It is widely acknowledged that what is transpiring in the classroom cannot be thought of as an in vitro activity, divorced from all those sociocultural and political factors that weave themselves into a formidable reality affecting, or even interfering with, educational goals and objectives. We shall not dwell on these parameters; our main concern will be with a casual microanalysis of classroom practice, specifically with the classroom management styles adopted by teachers and sanctioned by various practices and norms obtaining within most contemporary educational systems. In other words, we will content ourselves with a brief discussion of the ways in which teachers try to manage and oversee classroom practice. Let us focus on four such styles encapsulated by the following adjectives modifying the noun: the authoritarian, the authoritative, the laissez-faire, and the indifferent teacher.
The Authoritarian Teacher
In general lines, the authoritarian teacher controls and places firm demands on the students, who will often have assigned seats for the whole term. This seemingly benign act of seat-assignment, so to speak, in conjunction with the fact that the desks are usually in rows, facing the blackboard, has the effect of assigning specific roles to the agents of the educational process, i.e., teacher and students. In a classroom where the former is endowed with the right to register every single move or activity and the latter are required to be in their seats and remain there throughout the period, the learning process should be imbued with a special ideology: the teacher is the salient participant, whereas the students must toe the line. Moreover, the students must know that they should not interrupt the teacher, thus enacting the very agreement they have tacitly come to with her. Since verbal and non-verbal exchange, other than the requisite discussion, is to be extirpated from the educational milieu, such tasks as language drills, communicative competence and cross-cultural awareness, and so forth, are out of the question. Congruent with this style is positivism, a well-known philosophical approach to knowledge. Positivism, which reigned supreme in the twentieth century, is premised upon the assumption that knowledge reflects objective reality. Therefore, if teachers can be said to hold this “objective reality,” learning can only take place by dint of a transmission of knowledge from the teacher to the students. Congruent with this view, of course, is the maintenance and enhancement of the “traditional classroom,” where teachers are the purveyors of knowledge and wielders of power, and students are containers (see my article, “What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered?” for more details). In such a class, students are likely to be resistant to progress and reluctant to initiate activity, inasmuch as they feel neglected and powerless.
The Authoritative Teacher
The authoritative teacher, on the other hand, places limitations and demands, while simultaneously encouraging independence and autonomy. Furthermore, by explaining the reasons behind rules and norms, the teacher implicitly provides insights into the learning process as well as the wider context in which the latter is ineluctably embedded (rules and regulations at school, societal, and national levels). If a student does violence to these rules, the teacher offers a polite, albeit firm, reprimand, while always remaining open to verbal interaction, such as critical debates, and what can be regarded as contributing to the development of metacritical awareness (the ability to evaluate criticism itself). Within the context of the “authoritative classroom,” the students can interrupt the teacher, if they have a relevant comment to make, which offers them the opportunity to learn and practice communication skills.
The Laissez-faire Teacher
The laissez-faire teacher is less likely to monitor the students’ behaviour, placing fewer demands and accepting their impulses and actions. He strives to not hurt the students’ feelings, leaving them some leeway to express their viewpoints and engage in meaningful interactions with their peers. However, the laissez-faire teacher is more concerned with the students’ affect than with their intellect. What is more, basing classroom decisions on feelings rather than on academic principles may debar students from learning socially acceptable behaviour as well as the kind of classroom-specific knowledge (classroom and subject register) that they are expected to grasp and critically reproduce.
The Indifferent Teacher
This teacher places few demands, if any, and is generally uninterested. As such, he often feels that class preparation is not necessary. Most certainly, it is because he lacks the skills and confidence to manage the classroom that his teaching ends up being inconsistent and at times abstruse. With few demands placed on them, students have low achievement motivation and lack self-control. It seems that for the indifferent teacher, learner autonomy is tantamount to “unbridled learning.”
The Indifferent Teacher
This teacher places few demands, if any, and is generally uninterested. As such, he often feels that class preparation is not necessary. Most certainly, it is because he lacks the skills and confidence to manage the classroom that his teaching ends up being inconsistent and at times abstruse. With few demands placed on them, students have low achievement motivation and lack self-control. It seems that for the indifferent teacher, learner autonomy is tantamount to “unbridled learning.”
Source: Dr. Dimitris Thanasoulas
