Psychological Characteristics of Communicative Behavior of a Teacher

Abstract

The purpose of our research is: to give the psychological description of the subject of conversation; to describe psychological ways of organizing a communicative process; to propose psychological characteristics of an inventive teacher, to find many ways and means for organizing communicative activity of a personality; to show psychological mechanisms of success of heuristic conversation; to determine psychological characteristics of effective communicative behavior of a teacher. Methods of the research. The following theoretical methods of the research were used to solve the tasks formulated in the article: the categorical method, structural and functional methods, the method of analysis, systematization, modeling, and generalization. The methods of interview and observation are used as experimental ones. The participants of our research were 45 pupils of the 7th form of school №15 of Rivne, school №7 of Kamianets-Podilskyi (Ukraine). The experiment lasted during 2020-2021 years. The results of the research. The educational dialogue that is the most effective during the process of secondary education is characterized. It is established the educational dialogue comprises four dominant functions of communication: communicative, informative, regulatory and emotional, but at different lessons one function plays a major role and others – a secondary one. The educational dialogue is shown to have a personality-based orientation, i.e. partners of communication perceive each other as equal individuals. The harmonious and disharmonious dialogues are distinguished in the article. Dialogue is considered as a harmonious one, in which both partners equally show initiative in choosing its topic and direction, actively influence the course of a dialogue, regulate its course, play a leading role. In a symmetrical educational dialogue the student, being outside the teacher’s guidance, can suggest a topic of conversation, actively defend and argue his/her position, can both start and end the dialogue as for his/her own will. Conclusions. It is showed that the educational dialogue is remained, as a rule, disharmonious, but in its deep role structure the teacher-student dialogue could have a huge number of “superficial” realizations, which were built in harmony. It is established that the quality of pedagogical leadership is higher, when the student becomes more active and independent in the teacher’s proposed regulations of any educational dialogue. Three typical variants of didactic behavior of the teacher, which differ in a degree of perfection of his/her speech and communication activities are identified: the lowest degree “a Teacher – a Supervisor”, the intermediate level “a Teacher – a Facilitator”, the highest degree “a Teacher – a Communicator”. It is proved that only a teacher whose activities at the lesson was unfold at the last of these levels, was able to realize fully the defining goal of the pedagogical communication. This goal proposes the change in the “field of meanings” of personality.