Pedagogical ability teacher's leadership style. Memorizing educational material in the educational process

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.

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 activities, 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 communication-distance style is widespread. 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 an instruction, teaching, order, instruction, shout. Communication is based on disciplinary influences and submission.

This style can be summed up 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, causes a desire for joint activities, encourages independence, stimulates self-government, high adequate self-esteem and, most importantly, contributes to the formation of trusting, humanistic relationships.

With a 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, and depends on specific conditions, on who he is dealing with - junior schoolchildren or high school students, what their individual characteristics are, what the nature of the activity is.

More on topic 3.3. Communication styles and pedagogical leadership styles:

1. All communication styles can be divided into three groups depending on the purpose of communication and the roles you play.

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 largely depend on the stylistic features of this communication and leadership.

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

The first experimental psychological study of leadership styles was 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 of all these leadership styles can be found in any literary work dedicated to school life.

Thus, the main character of F. Sologub’s novel “The Little Demon,” a teacher at the Peredonov gymnasium, is a typical authoritarian teacher. He firmly believes that a high school student can 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 area 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, in the physical and intellectual characteristics of the participants, in the structure of interpersonal relationships, etc. All groups also worked under the same conditions, according to a common program, and did the same thing exercise. 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 a stage-by-stage differentiation of activities and stage-by-stage 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, a sense of pride in common 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 different age groups, from primary 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 underperforming 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 “The Shkid Republic”, where the only way to curb the “difficult” children from orphanages, recent street children, in a critical situation was precisely the authoritarian style, strict leadership, and decisive measures. 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 by 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, which is fully relevant to teaching activities, is the 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.

Navigation

Let's consider the styles of pedagogical communication of the educator, teacher, educator, and the style of pedagogical leadership.

PEDAGOGICAL COMMUNICATION STYLE

One of the factors influencing the development of a child’s personality is the communication style inherent in the teacher. The style of pedagogical leadership can be defined as methods of educational influence, manifested in a typical set of requirements and expectations for the appropriate behavior of students. It is embodied in characteristic forms of organizing the activities and communication of children and has appropriate ways of implementing the teacher’s attitude towards the child’s personality, associated with the achieved level of professional and pedagogical activity.

Traditionally distinguished democratic, authoritarian and liberal styles.

Democratic style of communication

The democratic style of interaction is considered the most effective and optimal. It is characterized by broad contact with pupils, the manifestation of trust and respect for them, the teacher strives to establish emotional contact with the child, and does not suppress with severity and punishment; Positive assessments predominate in interactions with children. A democratic teacher feels the need for feedback from children on how they perceive certain forms of joint activity; knows how to admit mistakes made. In his work, such a teacher stimulates mental activity and motivation to achieve cognitive activity. In groups of educators whose communication is characterized by democratic tendencies, optimal conditions are created for the formation of children's relationships and a positive emotional climate of the group. The democratic style ensures friendly mutual understanding between teacher and student, evokes positive emotions and self-confidence in children, and gives an understanding of the value of cooperation in joint activities.

Authoritarian communication style

Teachers with an authoritarian communication style, on the contrary, display pronounced attitudes and selectivity towards children, they are much more likely to use prohibitions and restrictions in relation to children, and abuse negative assessments; severity and punishment are the main pedagogical means. An authoritarian educator expects only obedience; it is distinguished by a large number of educational influences with their uniformity. A teacher’s communication with authoritarian tendencies leads to conflict and hostility in children’s relationships, thereby creating unfavorable conditions for the upbringing of preschoolers. The teacher’s authoritarianism is often a consequence of an insufficient level of psychological culture, on the one hand, and a desire to accelerate the pace of children’s development, despite their individual characteristics, on the other. Moreover, teachers resort to authoritarian methods with the best intentions: they are convinced that by breaking children and achieving maximum results from them here and now, they can more quickly achieve their desired goals. A pronounced authoritarian style puts the teacher in a position of alienation from the students; every child experiences a state of insecurity and anxiety, tension and self-doubt. This happens because such teachers, underestimating the development of such qualities in children as initiative and independence, exaggerate their qualities such as indiscipline, laziness and irresponsibility.

Liberal communication style

A liberal educator is characterized by lack of initiative, irresponsibility, inconsistency in decisions and actions, and indecisiveness in difficult situations. Such a teacher “forgets” about his previous requirements and, after a certain time, is able to present completely opposite requirements to the requirements he himself had previously given. Tends to let things take their course and overestimate the capabilities of children. Does not check whether its requirements are met. A liberal teacher's assessment of children depends on their mood: in a good mood, positive assessments predominate, and in a bad mood, negative assessments predominate. All this can lead to a decline in the authority of the teacher in the eyes of children. However, such a teacher strives not to spoil relations with anyone; his behavior is affectionate and friendly with everyone. Perceives his students as proactive, independent, sociable, and truthful.

The style of pedagogical communication as one of the characteristics of a person is not an innate (biologically predetermined) quality, but is formed and cultivated in the process of practice on the basis of the teacher’s deep awareness of the basic laws of development and formation of a system of human relations. However, certain personal characteristics predispose to the formation of one or another communication style. For example, people who are self-confident, proud, unbalanced and aggressive tend to have an authoritarian style. The democratic style is predisposed by such personality traits as adequate self-esteem, balance, goodwill, sensitivity and attentiveness to people.

Research has shown that after the departure of an “autocrat” teacher, it is not recommended to appoint a “liberal” to the group, but after a “liberal”, an “autocrat” is possible. A “Democrat” can be appointed after any predecessor.

In life, each of the named styles of pedagogical communication in its “pure” form is rarely encountered. In practice, it is often found that an individual teacher exhibits the so-called "mixed style" interaction with children. A mixed style is characterized by the predominance of two styles: authoritarian and democratic or democratic style with inconsistent (liberal). The features of authoritarian and liberal styles are rarely combined with each other.

Introduction

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

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

Thus, the study and formation of an individual style of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership of a teacher becomes relevant.

Purpose of the study– determine the teacher’s pedagogical leadership style.

Object of study– the activity of a teacher in guiding the process of teaching and upbringing.

Subject of research– individual style of pedagogical leadership of the teacher.

Research objectives:

1. Study the features of various styles of pedagogical leadership and their impact on the effectiveness of the pedagogical process.

2. Determine the teacher’s pedagogical leadership style.

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

Research base – teacher and 9th grade students of Municipal Educational Institution Secondary School No. 129 in Omsk.

Chapter 1. Dependence of the pedagogical process on the style of pedagogical leadership of the teacher

1.1. The concept of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership.

One of the most important requirements that the teaching profession places on the teacher’s personality is the clarity of his social and professional position. Teacher's position is a system of intellectual and emotional-evaluative attitudes towards the world, pedagogical reality and pedagogical activity. The social and professional position of the teacher cannot but affect his style. pedagogical communication.

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

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

In the process of pedagogical communication, the teacher carries out (in direct or indirect form) his social-role and functional responsibilities for management process of training and education.

1.2. Styles of pedagogical communication and pedagogical leadership.

To answer this question, what is a communication style, 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.

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

The style of pedagogical communication expresses the characteristics of the teacher’s communicative capabilities (possession of perceptual and verbal communication skills); the existing nature of the relationship between the teacher and students; creative individuality of the teacher; characteristics of pupils. Being a socially and morally charged category, communication style reflects the general and pedagogical culture of the teacher and his professional competence.

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

The style of communication and leadership also 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 the psychology of communication.

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.

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

communication based on passion for joint creative activities, which presupposes community, joint interest, and co-creation. The main thing for this style is the unity of the teacher’s high professionalism and his moral principles.

communication based on friendship, which can be considered as a prerequisite for the above style. This style is manifested 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 openness of contacts. Such communication stimulates passion for joint creative activities and fruitful relationships between the teacher and students. However, with this style, friendliness must be pedagogically appropriate, since a certain measure of distance preserves the sovereignty of each of the participants in communication.

communication-distance, often used by both experienced and novice teachers. Distance is necessary, since the teacher and students occupy different social positions, but it must be based on authority. 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.

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.

communication-flirting, based on the desire to please students, to gain authority (but it will be cheap and false). With this style of communication, the teacher begins to flirt with children, talk about personal topics in class, and abuse rewards without proper grounds.

communication-excellence, 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.

Pedagogical communication styles are expressed in pedagogical leadership styles.

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

Democratic (cooperative tactics).

Conniving (non-interference tactics).

At authoritarian leadership style The teacher alone decides all issues relating to the life of both the class team and each student. Based on his own attitudes, he sets the goals of the activity, methods of its implementation, and subjectively evaluates the results. 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. The official, commanding, commanding tone of address predominates, the form of address is an 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. The teacher is focused on increasing the student’s subjective role in interaction, on involving everyone in solving common problems. This style is characterized by a positive-emotional atmosphere of interaction, 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.”

At conniving (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 strives to be minimally involved in the activity, which is explained by the removal of responsibility for its results. The teacher performs his functional duties formally, limiting himself only to teaching. The tone of the 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 can be expressed in the words: “As things go, so let them go.”

It is easy to see that such communication styles 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.

In real teaching practice, mixed styles of communication and leadership most often occur.

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

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

Research shows that teachers who adhere to authoritarian leadership style, is characterized by children's lack of understanding and inadequacy of assessments based only on performance indicators. Authoritarian teachers focus on the negative actions of students without taking into account their motives. Such external indicators of the success of their teaching activities as academic performance and discipline are most often positive, but the socio-psychological atmosphere in the team is, as a rule, unfavorable. Pupils find themselves in the position of followers, in the position of objects of pedagogical influence. This style inhibits the development of personality, suppresses activity, fetters initiative, gives rise to inadequate self-esteem in students, instills a cult of power, and creates neurotics. Pupils’ resistance to teacher pressure most often leads to the emergence of persistent conflict situations.

Permissive 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. The consequence of this is the lack of control over the activities of students and the dynamics of their personality development. Academic performance and discipline in the classes of such teachers are, as a rule, unsatisfactory.

For teachers who adhere to democratic leadership style, characterized by an active and positive attitude towards schoolchildren, an adequate assessment of their capabilities, successes and failures. 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. In a democratic style, the teacher stimulates students to creativity, initiative, and organizes conditions for self-realization. In terms of external indicators of their activities, teachers of this leadership style are inferior to their authoritarian colleagues, but the socio-psychological climate in their classes is always more favorable. Interpersonal relationships in them are characterized by trust and high demands on themselves and others.

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. A teacher cannot completely exclude from his arsenal some techniques of an authoritarian leadership style, since sometimes they turn out to be quite effective, especially when working with classes and individual students with a relatively low level of socio-psychological and personal development. But even in this case, the teacher should be generally focused on a democratic style of leadership, dialogue and cooperation with students, since this style allows for the maximum implementation of the personal development strategy of pedagogical interaction. 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, and depends on specific conditions, on who he is dealing with - junior schoolchildren or high school students, what their individual characteristics are, what the nature of the activity is.

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

2.1. Determining a teacher's instructional leadership style.

The study was conducted in Secondary School No. 129 in the city of Omsk. Students from classes 9 “A” (18 people) and 9 “B” (19 people), aged 14-16 years, and a teacher of Russian language and literature took part in the experimental work. School teaching experience is more than 20 years, 11 of which as a school director. He has been teaching at this educational institution for less than a year.

To study the individual style of pedagogical leadership of the teacher, an anonymous survey of students, a survey of the teacher to assess his own style of pedagogical leadership, as well as external pedagogical observation were used.

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

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

Table 1.

Results of the survey for class 9 “A”

Diagram 1 clearly illustrates the overall result of the study in grade 9 “A”.

Diagram 1

The relationship between pedagogical leadership styles in a teacher’s activities, according to students in grade 9 “A”

Democratic style of pedagogical leadership

Table 2 displays the results of the survey for grade 9 “B”.

Table 2

Survey results for grade 9 “B”

The overall result of the study in grade 9 “B” is shown in Diagram 2.

Diagram 2

WITH the relationship between pedagogical leadership styles in a teacher’s activities, according to students in grade 9 “B”

Permissive style of pedagogical leadership

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

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

Table 3

Teacher survey results

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

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

Diagram 3

The relationship between pedagogical leadership styles in a teacher’s activities, according to the teacher himself

Democratic style of pedagogical leadership

Permissive style of pedagogical leadership

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

Analysis of the results obtained

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

When surveying the teacher, his leadership style was defined as mixed (democratic and permissive), which generally does not contradict the opinion of the students.

During observation, the predominance of the teacher's democratic style of pedagogical leadership with authoritarian elements was established (especially in grade 9 “B”). This corresponds to the results of the survey.

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

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

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

2) establishing positive and negative aspects in personal communication; work to overcome shyness and constraint;

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

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

5) consolidation of an individual communication style in real teaching activities.

Conclusion

The study of teachers' pedagogical leadership styles, identifying the reasons for the preference of one or another of them, as well as the development of measures to increase the effectiveness of the educational process is a relevant area of ​​research today due to the sharp drop in educational motivation and cognitive interest among schoolchildren.

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

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

A method was proposed to increase the effectiveness of a teacher by developing an individual style of pedagogical communication that corresponds to the individual characteristics of both the teacher and students.

Literature

Bordovskaya, N.V. Rean A.A. Pedagogy: Textbook for universities. – St. Petersburg: Publishing House “Peter”, 2000. – 304 p. – (Series “Textbook of the New Century”)

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

Robotova A.S., Leontyeva T.V., Shaposhnikova I.G. and others. Introduction to pedagogical activity: Textbook. aid for students higher ped. schools, institutions /ed. A. S. Robotova. - M.: Publishing center "Academy", 2002. - 208 p.

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

Yulia Korchagina. Towards a teenager. Conflict between teacher and student//Children's Health. – 2009. – No. 19. Access mode: http://zdd.1september.ru/articles/2009/19/12

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

Appendix 1

Questionnaire “Determination of a teacher’s pedagogical leadership style”

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

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

   Some important matters are solved virtually without the participation of the teacher; his functions are performed by the active members of the class.

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

   It demands so much that you want to fulfill it.

   He doesn't know how to demand.

1. Tries to select capable, responsible students to join the class.

   The teacher does not care who is in the active class.

   He achieves unfailing execution and subjugation of the class asset.

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

   Not interested in work, approaches things formally.

   When solving educational problems, he tries to create good relationships between students in the class.

1. He is probably conservative because he is afraid of new things.

   The initiative of the class activist is not accepted by the teacher.

   Encourages them to work independently.

1. The teacher usually does not take offense at criticism and listens to it.

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

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

1. One gets the impression that the teacher is afraid to take responsibility for his actions and wants to reduce his responsibility.

   Responsibility is shared between yourself and the students.

   The teacher alone makes decisions or cancels them.

1. Consults regularly with the class.

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

   He does not allow his students to advise him, much less object to him.

1. Usually consults with the active members of the class, and not with all students.

   Regularly communicates with class activists, talks about the state of affairs in the team, about the difficulties that must be overcome.

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

1. Always addresses students politely and kindly.

   He often shows indifference in dealing with students.

   He can be tactless and even rude towards students.

1. In critical situations, the teacher does not cope well with his duties.

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

   Critical situations do not change the way he leads.

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

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

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

1. Perhaps he is not a very demanding person.

   He is demanding, but at the same time fair.

   One can say about him that he can be too strict and even picky.

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

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

   Supervises work from case to case.

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

   He often makes comments to students.

   Cannot influence discipline.

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

   It's interesting to work with the teacher.

   Students are left to their own devices.

Appendix 2

Table

Interpretation of responses to the questionnaire

“Defining a teacher’s pedagogical leadership style”

D – Democratic style of pedagogical leadership

P – Permissive style of pedagogical leadership

Appendix 3

Methodology “Defining your own style of pedagogical leadership”

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-excellence 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 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.

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

This style can be summed up 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.

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, and depends on specific conditions, on who he is dealing with - junior schoolchildren or high school students, what their individual characteristics are, what the nature of the activity is.

Questions for self-control

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

Describe school situations that characterize teachers with different communication and instructional leadership styles.

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 strong 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.