Pedagogical communication. Stages and styles of pedagogical communication. The essence of the concept of pedagogical leadership, pedagogical leadership style

various social-role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication. In the process of pedagogical communication, the teacher carries out (in direct or indirect form) his social-role and functional responsibilities to guide the process of training and education. The effectiveness of the processes of training and education, the features of personality development and the formation of interpersonal relationships in study group.

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

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

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

2. Democratic.

3. Conniving.

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

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

We often hear that although the leadership styles listed above were described and developed in relation to industrial management and communication between bosses and subordinates, they, in principle, can be transferred to the field of pedagogical communication. This statement is incorrect due to one circumstance that is little mentioned in works on social psychology. But the fact is that K. Levin conducted his famous study studying the characteristics of an adult leading a group of schoolchildren. And this problem directly falls within the subject area of social pedagogical psychology. So, rather on the contrary, the classification of pedagogical styles can be transferred to leadership styles in general, to the field of industrial social psychology.

During the experiment, K. Levin created several groups (“circles”) of ten-year-old schoolchildren. The guys in these groups did the same work - making toys. In order to ensure the necessary purity of the experiment, the groups were completely identical in terms of age, the physical and intellectual characteristics of the participants, the structure of interpersonal relationships, etc. All groups also worked under the same conditions, according to general program, performed the same task. The only important difference varied was the significant difference in instructors, that is, teachers. The difference was in leadership styles: some teachers adhered to an authoritarian, some to a democratic, and some to a permissive style. Each of them worked with one group for six weeks, and then the groups were swapped. Then the work continued for another six weeks, and then a new transfer to another group. This procedure made the experiment extremely correct:

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

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

With an authoritarian style The characteristic general tendency towards tight management and comprehensive control was expressed in the following. The teacher, much more often than in other groups, resorted to the tone of an order and made harsh remarks. Also typical were tactless remarks addressed to some participants and groundless, unfounded praise of others. The authoritarian teacher determined not only the general goals of the activity and the task, but also indicated how to complete it, rigidly deciding who would work with whom. The tasks and methods for completing them were given to the students in stages. (This approach reduces the motivation of an activity, since a person does not know exactly its ultimate goals.) It should also be noted that in social-perceptual terms and in terms of interpersonal attitudes, the focus on the gradual delineation of activities and step-by-step control indicate a teacher’s distrust of independence and responsibility own students. Or, at a minimum, it may mean that the teacher assumes that his group is very poorly developed in these qualities. The authoritarian teacher harshly suppressed any manifestation of initiative, considering it unacceptable arbitrariness. Research by other scientists that followed the work of K. Levin showed that such behavior of an authoritarian leader is based on his ideas that initiative undermines his authority and faith in his competence. “If one of the students suggests improvements through a different course of work, then he indirectly indicates that I did not foresee this.” This is what an authoritarian teacher thinks. In addition, it turned out that the authoritarian leader assessed the participants’ successes subjectively, addressing reproaches (praise) to the performer as an individual.

“Kings look at the world in a very simplified way: for them, all people are subjects.” A. de Saint-Exupéry

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

Main feature permissive leadership style was

that the teacher has essentially removed himself from responsibility for what is happening.

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

The democratic style turned out to be the most effective. The group members showed a keen interest in work and positive internal motivation for their activities. The quality and originality of completing tasks increased significantly. Group cohesion, sense of pride general successes, mutual assistance and friendliness in relationships - all this has developed to a very high degree in the democratic group.

Later studies only confirmed the results of Lewin's experiment. The preference of a democratic style in pedagogical communication has been proven in various age groups, ranging from junior schoolchildren to high school students.

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

The experiment also revealed that authoritarian teachers have low-performing students three times more often they indicate that their teacher likes to give bad marks. The most remarkable thing is that in reality in cool magazines The number of bad marks for teachers of authoritarian and democratic styles turned out to be the same. Thus, the style of interaction between the teacher and students determines in this case the characteristics of how students perceive him. It is clear that children’s interest in learning depends not so much on the difficulties of school life, but on the characteristics of the teacher’s treatment of students.

Another study examined the relationship between pedagogical communication styles and the characteristics of the teacher’s perception of students’ personalities (A. A. Bodalev, 1983). As a result, it was discovered that authoritarian teachers underestimate the development in students of such qualities as collectivism, initiative, independence, and demandingness towards others. At the same time, they often spoke of children as impulsive, lazy, undisciplined, irresponsible, etc. Note that such ideas of authoritarian teachers are largely a conscious or subconscious motivation that justifies their tough leadership style. The formulas of this logical chain can be expressed as follows. “My students are lazy, undisciplined and irresponsible, and therefore it is absolutely necessary constantly monitor their activities at all stages." “My students are so uninitiative and not independent, and therefore I simply have to take all the leadership upon yourself, determine the strategy of their activities, give them instructions recommendations, etc.” Truly, our behavior is a slave to our attitudes.

In fairness, it should be noted that modern social psychology claims that there are circumstances when the authoritarian style may still be the most fruitful and adequate. Here again it is appropriate to recall the already mentioned novel “Republic of Shkid”, where the only way to curb the “difficult” children from orphanages, recent street children, in critical situation It was precisely the authoritarian style, tough leadership, and decisive measures that emerged. However, for situations of ordinary communication, especially pedagogical communication, this is the exception rather than the rule.

Resume

Pedagogical communication is a special communication, the specifics of which are determined various social-role and functional positions of the subjects of this communication. In the process of pedagogical communication, the teacher carries out (in direct or indirect form) his social-role and functional responsibilities for managing the process of teaching and upbringing. The effectiveness of the learning and education processes, the characteristics of personality development and the formation of interpersonal relationships in the study group significantly depend on the stylistic features of this communication and leadership. The most common classification of leadership styles, fully related to pedagogical activity, is a classification that distinguishes authoritarian, democratic and permissive styles. In most cases, the most effective in pedagogical communication 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.

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

2. How do different leadership styles affect the effectiveness of teaching and communication?

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

TEACHER'S KNOWLEDGE OF STUDENTS

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

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

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

The problem of productivity of pedagogical activity and communication is one of the most pressing in pedagogy and educational psychology. The high objective complexity of this problem is explained by a whole complex of factors influencing the final result of pedagogical activity. As for the subjective difficulty of solving it, it is mainly associated with numerous, often contradictory approaches to analysis and even to the formulation of the problem itself.

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

The concept of “productivity” of teaching activity is ambiguous. We can talk, for example, about functional and psychological productivity. Under functional products activities usually mean the creation of a system of didactic methods and techniques, communication skills, etc. Psychological - new formations in the student’s personality. There is no strict relationship between functional and psychological products: a high functional level does not always correspond to an adequate psychological one.

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

Since the object of pedagogical activity is a personality/person, it is built according to the laws of communication. The structure of communication usually consists of three components:

1. Cognitive (cognitive).

2. Affective (emotional).

3. Behavioral.

There are other models, but any classification primarily emphasizes the cognitive aspect of communication. In pedagogical communication it acquires special significance. The effectiveness of pedagogical activity depends precisely on the depth of the teacher’s study of the student’s personality, on the adequacy and completeness of knowledge. As is clear from the research of S.V. Kondratyeva and her collaborators (meaning primarily the work of V.M. Rozbudko), teachers with low level productivity of activity is usually perceived only by the external picture. They don't delve into true goals and motives, while teachers of a high level of productivity are able to reflect stable integrative properties of the individual, identify leading goals and motives of behavior, objectivity of value judgments, etc. Similar results were obtained in other studies (A. A. Bodalev, A. . A. Rean and others). So it's completely obvious close connection between the productivity of teaching activities and the effectiveness of the teacher’s knowledge of the students’ personality. The mechanism of stereotyping, well known to us from general theory interpersonal cognition, “works” in the process of the teacher’s cognition of the student’s personality. Moreover, all its varieties are also evident here: social, emotional-aesthetic, anthropological.

Thus, a teacher, under the influence of his own pedagogical experience, develops specific social stereotypes: “excellent student”, “low student”, “activist”, etc. When meeting for the first time with a student who has already received the characteristics of an “excellent student” or “low student”, the teacher is more or is less likely to suggest that he has certain qualities. Of course, one should not think that this set of stereotypes is unchanged, that all teachers paint for themselves the same image of an “excellent student”, a “low student”, a “social activist”, etc. On the contrary, all evaluative stereotypes are emphatically subjective, individual in nature. This is not surprising, since each stereotype represents a fixed experience of communication with students, the experience of a given particular teacher. Let's imagine such a situation. Several teachers learn that an activist and a strong leader will study in their group. They will react differently. One, due to his stereotype, may assume that managing a group will become easier, another, based on the bitter experience of communicating with “activists,” will decide that the newcomer is certainly a careerist, an upstart who behaves defiantly, etc.

Speaking about the individual content of pedagogical stereotypes, we still cannot forget about the general direction of the prevalence of many of them. It is well known that the following stereotype is extremely common among teachers: good student performance is associated with personality characteristics. Anyone who studies successfully is a priori perceived as a capable, conscientious, honest, and disciplined person. And vice versa, a “poor student” is an untalented, uncollected lazy person.

In a number of studies, as well as in pedagogical journalism, one can find descriptions of another pedagogical stereotype: very often “dysfunctional” children are considered “ruffy”, restless students, those who cannot sit in class, silently, passively respond to comments, those who invariably gets into arguments. Practice shows that most often teachers ask a psychologist to “work” with such “uncontrollable” children, considering them prone to antisocial behavior. But students who willingly obey the teacher, act in accordance with his instructions and comments, are usually considered prosperous, and are not classified as “difficult”. This phenomenon, although it deserves the most detailed consideration, is nevertheless inherently associated with general, universal psychological patterns. In this regard, the work of Indian psychologists P. Janak and S. Purnima deserves special mention. Their experiments showed how flattery and an exaggerated attitude towards the instructions of superiors lead to the fact that the manager approves of the “flatterer”. It is interesting that those managers who enjoyed a reputation for being dispassionate, objective, and emphatically formal in their dealings with subordinates also turned out to be susceptible to flattery.

What is a professional assessment by a teacher personal qualities the student may depend on his external attractiveness may seem implausible. However, this effect manifests itself not only in the assessments of adolescents, but also in children. During one of the experiments, university students and future teachers were given descriptions of offenses committed by seven-year-old children. These descriptions were accompanied by photographs of the “culprits.” Assessing their attitude towards these kids and their behavior, students showed greater condescension towards those with a more attractive appearance (A. A. Bodalev, 1983).

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

As we see, the connection between appearance and a person’s internal qualities is indestructible for many. The king's enemies, wanting to denigrate him in the eyes of his descendants, did not limit themselves to slandering his affairs, since for them there was no doubt that angry man ugly. Thanks to Shakespeare’s brilliant tragedy, the stereotype “an ugly man is evil” has only become stronger in our minds. And on the contrary, in O. Wilde’s “The Portrait of Dorian Gray,” the young man, endowed with extraordinary beauty by nature, at first glance seemed kind, attentive, and sympathetic to those around him. And even when his vicious behavior became known in society, many did not believe that such handsome man capable of such atrocities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When working with “difficult” teenagers, showing empathy is of particular importance, since many of them experience a real lack of sympathy and empathy. According to one of the domestic studies, 92.2% of adolescents registered with the juvenile affairs inspectorate felt a lack of positive emotional contacts and were in a state of psychological isolation in their educational groups. According to L.M. Zyubin, 35% of adolescent delinquents live in families characterized by unhealthy relationships between parents and children and the presence of pronounced antisocial attitudes operating in the family. Research by L. M. Zyubin, like a number of others, shows that in recent years the influence of a dysfunctional situation in the family on the behavior of a teenager has increased. Numerous experimental and empirical studies have established that the development of a tendency towards violence and its consolidation in the form of an individual’s life style is usually directly related to a lack of empathy both in the individual himself and in his environment. The reasons behind this behavior go back to early childhood. Research data convincingly shows that the vast majority of adolescents characterized by delinquent (illegal) behavior have experienced emotional isolation to one degree or another: lack of love, lack of parental care, etc.

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

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

Resume

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

Questions and tasks for self-control

1. How are the effectiveness of teaching activities and the teacher’s knowledge of students’ personalities related?

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

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

The effectiveness of teaching activities largely depends on the style of communication and the style of managing students.

V. A. Kan-Kalik wrote: “By communication style we understand the individual typological features of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students.”

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

Let's consider typical styles pedagogical communication, the characteristics of which are given by V. A. Kan-Kalik.

The most fruitful communication is based on passion for joint activities. It presupposes community, joint interest, and co-creation. The main thing for this style is the unity of a high level of competence of the teacher and his moral principles.

The style of pedagogical communication based on a friendly disposition is also effective. It manifests itself in a sincere interest in the student’s personality, in the team, in the desire to understand the motives of the child’s activities and behavior, and in the openness of contacts. This style stimulates passion for joint creative activity, fruitful relationships between the teacher and students, but with this style, the measure, “expediency of friendliness,” is important.

In the identified communication styles, the “teacher-student” interaction is considered as a two-way subject-to-subject interaction, which involves the activity of both parties. In the educational process, these humanistically oriented styles create a situation of comfort and contribute to the development and manifestation of individuality.

In the system of relationships between teachers and students in teaching and upbringing, the communication-distance style is common. Beginning teachers often use this style to assert themselves in a student environment. Distance must exist, it is necessary, since the teacher and students occupy different social positions. The more natural the leading role of the teacher is for the student, the more organic and natural the distance is for him in his relationship with the teacher. It is very important for a teacher to master the art of distance. A. S. Makarenko pointed out the importance of this point, emphasizing how important it is to avoid familiarity in communication.

There are also negative communication styles. These include: a) communication-intimidation, which is based on strict regulation of activities, on unquestioning submission, fear, dictate, orienting children on what cannot be done; with this style there can be no joint passion for activity, there can be no co-creation; b) communication-flirting, based on the desire to please students, to gain authority (but it will be cheap, false); young teachers choose this style of communication due to the lack of professional experience and experience of communicative culture; c) communication-superiority is characterized by the desire of the teacher to rise above the students; he is self-absorbed, he does not feel the students, has little interest in his relationships with them, and is distant from the children.

Negative communication styles are focused on subject-object relationships, that is, they are dominated by the position of the teacher, who views students as an object of influence.

Pedagogical communication styles are expressed in pedagogical leadership styles.

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

The most common classification of leadership styles includes authoritarian, democratic and liberal styles.

With an authoritarian leadership style, the teacher takes everything upon himself. The goals of the activity and methods of its implementation are set individually by the teacher. He does not explain his actions, does not comment, is excessively demanding, is categorical in his judgments, does not accept objections, and treats students’ opinions and initiative with disdain. The teacher constantly shows his superiority; he lacks empathy and sympathy. Pupils find themselves in the position of followers, in the position of objects of pedagogical influence.

The official, commanding, commanding tone of address predominates, the form of address is instruction, teaching, order, instruction, shout. Communication is based on disciplinary influences and submission.

This style can be expressed in the words: “Do as I say and don’t reason.”

This style inhibits personality development, suppresses activity, fetters initiative, and gives rise to inadequate self-esteem; in relationships, he erects, according to G.I. Shchukina, an impenetrable wall, semantic and emotional barriers between the teacher and students.

With a democratic leadership style, communication and activity are based on creative cooperation. Joint activities are motivated by the teacher, he listens to the opinions of students, supports the student’s right to his position, encourages activity, initiative, discusses the plan, methods and course of the activity. Organizing influences predominate. This style is characterized by a positive-emotional atmosphere of interaction, goodwill, trust, exactingness and respect, taking into account the individual’s individuality. The main form of communication is advice, recommendation, request.

This leadership style can be expressed in the words: “We conceived together, planned together, organized, summed up.”

This style attracts students to the teacher, promotes their development and self-development, and evokes a desire for joint activities, encourages independence, stimulates self-government, high adequate self-esteem and, most importantly, contributes to the formation of trusting, humanistic relationships.

With a liberal leadership style, there is no system in organizing activities and control. The teacher takes the position of an outside observer, does not delve into the life of the team, into the problems of the individual, and is content with minimal achievements. The tone of the address is dictated by the desire to avoid difficult situations, largely depends on the mood of the teacher, the form of appeal - exhortations, persuasion.

This style leads to familiarity or alienation; it does not contribute to the development of activity, does not encourage initiative and independence in students. With this style of leadership, there is no focused teacher-student interaction.

This style can be expressed in the words: “As things go, so let them go.”

Note that in pure form This or that leadership style is rare.

The democratic style is most preferable. However, elements of an authoritarian leadership style may also be present in a teacher’s activities, for example, when organizing a complex type of activity, when establishing order and discipline. Elements of a liberal leadership style are acceptable in an organization creative activity, when a position of non-interference and giving the pupil independence is appropriate.

The effectiveness of teaching activities largely depends on the style of communication and the style of managing students.

What is communication style? To answer this question, let us turn to the most general interpretation of the concept “style”.

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

The style of communication between a teacher and children is a socially and morally rich category. Based on this, V. A. Kan-Kalik wrote: “By communication style we understand the individual typological features of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students.”

The stylistic features of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership depend, on the one hand, on the individuality of the teacher, on his competence, communicative culture, emotional and moral attitude towards students, creative approach to professional activities, on the other hand, on the characteristics of the students, their age, gender, training, upbringing and characteristics of the student body with which the teacher comes into contact.

Let's consider typical styles of pedagogical communication, the characteristics of which were given by V. A. Kan-Kalik.

Most fruitful communication based on passion for joint activities. It presupposes community, joint interest, and co-creation. The main thing for this style is the unity of a high level of competence of the teacher and his moral principles.

The pedagogical style is also effective communication based on friendship. It manifests itself in a sincere interest in the student’s personality, in the team, in the desire to understand the motives of the child’s activities and behavior, and in the openness of contacts. This style stimulates passion for joint creative activity, fruitful relationships between the teacher and students, but with this style, the measure, “expediency of friendliness,” is important.

In the identified communication styles, the “teacher-student” interaction is considered as a two-way subject-subject interaction, involving the activity of both parties. In the educational process, these humanistically oriented styles create a situation of comfort and contribute to the development and manifestation of individuality.

In the system of relationships between teachers and students in teaching and upbringing, the style is widespread communication-distance. Beginning teachers often use this style to assert themselves in a student environment. Distance must exist, it is necessary, since the teacher and students occupy different social positions. The more natural the leading role of the teacher is for the student, the more organic and natural the distance is for him in his relationship with the teacher. It is very important for a teacher to master the art of distance. A. S. Makarenko pointed out the importance of this point, emphasizing how important it is to avoid familiarity in communication.

There are also negative communication styles. These include: a) communication-intimidation, which is based on strict regulation of activities, on unquestioning submission, fear, dictatorship, and the orientation of children on what cannot be done; with this style there can be no joint passion for activity, there can be no co-creation; b) communication-flirting, based on the desire to please students, to gain authority (but it will be cheap and false); young teachers choose this style of communication due to the lack of professional experience and experience of communicative culture; V) communication-superiority characterized by the desire of the teacher to rise above the pupils; he is self-absorbed, he does not feel the students, has little interest in his relationships with them, and is distant from the children.

Negative communication styles are focused on subject-object relationships, that is, they are dominated by the position of the teacher, who views students as an object of influence.

Pedagogical communication styles are expressed in pedagogical leadership styles.

The most common classification of leadership styles includes authoritarian, democratic And liberal styles.

At authoritarian leadership style The teacher takes care of everything. The goals of the activity and methods of its implementation are set individually by the teacher. He does not explain his actions, does not comment, is excessively demanding, is categorical in his judgments, does not accept objections, and treats students’ opinions and initiative with disdain. The teacher constantly shows his superiority; he lacks empathy and sympathy. Pupils find themselves in the position of followers, in the position of objects of pedagogical influence.

The official, orderly, commanding tone of address predominates, the form of address is instruction, teaching, order, instruction, shout. Communication is based on disciplinary influences and submission.

This style can be expressed in the words “Do as I say and don’t reason.”

At democratic leadership style communication and activity are based on creative cooperation. Joint activities are motivated by the teacher, he listens to the opinions of students, supports the student’s right to his position, encourages activity, initiative, discusses the plan, methods and course of the activity. Organizing influences predominate. This style is characterized by a positive-emotional atmosphere of interaction, goodwill, trust, exactingness and respect, taking into account the individual’s individuality. The main form of communication is advice, recommendation, request.

This leadership style can be expressed in the words: “We conceived together, planned together, organized, summed up.”

This style attracts students to the teacher, promotes their development and self-development, causes a desire for joint activities, encourages independence, stimulates self-government, high adequate self-esteem and, what is especially significant, contributes to the formation of trusting, humanistic relationships.

At liberal leadership style There is no system in organizing activities and control. The teacher takes the position of an outside observer, does not delve into the life of the team, into the problems of the individual, and is content with minimal achievements. The tone of the address is dictated by the desire to avoid difficult situations, largely depends on the mood of the teacher, the form of the address is exhortations, persuasion.

This style leads to familiarity or alienation; it does not contribute to the development of activity, does not encourage initiative and independence in students. With this leadership style, there is no focused teacher-student interaction.

This style can be expressed in the words: “As things go, so let them go.”

Note that in its pure form this or that leadership style is rarely found.

The democratic style is most preferable. However, elements of an authoritarian leadership style may also be present in a teacher’s activities, for example, when organizing a complex type of activity, when establishing order and discipline. Elements of a liberal leadership style are acceptable when organizing creative activities, when a position of non-interference and allowing the student independence is appropriate.

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

Questions for self-control

1. What communication and leadership styles were typical of the teachers at the school you graduated from?

Describe school situations, characterizing teachers with different styles of communication and pedagogical leadership.

How, in your opinion, can the authoritarianism of pedagogical leadership in educational institutions be overcome?

It is easy to notice that the styles of pedagogical communication are manifested in the style of pedagogical leadership. Communication styles such as friendly disposition and joint creative activity are inherent in the democratic leadership style. And communication-distance, communication-intimidation, communication-superiority are an expression of the authoritarian leadership style.

How do styles of pedagogical communication and leadership affect the results of teaching activities?

The stylistic features of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership have a decisive influence on the development of personality, the motivation of the student’s activities and behavior, they also affect interpersonal relationships, the moral and psychological atmosphere of the children's team.

Each teacher needs to develop his own style of communication and leadership. It must flow organically from the individual’s individuality. Its formation involves improving the properties and qualities of a teacher, mastering the process of communication and its technology.

study and analysis of one’s personal qualities and characteristics;

establishing positive and negative aspects in personal communication. Work to overcome shyness, stiffness;

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

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

consolidation of individual communication style in real teaching activities.

Take advantage of this program, study and develop your individual style of pedagogical communication and leadership.

Let us emphasize: the style of communication and leadership depends on the moral attitudes of the teacher - on love for children, a friendly attitude towards them, on the humanistic orientation of the teacher’s personality. Style also depends on knowledge of the basics of pedagogy and psychology of communication, and mastery of communication skills (perceptual, verbal).

Psychologists say that a person is able to evaluate himself quite accurately, that is, he usually knows what he needs to work on, what to overcome and what to develop and strengthen in himself. The proposed test can help you find out how pleasant you are in communication.

Check myself. Answer yes and no.

1. Do you like to listen more than talk? Yes - 1, no - 0.

2. Can you always find a topic for conversation even with a stranger? Yes - 1, no - 0.

Do you always listen carefully to your interlocutor? Yes - 1, no - 0.

Do you like to give advice? Yes - 0, no -1.

5. If the topic of conversation is not interesting to you, will you show it to your interlocutor? Yes - 0, no - 1.

6. Do you get irritated when people don't listen to you? Yes - 1, no - 0.

Do you have your own opinion on any issue? Yes - 1, no - 0.

If the topic of conversation is unfamiliar to you, will you develop it? Yes - 1, no - 0.

9. Do you like to be the center of attention? Yes - 1, no - 0.

10 Are there at least three subjects in which you have fairly solid knowledge? Yes - 1, no - 0.

11. Are you a good speaker? Yes - 1, no - 0

Eliminate questions 4 and 5, calculate the points for the rest

1-3 points - it’s difficult to communicate with you (you are either silent or so sociable that they avoid you). Avoid extremes!

4-9 points - you are not too sociable, but a fairly attentive interlocutor, a good listener

10-11 points - you are very pleasant to talk to, your friends can hardly do without you.

Both silence and excessive sociability equally create difficulties in communication. A pleasant conversationalist is one who maintains moderation in communication, speaks in a balanced manner and listens to others.

Teachers perform leadership functions not only in the classroom and in extracurricular activities. At the same time, there are significant differences in the methods and techniques of leadership, and therefore three styles are distinguished: authoritarian, democratic and liberal. Authoritarian leadership style. Teachers of this style lead without regard for the opinions of others, they themselves determine the ways and means of achieving the goal, because they believe that they know everything themselves and that no one can solve it better than them anyway. Such a teacher keeps all information to himself, so the active members of the class live on guesses and rumors. Willingly or unwittingly, it fetters the initiative of schoolchildren, so their sense of responsibility for the common cause weakens, public assignments become a formality for them, and students’ social activity declines. Schoolchildren are only executors of the teacher’s plans and plans. A teacher with an authoritarian leadership style expresses his decisions in the form of instructions, orders, instructions, reprimands, and thanks. He takes little account of interpersonal relationships in the group and overestimates negative qualities students and underestimates their positive sides..

Of course, the above should not be understood to mean that the authoritarian style of leadership should be completely excluded from the teacher’s practice. It can be used, but it is important that it corresponds to the situation and not be spontaneous and unconscious. For example, when a group led by a teacher is lacking initiative and is accustomed to passively following orders, at first it is more advisable to use an authoritarian leadership style in order to give the group’s activities an organized character.

Democratic leadership style. The position of a teacher with this leadership style can be described as “first among equals.” By his behavior, he shows that his power is a necessity for the rational implementation of the tasks facing the school community and nothing more. He tries to lead in such a way that each student takes maximum participation in achieving the common goal. To do this, he distributes responsibility among schoolchildren, encourages and develops relationships between them, and creates an atmosphere of business cooperation and camaraderie. The decision is made collectively, taking into account the opinions of the activists. Activities rely on the help of schoolchildren, taking into account their inclinations and abilities. Skillfully uses students who have authority among their peers to strengthen cohesion and discipline.

A teacher of a democratic style sees the meaning of his activities not only in controlling and coordinating the actions of the school staff, but also in educating and instilling organizational skills in schoolchildren, therefore he sets motivated tasks for schoolchildren, encourages the individual efforts of each, and makes them public. This helps students develop initiative and creative independence.

A democratic style teacher is more accessible to students;

they feel freer with him and willingly communicate with him. Therefore, a teacher with this leadership style knows better the inner life of students, their experiences, fears, aspirations, hopes. Verbal communication between a teacher of this style and students is based on requests, advice, and confidential intonation. It has been established that only 5% of such a teacher’s methods of communication are in the nature of commands or abrupt orders. Teachers with a democratic leadership style are more adequate than teachers auto ritarian style, assess the positive and negative character traits of students.

Liberal (permissive) leadership style. This style is characterized by the teacher’s desire to interfere as little as possible in the affairs of the asset, giving students great freedom of action. The permissive style is much less common than the authoritarian and democratic ones. With this style the group exists independently and itself determines the main directions of its life activities. Gradually, there is a complete abandonment of formal relationships, social distance between group members is sharply reduced. In such a situation, interest in the matter may decrease, and the joint goal may not be achieved. Only high level personal or professional development group members can contribute to the smooth functioning of the group under such management. At the same time, a permissive style can contribute to the growth of responsibility and independence of ordinary group members.

So, each style has some advantages and disadvantages. Each style may be appropriate in some circumstances and not in others. The authoritarian style is simple and efficient, but leads to passivity of subordinates and hypocrisy towards the leader. The democratic style makes it possible for everyone to participate in management, but it prevents quick decision-making when necessary. The permissive style focuses on the independence of group members, but this is only possible with their highest qualifications. It is quite clear that the most successful leaders and managers focus on all three styles, depending on the operating conditions. The same leader can change the systems of methods of influencing subordinates. Main factors for changing leadership style may be: the degree of urgency of making a decision, the confidentiality of the task, the size of the group, the personality of the leader, the mental abilities of subordinates or the level of their professionalism.

4.Individual styles of teaching activity.

Individual style of activity of a teacher - a system of stable, individually unique ways and techniques for solving various pedagogical problems. The main features of a teacher’s individual style of activity are manifested:

In temperament (time and speed of reaction, individual pace of work, emotional responsiveness, responsiveness);

In the nature of the response to certain pedagogical situations;

In the choice of teaching methods;

In the selection of educational means;

In the style of pedagogical communication;

In responding to the actions and actions of children;

In demeanor;

Preferring certain types of rewards and punishments;

In the use of psychological and pedagogical influence on children.

Talking about and the individual style of the teacher, usually mean that when choosing certain means of pedagogical influence and forms of behavior, the teacher takes into account his individual inclinations and abilities. Teachers with different personalities can choose the same ones from a variety of educational and educational tasks, but implement them in different ways. In this regard, one remark should be made regarding the perception and implementation of advanced pedagogical practices. When analyzing it, the teacher must remember that such experience is almost always inseparable from the personality of its author and represents a unique combination of generally significant pedagogical findings and the individuality of the teacher. Therefore, attempts to directly copy the advanced pedagogical experience of some teachers and others are, as a rule, futile.

Memory, its types and patterns of development. Ways to improve efficiency

Memorizing educational material in the educational process.

The essence and types of memory.

By memoryis called the memorization, preservation and reproduction by a person of images, thoughts, emotions, movements, i.e., everything that makes up his individual experience.

Memory serves as the basis for the continuity of mental activity, connecting the past, present and future. Memory is basic mental process, based on which a person controls his behavior and activities, carries out current and long-term planning of his development and training.

1) according to the nature of the mental activity that predominates in the activity, memory is divided into motor, emotional, figurative and verbal-logical;

2) according to the nature of the goals of the activity - involuntary and voluntary;

3) according to the duration of consolidation and preservation of the material (in connection with its role and place in the activity) - short-term, long-term and operational.

Motor (or motor) memory - this is remembering, storing and reproducing various movements. Motor memory is the basis for the formation of various practical and work skills, as well as the skills of walking, writing, etc. Without memory for movements, we would have to learn to carry out the appropriate actions every time.

Emotional memory -this is a memory for feelings. This type memory lies in our ability to remember and reproduce feelings.

Figurative memory - This is a memory of ideas, pictures of nature and life, as well as sounds, smells, tastes, etc. The essence of figurative memory is that what was previously perceived is then reproduced in the form of ideas..

Verbal-logical memory is expressed in memorizing and reproducing our thoughts. We remember and reproduce the thoughts that arose in us during the process of thinking, thinking, we remember the content of a book we read, a conversation with friends. The peculiarity of this type of memory is that only the meaning of the given material is remembered and reproduced, and the exact preservation of original expressions is not required.

Depending on the purpose of the activity, memory is divided into involuntary And arbitrary . In the first case we mean memorization and reproduction, which is carried out automatically, without volitional efforts of a person, without conscious control. In this case, there is no special goal to remember or remember something, i.e., no special mnemonic task is set. In the second case this the task is present, and the process itself requires volitional effort.

There is also a division of memory into short-term And long-term . Short-term memory is a type of memory characterized by very brief retention of perceived information.

Short-term memory plays a very important role in human life. Thanks to it, a significant amount of information is processed, unnecessary information is immediately eliminated and potentially useful remains. As a result, long-term memory is not overloaded. In general short term memory is of great importance for the organization of thinking, and in this it is very similar to RAM.

Concept RAM denote mnemonic processes that serve actual actions and operations directly carried out by a person. When we perform any complex operation, such as arithmetic, we carry it out in parts. At the same time, we keep some intermediate results “in mind” as long as we are dealing with them. As we move towards the final result, specific “worked out” material may be forgotten.

An important characteristic of the memorization process is degree of comprehension memorized material. Therefore, it is customary to highlight meaningful And mechanical memorization.

Rote memorization is memorization without awareness of the logical connection between various parts perceived material. An example of such memorization is memorizing statistical data, historical dates, etc. The basis of rote memorization is associations by contiguity . One piece of material connects with another only because it follows it in time. In order for such a connection to be established, the material must be repeated many times.

In contrast to this meaningful memorization based on understanding the internal logical connections between in separate parts material. Two provisions, of which one is a conclusion from the other, are remembered not because they follow each other in time, but because they are logically connected. Therefore, meaningful memorization is always associated with thinking processes and relies mainly on generalized connections between parts of the material at the level of the second signaling system. It has been proven that meaningful memorization is many times more productive than mechanical memorization. Rote memorization is wasteful and requires many repetitions.

In modern psychological and pedagogical literature there are various classification of pedagogical leadership styles. Most often, three main varieties are distinguished: authoritarian style, democratic and liberal (as synonyms one can find the designations liberal-permissive and inconsistent-contradictory). The first experimental study of leadership styles was carried out in 1938 German psychologist K. Lewin . Here, the classification of the main leadership styles that are widespread today was introduced: authoritarian, democratic and permissive. We often hear in lectures and read in the literature that the named types can easily be transferred to the area of pedagogical communication. But this seems like an unnecessary addition, if we recall the fact that K. Levin conducted his famous study studying the characteristics of the leadership of a group of schoolchildren by an adult mentor.

Authoritarian style develops as a result of the teacher’s predominant use of coercive demands and aggressive suggestion. The requirement is aimed at suppressing unruly behavior among schoolchildren. Aggressive suggestion takes the form of instruction, warning, threat, condemnation, which causes dissatisfaction, indignation, anger, and contempt of the teacher. Accompanied by dissatisfied, angry, angry, mocking, irritated intonations of voice and facial expressions. The authoritarian style develops the skills of complete subordination of the student to the teacher; inhibits the development of the ability to self-regulate behavior (if the teacher does not control, then discipline disappears). Schoolchildren's mood decreases, anxiety, concern, irritation, resentment, hostility, fear, and aggressiveness appear.

Democratic leadership style arises if the teacher relies on conviction, incentive demand and benevolent suggestion. By persuading, he explains to children the usefulness of obeying the rules, and forms in them a conviction in their value. Regular forms Demands - orders, prohibitions, instructions - turn into incentives in a democratic style. Warm voice intonations, calm facial expressions, and addressing students by name enhance the teacher’s closeness with them. Benevolent suggestion takes the forms of confidential instruction, exhortation, request, condemnation, warning, reminder, reproach, reproach. They express the teacher's trust in the children, approval or concern. With such a system of relationships, students successfully develop skills of self-regulation of behavior, self-confidence, optimistic mood, positive emotions, a state of satisfaction and joy from being close to the teacher (lives with us). Such methods of interaction increase his authority.

Liberal leadership style, perhaps the most unfavorable in pedagogical communication. It is no coincidence that it is called liberal-situational, since communication is largely determined by the situation and mood. Schoolchildren do not like such teachers because it is difficult to adapt to their communication style: they are very soft, indulgent to children; when they feel that power is leaving them, they are very tough. Sharp transitions from liberalism to authoritarianism and back are a typical picture for liberal teachers. This leadership style does not develop in children either the skills of subordination to the teacher or the skills of self-regulation of behavior. It generates, on the one hand, groundless fun and euphoria; on the other hand, a feeling of dissatisfaction, grief, indifference, indifference. The attitude toward students is neutral. Due to the indecision and hesitation of the teacher in the class, as a rule, several of the most energetic students stand out, who gradually take on part of his organizational functions. In the most difficult situations, they turn to other teachers, thereby making it easier for this teacher to make responsible decisions.