The issues of pedagogical communication in the context of the modern model of the educational process begin to play an increasingly important role. Of course, at all times, this problem has played a significant role in the effectiveness of training and education, but today the world, including our state, is moving away from the system of centralized instruction in groups, focusing on individual instruction. It is in this situation that the style of pedagogical communication goes to fundamental positions. It should be noted that in the methodological literature there are four main communication styles - two of them are extreme, respectively, opposite, and two are intermediate. It is worth noting that when self-analysis of the teacher’s pedagogical activity is carried out, this issue is rarely considered, which is unacceptable in the work of a high-class teacher. Why exactly the educator? Not only, but also primary school teachers. It is at this age that the basics of the future personality are laid, the child's desire to attend school. In this situation, self-analysis of the activities of primary school teachers should be carried out regularly in order to exclude possible errors and shortcomings in the work.
Authoritarian type of communication
It is worth noting that a similar option related to the first style, unfortunately, is even more common. At the same time, the teacher’s communication style with pupils, pupils or students is characterized by a quick reaction to certain actions or inactions of children, the formation of specific commands or instructions that cannot be appealed, and the limitation of creative potential. The self-analysis of the teacher’s activities in this situation is unlikely to reflect these facts. Most often, this problem is associated with the teacher’s lack of professional education, but situations arise when a similar style of conducting classes is formed from the personal qualities of an individual teacher. We are talking about his unwillingness to invest in the educational process completely. The latter option is the most dangerous from the point of view of the development of pedagogical traditions in the future, since the self-analysis of the teacher’s pedagogical activity carried out by such a worker, for example, on paper or verbally will look absolutely convincing and, most importantly, reasoned. As they say, you will not dig. On the other hand, many well-known teachers, albeit not explicitly, not openly, but agree that such methods of organizing communication can be acceptable, at least in a separate, short stage of the general educational or educational process, at least for the formation of a responsible attitude in children to what is happening.
Stimulating communication style and introspection of the educator’s pedagogical activity, professing it
The opposite of the authoritarian style of communication in literature is the so-called stimulating style. This option, of course, is the most advanced and progressive. Its essence is not the suppression of independent decisions by the child at one stage or another of the pedagogical process, but the stimulation of cooperation, when the teacher exercises various kinds of indirect methods of controlling the activity of the student or pupil, for example, leading questions, etc. It is clear that the self-analysis of the educator’s pedagogical activity in such a situation will be based not on the achievement of the set educational or educational goals, but on the degree of mutual understanding and cooperation, both with a single pupil and with the team as a whole. Thus, introspection of the activities of any teacher, but first of all, introspection of the activities of primary school teachers, should be directed not only, and not so much, to an assessment of the work done, but, first of all, to the prospects for further cooperation with their students.