Styles of pedagogical communication. Styles of pedagogical communication - Zhaika – LiveJournal Liberal democratic approach to teaching

There are several approaches to identifying communication styles. One of them is based on linking the communication style to the leadership style: an authoritarian leadership style corresponds to an authoritarian (imperative) communication style, and a democratic leadership style corresponds to a democratic communication style. Thus, a connection arises between leadership and communication styles, which, however, does not mean their identity, as some authors believe. The fact is that leadership style also refers to the method of decision-making (individual or collective), and not just the manner of communication.

As shown by A. Yu. Maksakov (1990) and D. A. Mishutin (1992), teachers with authoritarian The leadership style has the following features of communication with students:

• predominant use of monologue and imperative forms of address;
• dominance of personal-group communication;
• a narrow circle of students with whom they communicate individually (mostly high achievers).

Teachers with democratic style have a wider range of individual communication, more often resort to dialogue and use non-imperative forms of address.

Teachers with an authoritarian leadership style during pedagogical communication are characterized by an imperious, arrogant or condescending demonstration of their role in the lesson, superiority in knowledge and skills; overly strict assessment of students, suppression of their responses with negative pedagogical sanctions, responding to requests for help as obstacles to the progress of the lesson, unreasonable use of restrictions and prohibitions.

Teachers with a democratic leadership style are characterized by opposite techniques: the desire to relieve the inhibition and awkwardness of students; encouragement, support; providing assistance in selecting words and constructing phrases; positive criticism of the student, demonstrating interest in dialogue with students, etc. At the same time, as D. A. Mishutin notes, in the lessons of these teachers it is not uncommon for students to ask questions that provoke conflict situations. Obviously, students see not only the strengths of this style of leadership and communication, but also its weaknesses, the ability to exert psychological pressure on the teacher.

When studying the communication styles of preschool teachers, O. V. Zelenskaya (2002) found that they are associated with the teachers’ locus of control. An authoritarian style of communication is associated with a low level of subjective control, that is, they pay little attention to the analysis of developing relationships with children, do not realize the imperative nature of their influences, look for the reasons for their failures not in themselves, but in others, and try to explain them by a combination of circumstances. Teachers with a democratic communication style have developed subjective control. They strive to rely in life on their beliefs and principles, are responsible for their choices, and tend to appreciate their merits. They have a pronounced cognitive need.

T. Yu. Treskova (cited from: Vyatkin B. A., 2001) revealed that teachers of authoritarian and democratic styles of pedagogical communication have different influences on the development of the personality of their students. This was manifested in the following: teachers with a democratic style have students who are more open, more self-confident, and more socially courageous than teachers with an authoritarian style. The latter students are more anxious, shy, less self-confident, and more withdrawn.

Democratic and authoritarian communication styles affect students of different genders differently. Boys taught by teachers with a democratic style are more unscrupulous, careless, and have low self-control. On the contrary, teachers with an authoritarian style have boys who are more reasonable, dominant, more tense and sensitive. For girls, the opposite is true: with a democratic style of teacher communication, girls are more prudent, conscientious, sensitive, anxious, and have high self-control; with an autocratic style, they are more careless, obedient, and compliant.

The table above cannot be understood to mean that teachers with an authoritarian style of communication use only instructions, commands, etc., and teachers of a democratic style use exclusively suggestions, advice and discussion. All of these forms of information transfer can be used by teachers with different communication styles, but the frequency of their use is not the same for both.

According to S.V. Ivanov (1990), half of the teachers are characterized by a democratic style of communication, the authoritarian style is found in 40% of teachers, and the liberal style is found in 9%; student interns most often use a democratic communication style. At the same time, according to E. Ya. Zakharova (1989), 60% of university teachers have an authoritarian orientation in their work and communication with students.

N. A. Lopareva (2004) found that students associate a liberal style of communication with an inexperienced teacher, and a democratic style of communication with an experienced one.

It should be emphasized that communication style is a dynamic structure that reflects the relationship between various forms of address. This means that teachers resort to many of them, but for one the forms of a certain style predominate, and for the other - a completely different one, at the same time, when the situation changes, the relationship between these forms of address may change. Thus, in tense circumstances, the number of authoritarian forms increases, regardless of leadership style. The latter are more often used by teachers when communicating with students who have low and average status in the group, and less often when communicating with its leaders. These forms are more often used by male teachers than by women (Ivanov S.V., 1990).

Unlike other styles of activity, the specificity of the implementation of leadership and communication styles is that they are perceived differently by the objects of influence (students). Accordingly, their attitude towards the teacher himself differs, and relationships develop in different ways.

V.I. Karikash (1989) experimentally identifies the five most common types of communication between teachers.

• First type - personal and business. Representatives of this type evaluate students differentially: they are less likely than other teachers to demonstrate the dependence of the assessment of a student’s personal qualities on his business qualities and academic performance.
• Second type - selective business. Individuals belonging to this type are characterized by a more complete assessment of the extreme poles of their attitudes towards the “best” and “difficult” students (from their point of view). At the same time, the assessments of the “best” are overestimated, and the assessments of the “difficult” are underestimated. The remaining students, and they are the majority, fall out of the teacher’s field of vision.
• Third type - formal business. This type of teacher evaluates the attitude towards individual students based on their membership in a certain group.
• The fourth type is a “symbiosis” of the previous ones. He singles out the “best” and the “difficult”, building relationships with them on a personal and business level, but on the other hand, relations with other students are not differentiated and remain formal and businesslike.
• The fifth type is characterized diffuse relations with students, which manifests itself in the uncertainty of interaction with both individual students and the group.

V. A. Kan-Kalik and G. A. Kovalev (1985) identified eight styles of pedagogical communication: dialogical, trusting, reflective, altruistic, manipulative, pseudo-dialogical, conformal and monological.

S. L. Bratchenko (1987), based on the direction of a person’s communicative attitudes (equality in communication or non-acceptance of it, creative or stereotypical communication, achieving mutual understanding or refusing it), identified six styles of communication: dialogical, alterocentric, conformal, indifferent, manipulative and authoritarian.

Styles of pedagogical communication have been identified, based largely on the teacher’s desire to win not only authority among students, but also pseudo-authority of one kind or another. In accordance with this, the following are distinguished:

• style " joint creativity“when common goals for the teacher and students are set and decisions are made through joint efforts;
• style " friendly disposition", which is based on a sincere interest in the personality of the communication partner, a respectful attitude towards him, and openness to contacts;
• style " flirting", based on the desire to gain false, cheap authority among students, to please them;
• style " intimidation", which is a consequence of the teacher’s uncertainty or inability to organize communication on the basis of joint productive activity; such communication is strictly regulated, driven into an official formal framework;
• style " distance", which has various variations, but retains the main feature - emphasizing the differences between the teacher and students;
• style " mentoring”, which is a variation of the previous style, when the teacher plays the role of “experienced”, takes on the role of a mentor and talks with students in an edifying and patronizing tone.

Different communication styles of teachers give rise to different emotional states in students. Teachers with an inflexible manner of behavior in communication often evoke a favorable emotional reaction in students by accident, only because the style of communication they developed “suited” the individual characteristics of the students. At the same time, in a lot of other cases, when the method of communication that has become typical for them diverges from the ideas of the students, teachers, without knowing it, stimulate manifestations of dissatisfaction, strengthen and maintain a negative attitude not only towards themselves, but also towards the subject.

In the actual practice of the school, the disciplinary-affective type of pedagogical influence predominates, taking as a basis not the activity of the student, not the creative nature of his activity, but the strict subordination of his behavior and actions to the teacher, strict adherence to this line, placing exactingness and subordination at the basis of all applied methods of influence. The designated type of impact is usually considered within the framework of a dichotomous semantic axis:

• personal - impersonal,
• democratic - authoritarian,
• motivating - controlling,
• syntonically empathetic - hyposensitive,
• helping - hindering,
• developing - deforming,
• stimulating - suppressing,
• encouraging - threatening, etc.

In addition, by creating unequal experiences of emotional experiences among schoolchildren who are similar to each other in academic success or in their inherent attitude towards social work, educators who differ in the style of communication with students have different effects on the formation of the characterological qualities of adolescents, even if schoolchildren have the same progress or show equal activity when performing public assignments.

A. G. Ismagilova (1991, 1992) distinguishes two styles of pedagogical communication. The first (conventionally designated as A) - organizing and corrective actions, direct appeals; the second (B) - evaluative, controlling and stimulating actions and indirect appeals. Style A is typical for teachers with a strong and labile nervous system, who are emotionally unstable. Style B is more suitable for teachers with a strong and inert nervous system, emotionally stable.

The total number of all remarks is approximately one and a half times higher for male teachers. Moreover, the majority of male teachers’ remarks that relate to behavior assessment or lesson organization (they make up 60% of the total number of remarks) are predominantly negative (59%) and neutral (28%). Therefore, we can conclude that male teachers show higher communicative activity during the lesson and, apparently, strive to control almost all aspects of the educational process.

Female teachers more often address boys (72% of all remarks) with a predominantly (83%) negative assessment of behavior. They are more likely to address the whole class, while male teachers show some preference for personal contact. The number of calls from male teachers to boys and girls is distributed more evenly, but the number of positive assessments in academic contacts (about students’ knowledge) is significantly higher for boys.

Differences were also noted in the amount of neutral evaluations during academic contacts: male teachers were more likely to use such evaluations for both boys and girls. Female teachers are characterized by emotionally charged assessments of intellectual activity, while the percentage of neutral assessments of the organizational aspects of the lesson and student behavior is approximately the same for teachers of both sexes.
Popova L.V., 1989. P. 73-74.

In the work of L.I. Ryumina (2000), a comparison was made of the personal characteristics of teachers with dialogical and manipulative communication styles. Teachers with a dialogical style are more harmonious, calm, confident in themselves and in their lives, and open to the world. They are able to understand others and strive to contribute to their development and well-being. In the presence of a manipulative style, teachers are outwardly confident in themselves, in their ability to arouse the sympathy and approval of others, however, they do not believe in their ability to control their own lives. For such a teacher, the most significant are specific values ​​that concern him personally; a communication partner is only a means to achieve one’s own goal.

During the experimental study, results were obtained, the analysis of which made it possible to identify the style of pedagogical communication in the development of secondary education. - E.I.] two models: adaptive and developmental. The identification of these models corresponds to the position of L. M. Mitina on models of professional activity (1997), since SVE is an important component of professional development and a condition for the formation of a professional.

Adaptive model involves the development of SVE as a mechanism that ensures the adaptation of the teacher’s individuality to the requirements of the interaction situation on the principle of convenience for it (E. P. Ilyin, 1988), that is, the teacher’s individuality adapts the conditions of interaction with the child to itself. In this case, the effectiveness of interaction is low. As the results of the study show, one of the styles we have identified - organizational - is less successful in interacting with children. If we consider this model from the point of view of the interaction of systems of the meta-individual world, then we can say that there is a violation of the principle of duality of qualitative certainty, a manifestation of a positional imbalance: the priority for the teacher is the position of the system in relation to the “child” subsystem. These priorities also determine the manifestation of forms of activity. In communication with a child, informative and presentational forms of activity dominate, as evidenced by the characteristics of organizational SPE (the predominance of didactic and organizational tasks in communication with the child, attitude towards him as an object of influence, etc.). The predominance of some forms of activity over others, the one-sided, monotonous manifestation of style functions allows us to characterize in this case the teacher’s individuality as an inert, passive system that does not show activity, aimed at its own positive changes, ensuring the success and efficiency of interaction with children.

The developmental model assumes the development of open source software when it acts as a mechanism that ensures the dynamic balance of interacting systems. This style of pedagogical communication corresponds to the individuality of the teacher and does not conflict with the requirements of the interaction situation (E. P. Ilyin, 1988). In our case, this is a developmental open source software. It implements the principle of duality of qualitative certainty; individuality simultaneously acts both as a system to which other subsystems (the child) are attached, and as a subsystem that itself is attached to other systems (the child). That is, there is a positional dynamic equilibrium of interacting systems. This, in turn, ensures a harmonious combination of manifestations of all forms of teacher activity in communication. But this situation, this SPO does not arise on its own, but as a result of actively overcoming the contradictions that existed between the individuality of the teacher and the situation of interaction, or the contradictions that arose in the process of interaction of systems of the meta-individual world. In this case, open source software acts as a mechanism for overcoming these contradictions. This is possible provided that these contradictions become the subject of analysis of the professional consciousness of the teacher. Then he begins an active search for the most effective techniques and methods of communication that are appropriate to the interaction situation and, if they do not correspond to his individuality, he consciously tries to change himself. How can this happen? Probably, the effectiveness of the teacher’s interaction with children as a result of the use of certain methods and techniques of communication gives rise to the need to consolidate these successful operations. In turn, the use of these operations actualizes the manifestation of certain features of the teacher’s individuality. The demand for these qualities contributes to their development, increasing the degree of their expression, changing the nature of their relationship with other properties of individuality, which ultimately indicates the development of the teacher’s individuality. And vice versa, if some qualities are not in demand in professional activity, in pedagogical communication, then a state of stagnation is observed in their development and they gradually begin to involute, regress in their development, which is again reflected in a change in the structure of the relationship between the properties of the individual as a whole, in its development. Thus, the teacher, building his own style of communication, allowing him to be more effective in interacting with the child, changes his personality and develops it. I would especially like to draw attention to the name - developmental model. It is filled with deep meaning and involves multidirectional development: the development of secondary education, the development of the teacher’s individuality, the development of the child’s individuality.

In the case of a teacher with an organizational style, everything happens a little differently. The emerging contradictions between interacting systems are not the subject of analysis of their professional consciousness, as evidenced by their lower levels of subjective control. Therefore, they do not adapt their individuality to the requirements of the interaction situation, but adapt the situation to themselves.

The processes of adaptation to the requirements of the interaction situation and interacting systems among educators with different secondary education differ in the degree and nature of professional activity, by which we mean the activity of the subject in the process of mastering and carrying out professional activities. In the case of a teacher with organizational SVE, his activity is aimed at choosing techniques and methods of communication that correspond only to his individuality and do not always ensure productivity and successful communication. We can say that activity is not fully realized, or we can only talk about the activity of adaptation. In the case of a teacher with developing SVE, activity in developing his own style is aimed at choosing techniques and methods of communication not only in accordance with his own individuality, but also taking into account the communication situation, taking into account the individuality of the child. In addition, activity is also aimed at changing one’s own individuality in cases where some of its features may negatively manifest themselves in the nature of communication with children. This activity presupposes a slightly different degree of expression, since it is necessary to overcome some resistance of the teacher’s individuality to these changes.
Ismagilova A. G., 2003. P. 93-97.

Teachers with an organizational style have more pronounced external positive motivation for work (t = 2.6) and such a self-development factor as respect for colleagues (t = 2.3). This indicates that in their activities, to a greater extent than educators with a developmental style, they are focused on external reinforcement and approval of their activities from others, especially colleagues.

In addition, teachers with an organizational style have more pronounced external negative motivation for work (t = 2.6). That is, educators with an organizational style strive to be more successful in their professional activities because they strive to avoid comments and indications of shortcomings in it from others.

An analysis of the severity of activity goals showed that teachers with a developmental style, in comparison with teachers with an organizational style, have more pronounced goals such as developing the child’s abilities (t = -2.8), ensuring the child’s emotional comfort (t = -2.3 ), moral education of the child (t = -2.9) and aesthetic development of the child (t = -2.2). This means that educators with a developmental style are more likely than educators with an organizational style to focus on the development of the child’s abilities, his moral and aesthetic qualities, and try to structure their activities in such a way as to provide him with conditions for emotional well-being. In addition, according to a qualitative analysis of the hierarchy of activity goals, educators with a developmental style consider such a goal as the development of the child’s abilities to be a priority, while educators with an organizational style determine the physical well-being and health of the child as the most important.

Differences in relation to such a goal as diagnosing child development (t = -2.3) were expressed in the fact that educators with a developmental style, to a greater extent compared to educators with an organizational style, consider it necessary to pay attention to timely diagnosis and, if necessary, correction of individual defects in child development.

The results obtained allow us to conclude that educators with both developmental and organizational communication styles find individually acceptable opportunities for self-realization in various aspects of activity. Teachers with a developmental style of communication in the process of activity are more focused on its moral and ethical side, contribute to the development and manifestation of individual inclinations and creative abilities of the child. The essence of professional activity and self-realization for them is connected with the inner meaning of pedagogical activity, with the desire to help people. Hence, the basis of their interaction with children is primarily personal communication. This indicates their manifestation of such a mode of human existence as a mode of service (A. G. Fonarev). Teachers with an organizational communication style prioritize the physical well-being and health of children. They tend to view the effectiveness of their activities through their positive assessment by others. In addition, they strive for success due to a pronounced tendency to avoid negative assessments from colleagues and administration. It can be assumed that they do not always find internal resources for professional development and changes in activity, which allows us to compare these features with the manifestation of the mode of social achievements (A. G. Fonarev).
Kobyalkovskaya E. A., 2003. P. 265-267.

The work of A. A. Korotaev and T. S. Tambovtseva (1985) revealed the role of extraversion - introversion in the use by master teachers of various methods of pedagogical communication.

For extroverted teachers, the following characteristic techniques turned out to be: addressing students on a first-name basis, but in a friendly, warm manner; expression of confidence in the success of students, a warm tone of address, the use of humor and jokes; these teachers often approve of students' responses and actions; warnings and comments are given in a mild form; in conflict situations they limit themselves to mild reproaches.

For introverted teachers, the use of the following communication techniques was more typical: addressing students as “you,” but coldly, maintaining a distance; It is not uncommon for them to have an irritated tone of communication; they blame students more often than they praise them; show severity in addressing students, express dissatisfaction angrily, and resort to epithets that are unflattering for students; remarks and warnings are given harshly.

It follows that introverted teachers are more prone to an authoritarian style of communication and leadership.

Pedagogical communication style – these are individual-typological features of social-typological interaction between teachers 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 study group (audience).

The style of communication between a teacher and students is a socially and morally rich category. It embodies the social and ethical attitudes of society and the teacher as its representative. The style of pedagogical communication and professional activity also reflects the individual psychological and personal characteristics of any teacher, i.e. Each person has an individual style of professional communication.

Style as a manner of communication is represented in pedagogical practice by three main forms of organizing pedagogical interaction:

- cooperation teachers and students in a joint search for knowledge;

- pressure teacher on students and fettering (limiting) their activity and creative initiative;

- neutral attitude towards students, the teacher’s care not only from the problems of his students, but also from solving his own professional problems.

In Russian pedagogy and psychology, the following styles of pedagogical communication (student guidance) are most often identified: authoritarian, democratic, liberal-permissive.

It is these styles of communication (leadership) that were identified by the famous American psychologist of German origin, Kurt Lewin. They became classic and were considered as basic by almost all researchers involved in the scientific development of problems of communication and management.

Currently, in modern psychological and pedagogical research, there are several classifications of pedagogical communication styles. There seems to be no significant difference between them, but it makes sense to dwell on some of them in more detail.

A.N. Lutoshkin in its classification it offers a modified version of classic communication styles, taking into account the characteristics of feedback in the communicative interaction of the teacher with students: authoritarian (“striking arrows”), democratic (“returning boomerang”) and liberal (“floating raft”).

Authoritarian style (“striking arrows”) – it is characterized by the following features: the teacher single-handedly determines the direction of the group’s activities, indicates who should sit and work with whom, and suppresses any initiative of students who are forced to be content with guesses. The main forms of interaction are orders, instructions, instructions, reprimands. Even rare gratitude from such a teacher sounds like a command, not encouragement: “You answered well today. I didn’t expect this from you.” Having discovered a mistake, such a teacher ridicules the culprit, most often without explaining how it can be corrected. In his absence, work slows down or even stops altogether. The teacher is laconic, he has a dominant tone, and is impatient with objections.

Democratic style (“returning boomerang”) manifests itself in the teacher’s reliance on the group’s opinion. The teacher tries to convey the purpose of the activity to the consciousness of everyone, involves everyone in participating in the discussion of the progress of the work; sees his task not only in control and coordination, but also in education. Every student is encouraged and gains self-confidence. A democratically oriented teacher tries to distribute the workload in the most optimal way, taking into account the individual inclinations and abilities of each; encourages activity and develops initiative. The main ways of communication for such a teacher are request, advice, information.

Liberal style (“floating raft”) - archaic, permissive. The teacher tries not to interfere in the life of the group, does not show activity, considers issues formally, easily submits to various, sometimes contradictory influences, and actually removes himself from responsibility for what is happening. In this case, we are not talking about the authority of the teacher.

V.A. Kan-Kalik proposes the following approach to classifying pedagogical communication styles:

- communication based on passion for joint creative activities;

- communication based on friendship;

- communication-distance;

- communication-intimidation;

- communication-flirting.

Communication based on passion for joint creative activities– it is based on the teacher’s stable positive attitude towards students and the work, the desire to jointly (meaning democratically) solve issues of organizing activities. Passion for joint creative search is the most productive style of communication for all participants in pedagogical interaction. It is based on the unity of the teacher’s high professionalism and his ethical principles. Passion for creative research together with students is the result not only of the teacher’s communicative activity, but also of the degree of his attitude towards pedagogical activity in general, which is creative in nature.

Communication based on friendship is closely related to the previous style; in fact, this is one of the conditions for the formation of a communication style based on passion for joint creative activity. This style of communication can be considered as a prerequisite for successful teaching and educational activities, which provides both solid subject knowledge and contributes to the formation of positive personal qualities of students. Friendly communication– the most important regulator of activity in general, and business pedagogical communication especially. This style of pedagogical communication should be considered as communication – dialogue. The main feature of communication as a dialogue is the establishment of special relationships, which can be defined by the words “spiritual community, mutual trust, frankness, goodwill.” Pedagogical dialogue with the student presupposes compliance with a number of communicative conditions: joint vision, discussion of emerging situations; equality of personal positions of teacher and student, recognition of his active role in the process of development and formation of his own personality.

Communication-distance – The essence of this communication is that in the system of relationships between the teacher and students, social and psychological distance acts as a limiter. With this style of communication, distance constantly appears as the main limiter of interaction between teacher and students: “You don’t know - I know”, “Listen to me - I’m older, I have experience, our positions are incomparable.” Such a teacher may have a generally positive attitude towards students, but the organization of activities is closer to an authoritarian style, which reduces the overall creative level of collaboration with students. Distancing of this kind in the relationship between the teacher and students leads to the formalization of the system of socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students, and does not contribute to the creation of a truly creative atmosphere. This does not mean that distance should not exist at all; it is necessary in the general system of relations between the student and the teacher, in their joint creative process. It is dictated by the logic of this process, and not simply by the will of the teacher. However, the socio-psychological distance between the participants in pedagogical interaction must be reasonable and expediently justified. The more natural the leading role of a teacher is for a student, the more organic and natural a certain distance is for him in the system of relationships with the teacher. It is determined by the degree of authority of the teacher among students, which is created by them.

Communication-intimidation – This style of communication is mainly associated with the teacher’s inability to organize fruitful communication based on passion for joint activities. It combines a negative attitude towards students and authoritarianism in the way activities are organized. Intimidating communication often focuses not on what should be done, but on what cannot be done, limiting the independence and creative exploration of students. In terms of creativity, communication-intimidation is futile. Not only does it not create a communicative atmosphere that ensures creative activity, but, on the contrary, it deprives pedagogical communication of the friendliness on which mutual understanding is based.

Communication-flirting – This is a style of communication in which there is a manifestation of liberalism, undemandingness with a possible positive attitude towards students. It is due to the teacher’s tendency to gain false, cheap authority. The reason for the manifestation of this style is, on the one hand, the desire to quickly establish contact, the desire to please the group (audience), and on the other hand, the lack of professional skills. Communication-flirting occurs as a result of:

Lack of understanding by the teacher of the responsible pedagogical tasks facing him;

Lack of professional and often interpersonal communication skills;

Fear of communicating with the audience and at the same time the desire to establish contact with it.

Negative at their core, such communication styles as intimidation, flirtation and extreme forms of communication-distance are dangerous and have another negative consequence. Used in the initial period of pedagogical activity due to the teacher’s lack of professional communication skills, they sometimes take root and become stable forms of pedagogical communication, cliches that extremely complicate the pedagogical process and reduce its effectiveness.

Of the pedagogical communication styles recently developed in foreign science, the most interesting is the typology proposed by M. Talen. He associates the style of communication with a certain professional position that the teacher takes in relationships with students.

Model 1 “Socrates”. This model of communication is inherent in a teacher with a reputation as a lover of discussions and disputes, deliberately provoking them in the study group. He often takes on the role of "devil's advocate", defending unpopular views. He is characterized by high individualism and unsystematic nature in the educational process. Due to constant confrontation, reminiscent of cross-examination, students as a result strengthen their defense of their own positions and learn to defend them.

The style of pedagogical communication associated with this professional position is characterized by:

Activity, contact and high efficiency of communication;

Pedagogical optimism, reliance on the positive potential of the student’s personality and the learning community, a combination of benevolent exactingness and trust in the student’s independence;

Confident openness, sincerity and naturalness in communication;

Selfless responsiveness and emotional acceptance of the partner, the desire for mutual understanding and cooperation;

An individual approach to solving pedagogical situations, in-depth and adequate perception and understanding of students’ behavior, their personal issues, taking into account the multi-motivation of their actions;

Holistic impact on the personality and its value and semantic positions, transfer of experience as lived knowledge;

High level of improvisation in communication, readiness for novelty, focus on discussion;

The desire for one’s own professional and personal growth;

Developed sense of humor.

Model 2 “Group Discussion Leader”. A teacher with such a professional position considers the main thing in the educational process to be achieving agreement and establishing cooperation between students, assigning himself the role of a mediator, for whom the search for democratic consent and mutual understanding is more important than the very result of the discussion.

The communication style associated with this pedagogical position is distinguished by a number of features:

Subordinating oneself to the results of professional activity, complete dedication to work and students, combined with distrust of their independence, replacing their efforts with one’s own activity, forming dependence in students (“enslavement with good intentions”);

The need for emotional intimacy (sometimes as compensation for loneliness in personal life);

Responsiveness and even sacrifice combined with indifference to self-understanding on the part of students;

Lack of desire for personal growth, low degree of reflection of one’s own behavior.

Model 3 "Master". The teacher acts as a role model, subject to unconditional copying by students in the educational process, primarily not so much in the educational process, but in relation to life in general.

This professional position is combined with a number of individual typological features of pedagogical communication:

Superficial, de-problematized and conflict-free communication with insufficiently clearly defined pedagogical and communicative goals, turning into a passive response to changing situations;

Lack of desire for an in-depth understanding of students, replacing it with an orientation toward uncritical agreement” (sometimes reducing the necessary distance to a minimum, familiarity), outwardly formal goodwill with internal indifference or increased anxiety;

Focus on reproductive activity, desire to meet standards (“to be no worse than others”), compliance, uncertainty, lack of initiative and demandingness;

Labile or low self-esteem.

Model 4 "General". A teacher with such a position avoids ambiguity, is emphatically demanding, and strictly seeks obedience, since he believes that he is always right in everything, and the student must unquestioningly obey the orders given. According to the author of the typology, this position is more common in teaching practice than all others combined.

The style of professional and pedagogical communication in the presence of such a position is manifested in such communicative features as:

Cold detachment, extreme restraint, emphasized distance, focus on superficial role-based communication;

Closedness and lack of need for emotional involvement in communication;

Indifference to students and low sensitivity to their condition (“emotional deafness”);

High self-esteem combined with hidden dissatisfaction with the communication process.

Model 5 “Manager”. This pedagogical position is associated with the effective activities of the educational group (audience), is distinguished by an individual approach to students, encouraging their initiative and independence. The teacher strives to discuss with each student the meaning of the problem he is solving, to ensure quality control and evaluation of the final result.

Following this professional position is combined with the following manifestations of the style of pedagogical communication:

Egocentric personality orientation, high need to achieve success, emphasized demands, well-disguised pride;

High development of communication skills and their flexible use for the purpose of covert control of others;

Good knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of students, combined with one’s own closeness and insincerity;

A significant degree of reflection, high self-esteem and self-control.

Model 6 “Coach”. The atmosphere of communication with the study group is permeated with the spirit of teamwork. Students are members of a single team, each individual is not important as an individual, but together they can move mountains. The teacher is assigned the role of inspirer of group efforts, for whom the main thing is the final result, brilliant success, victory.

Taking into account these features of his professional position, the teacher builds his communication with students, in which the following features are clearly manifested:

The desire for dominance, orientation towards “education-coercion”, the predominance of disciplinary methods over organizing ones;

Egocentrism, the requirement of agreement while ignoring the point of view, the position of the students themselves, intolerance to their objections and mistakes, lack of pedagogical tact and aggressiveness;

Subjectivism in assessments, their strict polarization;

Rigidity, orientation towards reproductive activity, stereotypical pedagogical influences;

Low sensitivity and reflection, high self-esteem.

Model 7 "Guide". A teacher with such a communicative position is the embodied image of a “walking encyclopedia.” He is usually laconic, precise, restrained; technically flawless, and that is why it is too often downright boring. He knows the answers to all questions in advance, as well as the possible questions themselves.

The communication style based on this pedagogical position is characterized by the fact that it comes to the fore:

Rejection of communication and one’s professional role, pedagogical pessimism, irritated-impulsive rejection of students, complaints about their hostility and “incorrigibility,” the desire to reduce communication with them to a minimum and the manifestation of aggression when it is impossible to avoid it;

Emotional “breakdowns”, infantile attribution of responsibility for failures in communication to students or “objective circumstances”, low self-esteem and weak self-control;

The choice of a communicative role is made by the teacher based on his own needs, and not the interests and needs of the students.

Along with well-known (classical) communication styles. Modern researchers identify many options related to the individual characteristics of the teacher. In particular, psychologist A.K. Markova offers her classification of individual styles of pedagogical communication. She stands out emotional-improvisational, emotional-methodical, reasoning-improvisation and reasoning-methodical communication styles.

The basis for distinguishing individual styles of professional activity of a teacher was based on the following criteria: content characteristics(the teacher’s predominant orientation towards the process or result of his work, his deployment of indicative and control-evaluative stages in his activities); dynamic characteristics(flexibility, stability, switchability, etc.); effectiveness(level of knowledge and learning skills of their students, students’ interest in the subject being studied). Depending on the variability of the combination of these criteria, the identified types of individual styles of teaching activity are characterized by a number of features.

Emotional-improvisational style (EIS). A teacher of this style is distinguished by a primary focus on the learning process. Such a teacher constructs an explanation of new material in a logical and interesting way, but during the process of explanation he often lacks feedback from the students. During the survey, the teacher addresses a large number of students, mostly strong ones, who are of interest to him. He interviews them at a fast pace, asks informal questions, but doesn’t let them talk much, and doesn’t wait for them to formulate an answer on their own. Such a teacher is characterized by insufficiently adequate planning of the educational process. To practice in class, he selects the most interesting educational material; he leaves less interesting material, although important, for students to study independently. Reinforcement and repetition of educational material and control of students' knowledge are poorly represented in the teacher's activities. At the same time, the teacher is distinguished by high efficiency and the use of a variety of teaching methods. He often practices collective discussions and stimulates spontaneous statements from students. He is characterized by intuitiveness, often expressed in the inability to analyze the characteristics and results of his activities in the classroom.

Emotional-methodical style (EMS). A teacher of this style is characterized by an orientation towards the process and results of learning. Adequate planning of the educational process, high efficiency, some predominance of intuitiveness over reflexivity. Focusing on both the process and the result of learning, such a teacher adequately plans the educational process, gradually works through all educational material, carefully monitors the level of knowledge of all students (both strong and weak), his activities constantly include consolidation and repetition educational material, monitoring students' knowledge. Such a teacher is distinguished by high efficiency, he often changes types of work in the classroom, and practices collective discussions. Using a variety of methodological techniques when practicing educational material, in contrast to a teacher who uses an emotional-improvisational style, a teacher who uses an emotional-methodological style strives to interest children in the subject itself.

Reasoning-improvisational style (RIS). A teacher is characterized by an orientation towards the process and results of learning, and adequate planning of the educational process. Compared to teachers of emotional learning styles, a teacher using RIS shows less ingenuity in selecting and varying teaching methods and is not always able to ensure a high pace of work. He practices collective discussions less often; the time his students spend spontaneously speaking in class is less than that of teachers with an emotional style. A teacher who uses RIS speaks less himself, especially during a survey, preferring to influence students indirectly (through hints, clarifications, etc.), giving respondents the opportunity to formulate the answer themselves.

Reasoning-methodical style (RMS). Focusing primarily on learning outcomes and adequately planning the educational process, a teacher with this style is conservative in the use of means and methods of pedagogical activity. High methodicality (systematic reinforcement, repetition of educational material, control of students’ knowledge) is combined with a small standard set of teaching methods used, preference for students’ reproductive activity, and rare collective discussions using elements of discussion. During the survey process, the teacher addresses a small number of students, giving each one sufficient time to respond, paying special attention to academically weak students. The teacher is generally characterized by reflexivity.

The style of communication and management of a study group leaves an imprint on the entire system of relationships between the teacher and students: on how the teacher perceives his students, how often his conflicts with them are, on the psychological climate in the study group (team), etc.

Conventionally, we can distinguish four groups of teachers according to the intensity of their communication with students.

TO first group we can include those teachers who constantly communicate with students. This communication goes far beyond the daily professional and pedagogical responsibilities of the teacher and is characterized by a high degree of intensity and trust. Such teachers are characterized by a democratic style of leadership (communication).

Second group consists of teachers who treat pupils (students) with respect, enjoy their trust and sympathy. But for various reasons, teacher-student communication is not regular outside of class time. However, in cases where a particular student has difficulties that he cannot figure out on his own, the student goes to this teacher, and then communication takes place at the most frank and confidential level. This group is dominated by teachers with a democratic leadership style, but there are also teachers with an authoritarian communication style.

IN third group You can include teachers who clearly strive for close communication with their students, but do not have it. This happens for various reasons. For some - due to lack of time, for others - because students are not disposed to confidential communication with them, because... these teachers either take on the position of a mentor, or do not know how to keep the secret entrusted to them, or do not evoke the sympathy of the students. Among these teachers, teachers with an authoritarian leadership style predominate, although there are specialists with inconsistent and democratic communication styles.

Fourth group - those teachers who limit communication with students to the narrow framework of business issues. These are predominantly teachers with autocratic and ignoring leadership (communication) styles.

Often the same method of influence used by teachers produces different effects. The reason for this is not the current situation, but the fact that the method used is alien to the very personality of the teacher. A clear example of this is one of the episodes of the movie “We’ll Live Until Monday.” A young English teacher initially builds relationships with students based on friendship. This style matches her personality, and is happily perceived by students as organically arising from the teacher’s personality. But then an episode occurs with the ill-fated crow, and the teacher abruptly decides to rebuild the entire system of relationships with her students. So what's going on? High school students reject her new style of behavior. And not only because it is formal, there is a lack of sincerity in relationships, but also because it does not correspond to the teacher’s usual personality.

The multifaceted, multidimensional nature of pedagogical communication presupposes its various manifestations in different areas of pedagogical work. The teacher’s communication during classes and in his free time will be different. We are not talking about a fundamental difference in communication styles, but about some shades determined by the characteristics of the activity, while maintaining the established style of relationships.

It is necessary to carefully study and form your own individual communication style, using the entire range of means.

The individual style of pedagogical communication is formed in the process of professional training and professional activity, as well as through socio-psychological training, in which the ability to psychologically competently build one’s relationships with people is developed. In this case, the necessary communication experience in a wide variety of areas will be accumulated, communication skills will be strengthened, and the communicative culture of the teacher as a whole will be improved.

The correctly found style of pedagogical communication, both general and individual, contributes to the solution of many problems: the pedagogical impact becomes adequate to the personality of the teacher, communication with the audience becomes pleasant and organic for the specialist himself; the procedure for establishing relationships is significantly simplified; the effectiveness of such an important function of pedagogical communication as information transfer increases. The whole process takes place against the backdrop of the emotional and psychological well-being of the teacher and students at all stages of communication.

Every teacher needs to remember that a productive style of communication and achieving mutual understanding with students and colleagues largely depend on compliance with simple but quite effective rules. To achieve mutual liking in business or interpersonal communication, you can use the following simple techniques:

It is necessary to behave with a student (colleague) in such a way that he or she has a feeling of his own importance for the teacher. To create such a feeling, it is important to find in each student (colleague) any advantages, advantages that distinguish him from others, and tell him about it. The interlocutor must feel sincere interest in him, in his affairs, feelings, mood, experiences, etc.;

Turn the conversation between both interlocutors into an interesting dialogue. To do this, it is necessary to take into account the emotional state of the interlocutor and, in accordance with this, start a conversation with him;

It should be borne in mind that dialogue will not work if the teacher talks and asks all the time, and the student can only listen and give monosyllabic answers. This can be avoided in different ways, depending on the individual characteristics of the students;

For dialogical communication, it is important to imagine how the teacher himself would perceive this or that appeal to himself from other people. When talking with students, you should not use a commanding tone; it is better to use the form of a request, advice or wish;

The student must see that all the teacher’s communication with him, even in anger, is dictated by friendliness. Under no circumstances should the reason that caused anger be associated with the student’s personal qualities. Such anger destroys relationships, embitters the student, negatively sets him up not only against a specific teacher and the subject he teaches, but also contributes to the formation of negative motives for teaching and negative attitudes towards teachers in general;

You must be able to listen to the student. It is necessary to strive to understand not only what the student says, but also how he says it; find out what is behind his words, what he really wanted or wants to say; what he doesn't want or can't say;

It is important to be able to ask questions - basic, clarifying, leading. They should stimulate the student to give a detailed answer. The teacher's questions should reflect a sincere interest in the conversation;

The teacher must be able to collaborate with students. When students begin to implement what they have planned, the teacher must act simultaneously as a participant, as an observer, and as a consultant. He helps to carry out the most difficult things planned or gets involved in the work in those groups in which it is difficult;

Analysis is an essential element of effective collaboration. Conducting it together with students, the teacher helps them evaluate what has been done, identify successes and failures, conditions and reasons.

The differentiation of pedagogical communication styles outlines two opposite lines of development: monologized and dialogized. Pedagogical communication initially presupposes a form of dialogue. Unfortunately, the teacher often assumes a monologue, which predetermines the emergence of difficulties in communication.

Pedagogical communication is a multifaceted, professional communication of teachers in the learning process with students, including the development and establishment of communications, interaction and mutual understanding between teachers and students.

The effectiveness of pedagogical communication directly depends on the degree of satisfaction experienced by each of the participants in the conditions of meeting current needs.

Styles of pedagogical communication

The factors influencing the development of a student’s personality are styles of pedagogical communication.

The style of pedagogical communication and leadership is determined by the techniques and methods of educational influence, which are manifested in a set of expectations and requirements for the appropriate behavior of students. Style is embodied in the forms of organizing activities, as well as communication between children, having certain ways of implementing relationships with children. Traditionally, authoritarian, democratic and liberal styles of pedagogical communication are distinguished.

Democratic style of pedagogical communication

The most effective and optimal is the democratic style of interaction. It is marked by a characteristic broad contact with students, a manifestation of respect and trust, in which the teacher tries to establish emotional interaction with the child and does not suppress the personality with punishment and severity; marked by positive ratings.

A democratic teacher needs feedback from students, namely, how they perceive forms of joint activity and whether they know how to admit their mistakes. The work of such a teacher is aimed at stimulating mental activity and motivation in achieving cognitive activity. In groups of educators, where communication is built on democratic tendencies, appropriate conditions are noted for the development of children's relationships, as well as the positive emotional climate of the group.

The democratic style of pedagogical communication creates a friendly understanding between students and the teacher, evokes only positive emotions in children, develops self-confidence, and also allows them to understand the values ​​​​in the cooperation of joint activities.

Authoritarian style of pedagogical communication

Authoritarian teachers, on the contrary, are marked by pronounced attitudes and selectivity in relation to students. Such teachers often use prohibitions and restrictions on children and excessively abuse negative assessments.

The authoritarian style of pedagogical communication is strictness and punishment in the relationship between the teacher and children. An authoritarian educator expects only obedience; he is distinguished by a huge number of educational influences, with all their monotony.

The authoritarian style of pedagogical communication leads to conflict, as well as hostility in relationships, thereby creating unfavorable conditions in the upbringing of preschool children. The authoritarianism of a teacher is often a consequence of a lack of level of psychological culture, as well as a desire to accelerate the pace of development of students, contrary to individual characteristics.

Often, teachers use authoritarian methods with good intentions, because they are convinced that by breaking children, as well as achieving maximum results, they can achieve their desired goals more quickly. The pronounced authoritarian style of the teacher puts him in a position of alienation from his students, since each child begins to experience a state of anxiety and insecurity, uncertainty and tension. This happens due to underestimating the development of initiative and independence in children, exaggerating indiscipline, laziness and irresponsibility.

Liberal style of pedagogical communication

This style is characterized by irresponsibility, lack of initiative, inconsistency in actions and decisions taken, and lack of decisiveness in difficult situations.

A liberal teacher forgets about previous demands and after a certain time makes the opposite demands. Often such a teacher lets things take their course and overestimates the children’s capabilities. He does not check to what extent his requirements have been met, and the assessment of pupils by a liberal educator directly depends on their mood: a good mood means a predominance of positive assessments, a bad mood means negative assessments. Such behavior can lead to a decline in the authority of the teacher in the eyes of children.

Pedagogical communication styles, being characteristics of an individual, are not innate qualities, but are nurtured and formed in the process of pedagogical practice based on an awareness of the basic laws of the formation and development of the system of human relations. But certain personal characteristics predispose one to a particular style of communication.

People who are proud, self-confident, aggressive and unbalanced are prone to an authoritarian style. Individuals with adequate self-esteem, balanced, friendly, sensitive and attentive to people are prone to a democratic style. In life, each style is rarely found in its “pure” form. In practice, often each individual teacher exhibits a “mixed style” of interaction with students.

The mixed style is marked by the predominance of two styles: democratic and authoritarian or democratic and liberal. Occasionally, features of liberal and authoritarian styles are combined.

Currently, great importance is given to psychological knowledge in establishing interpersonal contacts, as well as establishing relationships between teachers and students.

Psychological and pedagogical communication includes the interaction of a teacher-educator with students, colleagues, parents, as well as with representatives of public and educational authorities, carried out in professional activities. The specificity of psychological and pedagogical communication is the psychological competence of the teacher in the field of social and differential psychology when interacting with children.

Structure of pedagogical communication

The following stages are distinguished in the structure of pedagogical communication:

1. Predictive stage (modeling by the teacher of future communication (the teacher outlines the contours of interaction: plans and also predicts the structure, content, means of communication. The teacher’s goal setting is decisive in this process. He should take care of attracting students to interaction, create a creative atmosphere, and also open the world of the child’s individuality).

2. Communication attack (its essence is gaining initiative, as well as establishing business and emotional contact); It is important for a teacher to master the technique of entering into interaction and methods of dynamic influence:

— infection (the purpose of which is an emotional, subconscious response in interaction based on empathy with them, is non-verbal in nature);

— suggestion (conscious infection with motivations through speech influence);

— persuasion (reasoned, conscious and motivated influence on the individual’s belief system);

- imitation (implies the assimilation of forms of behavior of another person, which is based on conscious and subconscious identification of oneself with it).

3. Communication management is aimed at the conscious and purposeful organization of interaction. It is very important to create an atmosphere of goodwill in which the student can freely express his or her self and receive positive emotions from communication. The teacher, in turn, must show interest in the students, actively perceive information from them, give them the opportunity to express their opinions, convey to the students their optimism, as well as confidence in success, and outline ways to achieve their goals.

4. Analysis of communication (comparison of goals, means with the results of interaction, as well as modeling of further communication).

The perceptual component of pedagogical communication is aimed at studying, perceiving, understanding and evaluating each other by communication partners. The personality of the teacher, his professional and individual psychological qualities are an important condition that determines the nature of the dialogue. Important professional qualities of a teacher include the ability to give an adequate assessment of the individual characteristics of students, their interests, inclinations, and moods. Only a pedagogical process built with this in mind can be effective.

The communicative component of pedagogical communication is determined by the nature of the relationship between the participants in the dialogue.

The early stages of pedagogical interaction with a child are marked by the lack of potential for an equal participant in the exchange of information, because the child does not have sufficient knowledge for this. The teacher is the bearer of human experience embedded in the educational program of knowledge. But this does not mean that teacher communication in the early stages is a one-way process. Nowadays, it is not enough to simply communicate information to students. It is necessary to intensify students' own efforts to acquire knowledge.

Of particular importance are active learning methods that encourage children to independently find the necessary information, as well as its further use in a variety of conditions. Having mastered a large amount of data and developed the ability to operate with it, students turn into equal participants in the educational dialogue, making a significant contribution to communication.

Functions of pedagogical communication

Pedagogical communication is considered as the establishment of interpersonal close relationships based on the degree of commonality of interests, thoughts, feelings; establishing a friendly, benevolent atmosphere between the object and the subject, ensuring the most effective process of education and training, mental and intellectual development of a person, preserving the uniqueness and individuality of personal characteristics.

Pedagogical communication is multifaceted, where each facet is marked by the context of interaction.

The functions of pedagogical communication are divided into signifying, cognitive, emotive, facilitative, regulatory, and self-actualization functions.

Communication is responsible for interest in the student’s success, as well as maintaining favorable contact and atmosphere, which contributes to the student’s self-actualization and future development.

Pedagogical communication must ensure respect for the child’s personality. Understanding and perception of a student’s personality by a teacher is knowledge of the spiritual world, the physical conditions of the child, individual and age-related, mental, national and other differences, mental neoplasms and manifestations of sensitivity.

The teacher’s understanding of the student’s personality creates an atmosphere of interested attitude towards him, as well as goodwill, contributes to determining the prospects for personal development and their regulation.

The function of understanding and perceiving the student’s personality by the teacher should be considered as the most important.

The information function is responsible for psychological real contact with students, develops the process of cognition, provides an exchange of spiritual and material values, creates mutual understanding, forms a cognitive search for solutions, positive motivation in achieving success in studies and self-education, in personality development, eliminates psychological barriers, establishes interpersonal relationships a team.

The information function is responsible for organizing group, individual, and collective communication. Individual communication contributes to the knowledge of the individual, as well as the impact on his consciousness, behavior, as well as its correction and change.

Contact function - establishing contact for mutual readiness to transmit and receive educational information.

Incentive function - stimulation of student activity aimed at performing educational actions.

The emotive function is inducing the necessary emotional experiences in the student, as well as changing his own states and experiences with his help.

Pedagogical communication should have a focus on human dignity, and such ethical values ​​as frankness, honesty, trust, selflessness, mercy, care, gratitude, and faithfulness to one’s word are of great importance in productive communication.

Modern society cannot function normally without people interacting with each other. Each personality is individual, but, undoubtedly, it is believed that it must adapt to different situations. This allows a person to find a job, a partner, or go on a trip. A person’s manner of communication and behavior is formed throughout his life. They may change, be supplemented with other techniques, and any one type may be lost. Factors and reasons are very different. There is only one goal: to achieve results. Through communication, a person can achieve a lot; you just need to choose the right style of communication and behavior.

Communication styles

Communication style is characterized by a habitual, stable connection between the methods and methods of communication and the goals it pursues. That is, these are some features of interaction between people. A person is looking for a new job, comes for an interview - here he uses one style of communication, when interacting with colleagues - another, in the family and in communicating with relatives - a third. Different communication styles are chosen for each specific situation. No matter what action is taken, a person's words will always be the basis of communication.

Communication styles from a psychological point of view

Psychology has always dealt with problems of interaction between people. According to psychologists, communication style is determined by a person’s ability to choose certain means of behavior in a certain situation. They divided communication styles into three categories:

• flexible;
• rigid;
• transition.

With a flexible style, a person is well oriented in society, he can adequately assess who is in front of him, quickly understand what is being said, and even guess about the emotional state of the interlocutor. With a rigid style, a person cannot quickly analyze not only his own behavior, but also the behavior of his interlocutor. He has poor self-control and cannot always choose the appropriate way of behavior and communication. With a transitional style, a person has signs from the two above-mentioned styles. He does not fully understand what is happening around him, with whom he communicates and what method of interaction is best to choose.

Exploring Communication Styles

When studying communication techniques, you need to know that the style of communication in itself and the style of communication in any situation are different concepts. If you do not take into account the characteristics of a person’s character and the characteristics of the situation in which he finds himself, then the explanation will simply be meaningless. There are a large number of methods for studying communication styles. For example, A.V. Petrovsky created a system of pedagogical interaction consisting of two components. It was called the style of pedagogical communication.

In 1938, attention was paid to communication styles for the first time. German psychologist Kurt Lewin conducted a study and developed a classification of relationships between people who manage and people who are forced to obey. Subsequently, it became generally accepted and is still in effect. His teaching communication styles include:

• authoritarian;
• democratic;
• liberal.

Characteristics of pedagogical communication styles

Pedagogical communication styles were defined as emotional techniques and actions of the teacher in relation to the student. The teacher's behavior is determined by his understanding of the goal that he pursues in teaching the child. Most often, this is nothing more than teaching a child the basics of his subject, transferring skills that the student will need to complete a task, or that will be useful to him in later life. At the same time, the teacher also takes into account the child’s communication styles. Communication with children is completely different from that with adults. The teacher needs a little more time, effort and attention to explain the material to the child. Communication itself occurs through instructions, explanations, questions, comments and even prohibitions.

Authoritarian communication style

An authoritarian style of communication implies that the teacher reserves the right to resolve issues independently. They can concern relationships between students, activities in the classroom, or concern each student personally. As a rule, such a regime includes both dictatorship and concern for subordinates. With such teachers, students can rarely open up fully and show their capabilities. Initiative can cause conflict between teacher and student. The teacher’s belief that only his thinking is correct and everything else is false does not allow both parties to interact productively. The child's answer cannot be adequately assessed because the teacher simply does not understand the student and is based only on performance indicators. His bad actions always come to the fore in the eyes of the teacher, while the motives for his behavior are not taken into account.

Democratic style of communication

The democratic style of communication is considered the best, because the teacher strives to help the student, use all his strengths and capabilities, and activate the child’s role in the life of the class. Interaction and collaboration are the main goals of this style. The teacher evaluates, first of all, the good actions of the student, treats him well, understands him and supports him. If the teacher sees that the child does not have time to assimilate information or does not understand something, then he will definitely slow down the pace and explain the material more carefully, putting everything in order. The teacher adequately assesses the student’s capabilities and can predict the direction of his development. He takes into account the interests and wishes of his students. Some methods of teaching and communicating with students of teachers of the democratic style are slightly inferior to the methods of the authoritarian style of their colleagues, but the “climate” in the classroom is still better for the former. Children feel much freer.

Liberal communication style

The teaching styles of a liberal style teacher differ from those included in other teacher communication styles. He strives to reduce all chances of taking any part in the life of the class, and does not want to bear responsibility for the students. The teacher is limited to performing exclusively his pedagogical functions. The teacher's communication styles that he combines in his work lead to poor academic performance. He is somewhat indifferent to the problems of both the school and the children, as a result of which it is very difficult for him to control the students.

Characteristics of business communication styles

Business communication styles imply any actions or methods of communication aimed at achieving any result. In this case, the main task of those participating in the conversation becomes to reinforce the idea of ​​themselves as a member of the team or society as a whole. The participant, as it were, puts on his festive mask and becomes a different person for a while. This peculiar ritual, on the one hand, sometimes seems meaningless and boring, but on the other hand, it is a game, the rules of which a person knows in advance and must follow.

Ritual style of communication

Business communication styles like ritual are often used in companies whose members have known each other for a long time. And so they meet, spend some time together, and it seems that after these years the topics discussed in these companies do not change at all. Sometimes you can even predict what one or another participant in the conversation will say, but, nevertheless, everyone is happy with everything and after the day, some even feel satisfied with the time spent. This style of communication is considered a typical case of a ritual style, where the quality of communication comes to the fore, and not its content. Thus, the same reinforcement of the idea of ​​​​oneself as a member of a team occurs, where everyone occupies some place, everyone is important. His opinions, values, and worldview are important.

Cases when a person who, when asked: “How are you?” always answers unequivocally: “Fine,” and now suddenly begins to tell a detailed story about his life, family, children and work, which is called going beyond the ritual. Such atypical behavior of a person, whose reaction could always be guessed, violates the idea of ​​ritual, because the main thing is to wear a mask, be it social relationships or interpersonal ones.

Manipulative communication style

With this style of communication, a person is perceived by others as a means to an end. As a rule, the interlocutor tries to show the best aspects of his goal so that he can help him achieve it. Despite the fact that both participants in the conversation have different ideas about the component of this goal, the one who is more skillful in the methods of manipulation will win. In such cases, the interlocutor knows about the reasons for the partner’s behavior, about his aspirations, desires, and can turn the development of events in the direction he needs. Manipulation is not necessarily a bad method. Many goals are achieved this way. Sometimes, in order to convince a person to do something, to force him to act, it is necessary to resort to a manipulative communication style.

This can be compared to the communication method of a middle manager. He speaks in one tone with his superiors, but in a completely different tone with his subordinates. Sometimes it is unpleasant, but there is no other way.

There are cases when a person’s entire communication style comes down to manipulation. Due to the too frequent use of this method on a person, his constant persuasion and pushing, the latter may consider manipulation the only correct way out of the situation.

Humanistic style of communication

With the humanistic style of communication, we are talking about interpersonal relationships in which a person wants to be understood, supported, given advice, to be empathized with. Initially, this type of communication does not imply any goal; the situation consists of ongoing events. This style of communication can be called the most sincere of all existing ones, where those very events are intimate, confessional in nature. The main method that works here is suggestion, and mutual. Each partner inspires the other that he is worthy of trust, that one is ready to listen, and the other is ready to tell him what worries him.

Such communication can occur not only between loved ones and relatives. For example, in a few tens of minutes a person can recognize the interlocutor who is traveling with him on the bus in the next seat or tell him a lot about himself, but he does not know the person with whom he has been working for several years. A conversation with a fellow traveler leads to some revelations about oneself, makes people feel each other, and empathize. But a conversation with a colleague has completely different goals.

In modern educational and scientific literature there are many definitions of the concept of “communication style”. Analysis of these sources makes it possible to give the following definition.

Communication style- this is a set of methods of interaction with a partner / partners, embodied in certain forms and having the appropriate nature of implementation, contribute to the creation of interpersonal relationships.

Today, the psychological and pedagogical literature presents a wide range of classifications of communication styles: Kurt Lewin (authoritarian, democratic, liberal), Sergei Bratchenko (dialogical, authoritarian, manipulative, alterocentric, conformal, indifferent), Larisa Petrovskaya (ritual, manipulative, humanistic), Vladislav Latinov (alienated, obedient, balanced, caring, domineering), Valentina Goryanina (associative, unique, partner), Victor Kan-Kalik (communication-joint activity, communication-friendly interaction, communication-distance, communication-intimidation, communication-flirting , communication-advantage), Sergei Shein (trusting-dialogical, altruistic, conformal, passive-indifferent, reflexive-manipulative, authoritarian-monological, conflict), etc.

Let's consider the time-tested and most universal a classification of communication styles created based on the classification of management styles by Kurt Lewin.

The study of communication styles was historically preceded by experiments Kurt Lewin aimed at creating a classification of management styles. The first was an experiment Ronald Lippit, student Levin, which was held in 1938 with the participation of ten-year-old children. The subjects met after school to create theatrical masks. The researcher divided them into two groups, in which they behaved in accordance with authoritarian and democratic management styles. In the first round, he made decisions alone and forced the children to carry them out. The second group had the opportunity to choose the type of activity and participate in decision making. Observations of children's behavior showed that in the group with an authoritarian management style, children more often quarreled and showed hostility towards each other. When faced with problems, members of such a group were more often inclined to find “extremes” rather than to search for a way out of a difficult situation. In the group with a democratic management style, children were more friendly to each other and found ways to resolve problems that arose more easily.

In the same 1938, K. Lewin, together with his colleagues (Ronald Lippitt and Ralph White), decided to conduct a similar experiment with an increased number of participants. They formed four "clubs" in which ten-year-old children engaged in various activities. To the tested two styles (authoritarian and democratic), they decided to add a third - neutral, which was later called liberal. The addition of style happened by accident - one of the experimenters began to behave too softly, thereby giving the children the opportunity to decide everything on their own. Levin, who observed the experiment, immediately noticed this and suggested identifying a third style.

Every six months, the groups changed the leader and, accordingly, the management style. As a result, the researchers made the following conclusions: the authoritarian management style was the cause of increased aggression and cruel jokes on the part of children; an increase in aggression was also noted after the transition from an authoritarian to a neutral (liberal) style; all groups preferred the democratic style. It was found that the transition from an authoritarian style to a democratic one takes longer than the opposite - from democratic to authoritarian. It was on the basis of this research that Kurt Lewin, according to the recollections of his student, colleague and biographer Alberta Morrow stated: “Autocracy is human, but democracy needs to be learned”;

Authoritarian communication style characterized exclusively by the individual decision by the subject of interaction of all issues relating to both general life activity with another subject and this subject’s own life. Thus, the subject towards whom authoritarian influence is directed acts as an object. The subject of influence, based on his own attitudes, independently determines the goals of communication and prejudges the results of joint activities. In an exaggerated form, this style manifests itself in an autocratic approach to communication, in which other parties to interaction do not participate in the discussion of issues that are directly related to them, and their initiative is assessed negatively and refuted. An authoritarian style of communication is often implemented through the use of dictate and overprotection. The opposition of the other side to the harsh pressure of a supporter of the authoritarian style often leads to the emergence of protracted conflict situations.

People who adhere to this style of communication do not allow others to show independence and initiative. Their assessment of interaction partners is inadequate and is based primarily on the subjectivity of the relationship. An authoritarian interlocutor focuses attention on the negative features of behavior, without taking into account her motives. External indicators of the success of interaction between authoritarian interlocutors are most often positive, but the socio-psychological climate is predominantly unfavorable.

According to many researchers, an authoritarian style of communication contributes to the development of inadequate self-esteem in students, justifies the use of force, increases the possibility of neuroses, and creates an inadequate level of aspirations in communicating with others. In addition, the dominance of authoritarian methods in communicating with a person leads to a distorted understanding of values, a high assessment of such personality qualities as irresponsibility, authority; cultivating the importance of external attractiveness and physical strength.

Liberal communication style characterized by the desire of the subject of interaction to be minimally involved in joint activities, which is explained by the removal of responsibility for its results. Such people participate in communication mainly formally, weakly concentrating on the essence of the process. The liberal style of communication is implemented on the basis of non-interference, which is based on indifference and disinterest in the problems of another person and his environment. The consequence of this is often a lack of control over the communication process.

Supporters of this style avoid making decisions, transferring the initiative to the interaction partner. The organization and control of activities, during which the liberal style of communication predominates, is carried out haphazardly, indecision of partners and hesitation in situations of choice are manifested. The application of this style in practice may seem democratic, but due to passivity, disinterest, unclear goals of interaction and lack of responsibility, the communication process becomes almost unmanageable. Groups in which a liberal communication style predominates are characterized by an unstable socio-psychological climate and the presence of hidden conflicts.

Democratic style of communication is an alternative to the styles described above. According to this style of communication, the subject of interaction is focused on increasing the subjectivity of his partner, his involvement in solving common affairs. The main feature of this style is mutual acceptance and understanding. As a result of an open and free discussion of problems, the subjects of interaction jointly come to one solution or another. A democratic style of communication with people ensures the organization of joint activities in a team.

Methods of influence within the framework of the democratic style are incentives to action, requests, and recommendations. Partners of people who prefer a democratic style of communication are more often characterized by a state of peace and satisfaction of their own needs, and the presence of high self-esteem. “Democrats” pay more attention to their psychological characteristics, have a high level of professional stability, and are satisfied with their profession.

People who adhere to this style are characterized by a positive attitude towards the subjects of interaction; adequate assessment of their NPC capabilities, successes and failures; deep understanding of the partner, goals and motives of his behavior; ability to predict the development of relationships. In terms of external signs of interaction with others, people with a democratic communication style are inferior to an authoritarian, but the socio-psychological climate in the groups where they are located is always more favorable. Interpersonal relationships in them are characterized by trust and high demands on themselves and others. According to the democratic style of communication, a person stimulates others to be creative, show initiative, and creates conditions for joint self-realization.

Among modern classifications of communication styles, it is advisable to highlight classification by Sergei Bratchenko, which highlights six communication styles which, from his point of view, manifest themselves in both interpersonal and professional communication.

Dialogic style- focus on equal communication based on mutual respect and trust, focus on mutual understanding, mutual openness and communicative cooperation, desire for mutual self-expression, development, cooperation.

Authoritarian style- orientation towards dominance in communication, the desire to “suppress” the personality of the interlocutor, to subjugate him to oneself, “communicative aggression”, cognitive egocentrism, the requirement to “be understandable”, expectations of agreement with one’s own position, reluctance to understand the interlocutor, disrespect for someone else’s point of view, focus on stereotypical communication, communicative rigidity.

Manipulative style- orientation towards using the interlocutor and the entire communication process for one’s own purposes, to obtain various kinds of benefits, treating the interlocutor as a means, an object of one’s manipulations, the desire to understand the interlocutor in order to obtain the necessary information, combined with one’s own secrecy, insincerity, focus on "cunning" in communication.

Alterocentric style- voluntary “centering” on the interlocutor, orientation towards his goals and needs, selfless sacrifice of one’s interests, goals, the desire to understand the needs of another in order to fully satisfy them, but indifference to understanding oneself on his part, the desire to contribute to the development of the interlocutor even to the detriment of one’s own development and welfare.

Conformal style- refusal of equality in communication in favor of the interlocutor, orientation towards submission to the power of authority, towards an “objective” position for oneself, orientation towards uncritical “understanding”, lack of desire for real understanding and desire to be understood, focus on imitation, reactive communication, readiness " adapt" to your interlocutor.

Indifferent style- an attitude towards communication that ignores its essence and problems, the dominance of an orientation toward “purely business issues,” and “avoidance” of communication as such.

It is advisable to note that in real interaction practice there is often a “symbiosis” of the described communication styles.