The potential power of communication within the classroom and school
It is easy to feel demoralised by the apparent immensity of the task of communicating positively when confronted by a belligerent adolescent or younger pupil who appears to care little about your opinions.
However, the power of such communication and of persistent and consistent kindness, respect, firmness and a steady separation between acceptance of the person and disapproval of unwanted behaviour, should not be underestimated.
The power of communication is, I believe, often overlooked and we rarely exploit its full potential for positive change, frequently focusing too much on the content to the detriment of the process, that is to say, our manner. Yet skilful communication can considerably improve relationships and, therefore, behaviour in schools.
Example A
A girl in Year 8 had brought badges into school the day after they had been banned. She had been away and had not known of the ban. A boy in the class had asked to look at the badges. The teacher saw them and took them away, even though the girl tried to explain that they were hers, that she was trying to get them back from the boy in order to put them away, and that she had been absent the day before. The teacher said that he was going to confiscate the badges. The girl was angry, swore at the teacher and was later suspended as a result. Relations between the two were soured and, in future, the pupil was particularly uncooperative and disruptive in lessons. Being sworn at by a pupil did nothing to enhance the teacher’s status in the eyes of the rest of the class, even if there were repercussions, and his self-esteem and confidence were eroded. Since the relationship was damaged for the future and would remain so unless steps were taken to improve it, both had in fact suffered from the transaction.
It is never, of course, appropriate for a pupil to swear at a teacher, but she did so in response to what she considered his provocation: he had not listened to the fact she had been away, thereby implying she was lying, and had confiscated the badges when she had, in fact, been trying to put matters right by getting them back in order to put them away so they would cause no more trouble. Thus her attempts to take some personal initiative and sort things out herself were frustrated. Other pupils later told her she should have kept quiet at that point and later secretly taken them back from the drawer in which confiscated items were kept. However, her sense of justice would not allow this and she spoke up. Unfortunately, lacking any alternative communication skills and having a backlog of anger against authority figures in general and teachers in particular, she swore. Thus it was her – inappropriately expressed indignation at a perceived injustice that was punished by suspension.
Unravelling such situations from the pupil’s point of view we get a very different perception than from that of the teacher: in effect, both are working from assumptions about the other which lead to misunderstanding. Such misunderstandings are compounded with time. Yet how else could the teacher have handled the situation in order to make a happier resolution possible?
The above approach can be said to rely on the assumption that the pupil is wrong, has some kind of ‘bad’ intention and should simply do what he or she is told. As we have seen, this can lead to difficulties in the short and long term. A different set of assumptions would lead to a very different kind of approach. For example, if the teacher were to assume that the pupil’s intentions were ‘good’ and that she deserved to be listened to, in this and many other instances there may be another kind of transaction. Thus the teacher would not assume that the pupil was lying when she said she had been absent the day before and did not know badges were banned. He might say that he had no time at present to go into the matter but would listen later on. Meanwhile he would look after the badges since the girl might get into trouble with other teachers. When they met briefly at the end of the day he would hand them over. At that meeting he would listen to the girl’s explanation and briefly point out his own position as teacher, obliged to enforce the school rules. He would also warn the pupil that if he saw her again with badges he would confiscate them immediately.
Example B
The last two boys were leaving class at the end of the day. As they left, they knocked over two chains. The teacher called them back and asked them, politely, to pick up the chairs. They protested that they had not knocked them over on purpose. She assured them that she was clear it was accidental, but that she was nonetheless asking them, politely, to pick up the chairs they had accidentally knocked over. One boy wavered and said to the other that they had better do it. The other, R, refused and started to walk towards the door. The teacher asked him once again politely to stay and pick up a chair. As he carried on to the door, she warned him that, if he just walked away now, she would phone his mother, since there had been a history of difficulties and the teacher had agreed to inform her immediately of further problems. R walked out.
Halt an hour later the teacher phoned R’s mother only to find him alone at home. His first enthusiastic response on the phone waned as he realised who it was and why she had rung. The teacher gave him the opportunity to sort the matter out there and then on the phone in which case she would not contact his mother. R agreed and apologised. She praised him for doing so and asked him, in future, to carry out her reasonable requests promptly. He agreed to do so.
What may start out as a small incident may frequently develop into a more serious confrontation since the teacher’s power is being tested. If the teacher had ignored the fact that the boys had knocked over the chairs, albeit accidentally, in future they may have felt justified in acting in a similar fashion again. They may well have ‘tested’ the teacher regarding other boundaries too, and a number of progressively serious contests of will could have ensued until the teacher reinforced a firm boundary.
By picking up on the incident the teacher was reinforcing her expectations of behaviour: mutual politeness and a responsibility to tidy up after oneself without blame. She did this without jeopardising the relationship since she remained polite and fair, acknowledging that it was an accident and giving R a clear choice with a definite consequence if he refused. Later she gave him another chance, which he wisely took. Thus she was persistent in reinforcing the boundaries she had set, consistent in her expectations of polite, reasonable and fair behaviour. Whenever possible she offered R a choice, thereby giving him the opportunity to be powerful within the framework she set up, while carrying out the consequences she had warned him would follow. When he apologised and agreed to comply in future she praised him.
At the end of the episode R had been given an experience to show the teacher meant what she said and would persist until he complied with the standards of behaviour she set. Since she had remained polite and understanding throughout, it was difficult to escape into the ‘red herring’ of indignation and blame over her manner, and R was left facing the stark consequences of his behaviour. Also, because she had been kind and polite his reaction was one of resignation rather than anger or resentment. He acknowledged that she had ‘won’. The teacher had thus reaffirmed her authority without conflict and without damaging, and maybe even improving, the relationship. Future dealings with R would be that much easier.
There are some significant differences between the way in which the teachers handled these two incidents. In the first example the teacher’s manner added fuel to the conflict In the second, her manner made reconciliation more possible. In this she:
- had a positive assumption about the pupil’s motives;
- listened to the pupil;
- gave him the opportunity to explain himself;
- gave him the chance to choose a way out and take personal responsibility;
- gave him a second chance;
- adhered to the spirit rather than the letter of the law.
Example C
I observed two teachers who taught the same class. The first, teacher F, had qualified relatively recently, the second, teacher G, was more experienced. Fs approach was to praise the class and individuals frequently, while making it clear what his expectations were for behaviour and that they were to be upheld. He avoided outright confrontation with two pupils by focusing on the work that needed to be done, rather than making a large scene out of minor infringements of rules which did not disrupt the flow of the lesson. At the end, he called the two pupils back and asked them to see him for a couple of minutes immediately after school. In this brief meeting he voiced his displeasure at their behaviour, encouraging the pupils to choose one specific way in which each would behave differently next lesson. Having secured this agreement, he could refer to it easily in the lesson should either forget. If they succeeded, or succeeded in part, they would receive considerable praise.
This strategy was designed to help pupils become more aware of their patterns of behaviour, to have some power over change by choosing very specific, small alterations in behaviour and to cooperate in the process. Thus the teacher was not attempting to manage their behaviour as such, but was encouraging them to take responsibility for it and to experience a sense of power by being able to make gradual, small changes.
G’s approach was very different and he criticised the class and individuals frequently. The behaviour of the two pupils mentioned above deteriorated rapidly and the teacher soon gave each an ultimatum or he would send them out of the class. The pupils accepted the ‘challenge’ and were sent out. Some time was taken from the lesson while there was open verbal hostility between the pupils and the teacher.
Both teachers had interesting material and exercises for their classes to do. Both had high standards of behaviour which they maintained, the latter at the expense of two ‘casualties’. The experience of being in the two lessons was, however, very different because of the varying approaches used: everyone in Ps class, including the teacher, seemed to enjoy him or herself considerably more. There was less conflict. The difference in approach falls into three categories: expectation, focus and communication skills.
1. F expected the lesson to run smoothly and had confidence that he could win over those pupils who might attempt to disrupt. G, on the other hand, seemed to expect a battle and was intent on crushing the least dissent before it took hold.
2. F focused on getting the work done and on the positive aspects of the pupils’ work and behaviour. G noticed the least misdemeanour and focused on poor behaviour rather than the issue of work.
3. F gave the class polite requests and plenty of praise. G adopted a confrontational style, gave orders, told pupils off and praised rarely.
It is not, as we see from this last example, always simply a question of experience. Indeed, it may well be that those people who are considered ‘born teachers’ merely have acquired through life experience those expectations, focus and communication skills which make for peaceful relationships in the classroom. The fact is, however, that those of us who are not 礎orn teachers・ and I was certainly not among their ranks, need not despair since these techniques can be learnt alongside any other teaching skill. As a rule of thumb, questions to ask oneself might be, ‘How would t feel as a pupil in my class? Would I like to be spoken to in that way? Would it help motivate me or would I feel resentful? How would I feel if I had difficulties with the work? What qualities did I like in my teachers?・Obviously, everyone is an individual. However, we might get some very interesting answers to our questions.
It is easy as a teacher to be a zealot, so intent on teaching skills and content, as well as keeping up with administrative demands, that we lose sight of the human element, the people we are teaching. Obviously to be enthusiastic about our work is a great talent. If we ourselves are demoralised and bored, however can we inspire interest, enthusiasm and eagerness to work in others? It may nevertheless be helpful in our desire to do our job ‘properly’ to remember that we are first and foremost people, and only secondly teachers. If there can be some meeting, however brief, at that human level as well, it may make a fundamental difference as to how we are perceived by our pupils and how they perceive themselves. This need not undermine the fact that we are in charge, since we are unquestionably so, but we can exercise this power with respect and firmness.
If, as adults and teachers we have the greater experience, the information to get across, the right answers, the power to praise or criticise, the ultimate control of what happens in the classroom, the powerful end of the relationship, then how can we help our pupils to feel valued human beings? Some! of our pupils probably will since they earn our praise easily, they feel valued at home, and can do what is required in the structure of a school. But not all. If you are always younger, told off frequently, never in charge, never ‘right’, it may be quite easy to feel demoralised from time to time. The years of childhood and adolescence can seem endless when seen from’ the midst of them and for some it may be easy to give up hope. Meeting our pupils as human beings before we rush into teaching them can perhaps help those who cannot meet all or many of our demands at least to feel valued for themselves. It may be simply a brief word, a warm look, but it can make a considerable difference.
Teacher not friend
Friendship is a relationship between equals, therefore, teachers and pupils can never be friends as such, since the former holds the power and responsibility and can make judgements which affect the latter. The teacher may be kind, caring, considerate and friendly while maintaining the distance conferred by authority. Keeping this balance can at times be difficult and it can be easy to try to be liked, to care too much or be too dependent on a pupil’s success or change. This distance is important since pupils can feel betrayed if a teacher appears as a friend one minute while telling them off or referring them to a higher authority the next.
Adolescents, mothers and fathers
Question: Why did the teenager cross the road?
Answer: Because his parents told him not to.
The joke would, of course, apply equally to adolescent girls. It is generally the case that, during adolescence, young people are trying to find their way in life and this inevitably involves testing out their will. As part of growing up, conflict with their parents is common as they reject received values in order to become more separate. Since teachers are working in loco parentis it is to be expected that some of the rebellion aimed at parents will come their way. Sometimes gender is relevant: pupils who are having difficulty with one or other parent may act particularly rebelliously with a teacher of that gender. All the more reason never to take it personally.
Cultural differences
There are many cultural differences regarding attitudes to gender and styles of speaking which can lead to misunderstanding. Even though pupils may be using English words, if their manner and style of speech differ from that of the teacher, conflict can sometimes be more likely as a result. Norms of politeness, for example, are culturally based and misunderstandings can easily take place, particularly when people are using the same language but different codes of courtesy. The possibility of conflict arising from linguistic mismatches of this nature requires a separate study.
