p The choice of instructional media is determined by the objectives of education. But in addition, the choice is also influenced by the teachers’ individual traits. That dependence exists objectively and becomes evident when teaching practice is subjected to analysis.

p Each teacher develops his own unique style, his own individual manner of employing various media, his own vision of anticipated results.

p As in any art, much depends on individual characteristics of the creative personality. Teachers differ from each other not only in terms of the “stock” of techniques they use but, above all, by the manner in which these are implemented, which is marked by their individuality. For it is not accidental that one and the same “effective” instructional medium may yield positive results when applied by one person and negative when applied by another.

p Let us consider, for instance, the use of visual materials. When applied by one teacher this becomes a powerful factor for developing children’s cognitive abilities, but in the hands of another it becomes brake on their mental activity.

p It is widely known that individuals possess not only different temperaments and characters but also different casts of mind. In particular some persons’ minds operate easier with concepts and categories and seldom build images; but is somebody to blame for this or can this type of mind be described as “good” or “bad”? Others are more inclined to live by images and senses, are impressionable and emotional and most often have visionary thinking; this does not prevent them from assimilating the most abstract propositions, but the world of tangible, directly observable entities helps them characterize abstract concepts more vividly and effectively; is this a “good” or “bad” cast of mind? There exists an objective correspondence and dependence between a teacher’s individual traits and the instructional media and teaching techniques that he chooses. Does that dependence play a decisive role in the teaching process? Perhaps this question may be formulated more accurately as follows: does that dependence constitute an obstacle to acquiring developed teaching skills and mastering individual media that 60 require vivid emotions, a lively mind, inventiveness and quick orientation? Before answering that question let us note immediately that there is no medium that would not require a lively mind, vivid emotions and inventiveness. But at the same time these creative properties express themselves in each person in ways that are specific and individualized.

p This question can only be formulated as follows: either the teacher will remain a slave to his tempera/nent, his type of nervous system and his character, or he will be able to subordinate specific features of his self to the objectives of education.

p It is hardly likely that expressions of temperament are unchangeable and given once and for all. Don’t we often observe that so-called phlegmatics suddenly begin to display great activity in the pedagogical process, quite often greatly resembling choleric individuals? Probably no other profession exerts such an influence on a person’s temperament. This is because the entire structure of the teaching practice defines common demands for all teachers: to be whenever necessary lively, bright and socially responsive, abrupt, gentle, kind and strict.

p Consider the young specialists who are just beginning to teach. One is struck by the almost instantaneous changes that take place in their behaviour. Someone who had developed a reputation of being the life of the party, suddenly becomes reserved, while a young girl who had been shy in a school environment becomes a leader and an excellent organizer. After another year or two it will be difficult to recognize them; each will develop his own manner of teaching and his own style, as well as his preferred methods and approaches. Occasionally purely accidental factors influence their development; an approach that happened to be particularly effective on a certain occasion may subsequently be widely applied, whije an entire range of other methods remains ignored, as if they were inaccessible.

p Each teacher experiences successes and finds unexpected original solutions in communicating with children. But a striving to repeat these solutions often produces negative results. What is the reason for this? What are the types of errors that recur in creative activities, and to what can they be attributed?

p Let us consider the relatively common error of a " fetishization of a means”. The process of “fetishization” is inherently associated with such phenomena as keenness on, enthusiasm or even fanaticism about one’s pedagogical career. It is the reverse side, as it were, of pedagogical abilities. One finds, among creatively working teachers, individuals who, having mastered 61 a particular pedagogical approach, view it as the key to all educative process and as a panacea for all problem^. Some are carried away by self-organization, others by game’s and still others by organizing work activities, hobby activities, and fostering team spirit. Yet when we speak of a teacher possessing fully developed skills we have in mind a multiplicity of knowledge and an ability to educate individuals harmoniously by applying a system of highly diverse means. True mastery expresses itself in an ability to rely on the most various possibilities and occasionally on some that are diametrically opposed. Unless a teacher possesses such an ability he will find it difficult to avoid a fetishization of a particular means or approach.

p Let us try to analyze the mechanism that underlies errors resulting from a fetishization of individual educative means taken in isolation from others.

p In this connection I will turn to my own experience of relying on the use of games in my work with a collective. Earlier I have mentioned the advantages that the game-oriented approach possesses. Games help children become active, contribute a spirit of joyfulness to a children’s collective, as well as an element of competition, develop the team spirit and mutual assistance, and provide teachers with an opportunity to overcome elements of authoritarianism in their work with children. Yet, at the same time, the particular approach to games that we employed also carried much that was negative. In particular, there were cases when children carried out particular assignments not because they had come to understand them and recognize their significance, and not because of a sense of duty, but simply because this was required by the game situation. Perhaps there would have been less harm if such games had been less frequent. But when, over a prolonged period of time, children find themselves in game-defined relations the development of contradictions between the game, and life itself is unavoidable. While the substance of that contradiction was evident, we largely relied on the following logic: whenever a child acquires useful habits and whenever the outcome is positive the means to such a result must be justified. Soon, however, we realized that this was not so. This was particularly evident during periods between games; many of the children responded to school requirements, their duties and responsibilities with less interest and less motivation than during games.

p Beyond this, game situations became such a strong stimulus to child activities that both individuals and individual class collectives were ready to carry out unthinkingly any assignment 62 whatever. Children interpreted this as a need to "reach the mark”, "achieve a victory”, accumulate the greatest number of points, or “earn” a pennant. Games resembled races and made superfluous the existence of separate personalities and a need to view each other with respect. The games asked no questions but merely demanded that its own dominant rhythm be unconditionally accepted. And the more refined and colourful a game was, and the greater its effectiveness as a means, the more its negative side became apparent, as did the need to balance it with non-game activities and to control its results with such other means as self-management, the influence of the collective, personal communication with individual children and well structured forms of self-education.

p Of course, it is not only games that constitute a two-edged weapon. When overused (for example, when endlessly repeated), any educative means, especially such as collective forms of influence, reward and punishment, or work and self- management, can produce negative results.

p Let us recall that we are not referring to the essence of any particular educative means, but rather to the form in which it is present in a teacher’s creative activities.

p The teacher must be certain that at every moment, any selected system of means operates in such a way as to affirtn moral norms. In that connection it is important to define the measure and direction of selected means. Creative approaches require accurate appraisals and constant analysis. Only then is it possible to avoid errors.

p The process of the application of means, particularly in the case of teachers who are just starting out, often involves a struggle with one’s own self in overcoming personal dispositions. Young teachers find it necessary to restrain their ardour, suppress their anger and control their emotions. Experienced teachers will never display sudden emotions unless, of course, this is required. In addition, they are able to express their emotions in measured doses. Even when angered they may turn to humour, that is, find such a form of expressing their feelings that will contribute to the effective operation of an educative means.

p In short, the teacher applies his skills in a goal-oriented manner according to the situation and method required at a given instant. This does not mean, of course, that educative means dictate a teacher’s actions. It is the teacher himself who chooses these means, and while they are partly autonomous they are subordinate to him.

p A creatively working, fully-developed educator never becomes a slave to either his own individual traits of character or to the means that he prefers and that he himself has chosen.

Risk is perhaps an inherent condition of educational creativity, for no matter how developed a person’s skiHs may be he will still be unable to take into account and estimate accurately the influence of numerous and especially secondary means and conditions. Errors may be avoided only when individuals applying particular means with a known degree of risk recognize the possibility of failures, anticipate "points of weakness" and direct their attention to them.