following are designed:
- - interrogative way of communication;
- - exchange of thoughts, ideas, positions, discussions, collective generation of ideas, opposition of ideas, proposals, evidence;
- - analysis of ideas and hypotheses;
- - creative workshops.
To stimulate external dialogue, inconsistency, the possibility of evaluation, questioning and the opportunity to express their point of view are assumed in advance for each participant in the dialogue.
Designing dialogical communication presupposes an orientation towards openness of the positions of its participants. If the teacher does not take an open position, the dialogue is disrupted and is artificial; the forms and internal content of communication are not consistent. According to modern international studies, 83% of teachers dominate dialogue; 40% of teachers prefer a monologue form of teaching.
Having examined in detail the theoretical premises of the “teacher-student” interaction and taking them as a basis, we move on to the specific practice of interaction.