-
DRAFT-
Student
disengagement and pedagogical climate
Classroom interactions in
two multi-ethnic secondary schools in the Netherlands
Trees Pels
ISEO/Erasmus University Rotterdam
pels@few.eur.nl
Paper presented at the Sixth International
Metropolis Conference
Rotterdam/the Netherlands, november 26-30,
2001
Contents:
0.
Introduction 3
1.
Disengagement
and pedagogical regimes: theory 3
2.
The
study 6
3.
Disengagement
and its manifestations 7
4.
Two
pedagogical regimes 13
5.
Perceptions
of students and teachers 21
6.
Discussion 24
References
26
Introduction
A particular focus of attention in secondary education is formed
by disengagement and disruptive behaviour of students. In recent summary
investigations it is observed that disengagement among students has increased
strongly and that discipline problems in the class are becoming more acute
(Beke et al. 1999). Discipline problems
demand a great deal of energy from teachers and students, above all in further
vocational education.
In all probability the increase of these
problems is not separate from cultural changes in recent decades. One such a
change has been the tipping of the balance of power between adults and children
in favour of the latter (De Swaan, 1979; Du Bois-Reymond et al., 1994).
Children are brought up more in consultation and less through the exercise of
power. Furthermore, the prolongation of the educational trajectory has created
more space for a separate youth phase, a `moratorium. after puberty, in which
young people enjoy a degree of freedom of movement and are able to experiment
with relationships before `serious life' starts. Various studies have indicated
that the support and influence of friends have unmistakably increased (Meeus et
al., 1999).
The individualization and informalization in the
interrelationships mean that the authority of the teacher can also no longer be
taken for granted. International comparative studies have revealed that
classmates have a more negative influence on each other and that disruptive
behaviour occurs more in a cultural context in which authoritarian control no
longer belongs to the dominant socialization methods (Elliott et al., 2001).
However, it is clear that within this general
context a lot of variety occurs, between schools and within schools and between
and within different populations of students, in the amount and manifestation
of classroom disruption. This paper concerns student disengagement
and classroom disruption in two classrooms with an ethnically mixt
population, by analyzing classroom interactions and the way they are perceived
by students and teachers. The leading questions are to what extent disengagement
occurs in both contexts and how it is manifested in classroom interactions
(section 3), how it is related to teacher. s behaviours (section 4)
and how it is perceived and explained by students and teachers (section 5). The
results will be discussed in section 6. The next section offers a brief sketch
of the main theoretical views on classroom disengagement and its relation to
pedagigical classroom regimes, and it is followed by a description of the
study, its methods and population.
1. Disengagement and pedagogical regimes: theory
Whether and to what extent students
undermine the authority of the teacher and violate his interaction rules
is related to their student perspectives or student rationales. D. Amato
(1993; see also Gibson, 2000) states that school can have both an extrinsic and
an intrinsic value for students, and that rationales for the acceptance of
school can be built on both types of values. Among the extrinsic values of school are the instrumental value of education and
the gaining of qualifications in the eyes of children and important persons in
their informal network, as well as its value in a cultural sense. If lack of prospects
or exclusion is experienced and/or if the school is seen as threatening
to the individual. s identity, culture or group affiliations, it can
lead to the failure to convert performance objectives into effective
socializing behaviour on the part of parents and/or effective student behaviour
on the part of children. Diminished effort or even an attitude of opposition
with respect to education could result (see also Ogbu, 1992, 1995; Ogbu & Simmons,
1998). In this connection the question of how schools deal with cultural
differences, identity questions, interethnic conflicts, ethnocentrism and
racism deserves attention (e.g. Auernheimer et al., 1996).
Students
who lack adequate extrinsic rationales for accepting the costs of attending
school and regulating their relationships with classmates will have a greater
tendency to withdraw from the authority of their teachers, unless the
educational experience itself has intrinsic
value for them or, in other words, unless there is an element of a positive
situational rationale. What is taking
place in education and how this is experienced is the main focus of this study.
In this connection, cultural differences can again play a role. Two points of
view can be identified in the relevant literature, in which cultural
differences between family and school and specific characteristics of the peer group culture are accentuated,
respectively.
Differences
between the socialization in the family and at school may concern a cultural short-circuit in the area of
pedagogy, for example because more emphasis is placed in the family on
conformity and authoritarian methods of upbringing, and/or the views on and practices of learning. If
tuition is seen as a unilateral transfer of fixed knowledge and skills, parents
or teachers will be oriented to memorizing them without much reflection, and
their attitude will be directive. Among students this can lead to dependence on
the (initiatives, approval etc. of the) teacher, and to an orientation on rote
and performance through the display of knowledge (e.g. Distelbrink & Pels,
2000). If the teachers do not live up to the expectations of students and/or
their parents this could contribute to faltering interactions and demotivation.
The family-school contrast has a
dominant place in the formation of theory on the role of discontinuity. In the
second point of view, the focus is shifted to the role of the peer group. In this view, demotivation
results when class interactions are incompatible with the social objectives of
students and with peer group interactions. Students see school
as one of the primary settings for their social lives (Macias, 1992). According
to Dutch research into student perspectives in further education, for
the average middle school student the social contacts with fellow students
form at least as important a reason to attend school as gaining diplomas. This
even applies to students who have difficulty with learning tasks at
school and who find the daily trek to the lessons to be a source of misery.
Between the learning domain and the social domain there is, according to Matthijsen
(1991), a . taught tension. . The lesson is under the control
of the teacher, but in the breaks the students are in charge. However, both
parties are constantly out to enlarge their sphere of influence (177).
.
Students
are given lessons in groups. Their experiences at school and in the lesson are
therefore to a significant extent shared experiences and their arrangement is
strongly influenced by the peer group. People
of the same age therefore also play a large role in the acceptance or rejection
of the authority of the teacher (D. Amato, 1993; Harter, 1996;
Wentzel, 1999). This probably applies more strongly in a cultural context in
which the balance of power between teacher and students shifts in favour of the
latter. In such a context, the social objectives of students can probably come
more to the fore in comparison with their learning objectives. Not learning and
acting out
can be seen as . kinds of performances,
shows of solidarity with a community of peers (7). , according to
Hurd (2000). This author also points out that the process of learning at school
can be mediated by the peer group: .to understand
academic engagement and behaviours ...merits understanding the various
forms and levels of peer socialization at work in the school (12). . In
particular, students who attach little extrinsic value to school often feel
that they are treated with little respect or as babies. They are more focused
on the here and now and more on each other than the other students. The value
of school for them is determined to a relatively large extent by the success
with which they can keep up with people of their age.
Interactions
in the (teacher-fronted) lesson are usually characterized by discouragement of peer contacts and by competition: there
is a focus on the interaction between teacher and individual students by means
of question-answer sequences: the student's answer is evaluated and they are
therefore implicitly compared with their classmates. Peer group interactions that are not dominated by adults are usually characterized
by egalitarian relationships: . the assertion of parity is legitimated
by the judgment or peers. Joking, and the audience response to joking,
is the paradigm for the process (198). (D. Amato, 1993).
It can be deduced from both points of view on diversity
and the pedagogical relationships in the class that the situational student perspective and,
through that, student behaviour in the class, varies with the socialization
regime. The two points of view, however, appear to lead to contradictory
assumptions. Where there is a focus on differences between family and school,
the empiricism concerning students from lower social levels seems to
point to the importance of more control, a tighter transfer of learning material and
an orientation to learning objectives, provided they are embedded in
a socially-friendly class climate (Matthijssen, 1993). It could be assumed
that this is also to the benefit of the non-indigenous students: the pedagogical relationships
in their families tend to be more authoritarian, and
that learning attitudes and practices lie closer to the . transmission model.
than to the . interaction model. , in which the co-construction of
knowledge is more central (Pels & Nijsten, 2000; Distelbrink &
Pels, 2000). The various aspects can also be explained in that these
categories of students . need more support before they can pluck the fruits
of a flexible curriculum organization (186). , according to Mattijssen
(1993). This is easier said than done, though, in view of the fact that student
supervision vis-à-vis the stimulation of self motivation and cooperative
learning are virgin territory (Dieleman et al., 2000).
A focus on
the role of peers points to different suggestions for adjustments of
socialization regimes: to better match peer
interactions participation structures should be created with a relatively
open and less individual-oriented nature, e.g. by allowing overlapping turns,
instruction in small groups in which interaction between peers is legitimated and the
use of directives and evaluations in such a way that students are not exposed
to the scrutiny of their fellow students (see D. Amato, 1993). In this
context, Macias ( ) also speaks in favour
of more tolerance of spontaneous verbal communication, physical expression
and movement. Dutch research seems to support the importance of such adjustments.
(Dutch) further education students who receive lessons according to
the transfer model are less motivated than students in schools where the .
supervision model. is in vogue (Matthijssen, 1991).
The above implies that the pedagogical and didactic
styles of the teacher play an important role: these can be more or less
compatible with the personal interaction and learning style in which students
have been socialized and/or with the social objectives of the students, that
is, their preferences regarding the way in which they deal with each other.
This line of reasoning leads to the notion that criteria for positive or
negative student behaviour are not fixed. Good or aberrant student behaviour is
actually partly a construction, which is a function of the applicable
pedagogic-didactic attitudes and practices (see also Daniels et al., 1996).
This paper is one of
the preliminary reports resulting from the research project . Interactions
in the multicultural classroom, processes of inclusion and exclusion.
. The project was funded by the Dutch Organization for Scientific
Research (NWO), supplemented with funding by the Foundation for Youth
Information in the Netherlands (SJN). The project takes its departure in the
statistics on school success and failure which show that students from the
large groups of immigrants in the Netherlands, such as the Moroccans, perform
less well than their indigenous Dutch peers. Especially Moroccan boys are among
these under-achievers; thus, there seems to be not only an ethnic bias to this
process of exclusion, but also a gender bias. The statistics referred to are
produced by typical the-school-as-black-box research which deals with input and
output but not with the processes in between. Therefore the call arose to take
a closer look inside schools and classrooms to gain more qualitative insight in
these processes.
·
The
focus was on the first year of secondary education where pupils are 12 and 13
years of age age and are making a fresh start with a new school in a group of
peers that is to a large extent new as well.
·
Furthermore
we focussed on mathematics classes, because many non native students have
particular problems with maths.
·
Moroccan
students were singled out for their relatively poor maths performance and
since a focus on one ethnic group might
allow, if need be, for paying specific attention to the ethnic and cultural
background of these students.
The general research
question of the project can be phrased as: 'How is
the exclusion and inclusion of members of cultural and linguistic minority groups
produced in interactive learning processes in the classroom?. .
The project had a three-part design. Central were
the interactions in the classroom. Next information was gathered on the
perceptions of both pupils and teachers about what goes on in the classroom.
The research is carried out in collaboration between linguists, psychologists,
specialists in math education, and anthropologists specialised in the Moroccan
immigrant community.
The main data that we
gathered are video and audio recordings of a series of math lessons on the
topic of 'graphs' in each of the two schools. The teachers were working from
the same chapter in the same textbook (which only slightly differed in some
assignments). The recordings were made using three camera's and additional
microphones. The teacher wore a wireless microphone. In Spring 2000 we recorded
an additional 4 lessons in the same classes at both schools. For reasons of
comparison the same student groups were videotaped in other lessons, like
biology. After each lesson parts of the tapes were played to the teacher as
part of a stimulated recall interview.
He was asked for general comments on the course of the lesson and to give
explicit comments on some fragments selected by the researchers. The students
were also asked to comment on parts of the lessons. We had stimulated recall
interviews with more than half of the
students at the Suncollege and with all students from the observed class at the
Rainbow college. All interviews were audiotaped. All lessons and interviews
were transcribed for analysis.
The Sun and the
Rainbowcollege are both schools with about 800 students, located in the same
part of one of the Dutch big cities. The neigbourhood was built in the sixtees
and seventies with many relatively cheap houses and flats, and has a
multi-ethnic population.The two classes selected for study both were at the
level of lower general secondary education, but their place in the broader
school organization differed. The Sun is a school for lower, intermediate and
higher general secondary education, the Rainbow College offers lower vocational
training and lower general secondary
education. So in the Sun the class we studied was expected to consist of lowest
achievers of the school, whereas children in the class at the Rainbow were
expected to be the best performers of their year.
Both schools contain a mixed
population of both native Dutch and ethnic minority students. At the Sun most
ethnic minority students are located in the lowest educational level. In the
class we studied, 10 out of 26 students
(38%) had native Dutch parents, three of them being Moroccan. The school
population at large contained about 75 % native Dutch students and 25 % ethnic
minority students. A number of the Dutch
students do not live in the neighbourhood, but in a middle class suburb close
by. At the Rainbow college, the school population reflected that of the neigbourhood:
25% native Dutch, 25 % Moroccan, 25% Turkish and 25% of other ethnic
backgrounds. The school is known as a so-called 'black school. . In the
class at the Rainbow 15 out of 25 students are non native, eight of them being
Moroccan.
The two math teachers are
native Dutch males. They differ in their position in the school, age, and
teaching experience. Harry of the Sun, a grey haired man in his fiftees, is
member of the school management as a coordinator of the first grade. As a maths
teacher, Harry has a long experience on both lower, intermediate and higher
general secondary education. Ron of the Rainbow is a boyish man of about 27
years old. As yet he is not very experienced as a maths teacher and he carries
no other responsibilities in the school.
The pupil behaviour as it has
been observed in the maths classes in both schools
may be classified into two main
categories:
I participation in formal curricular
activities, including working ahead or for other lessons, as far as approved by
the teacher;
II non-participation in formal curricular
activities, including behaviour in which pupils only pretend to participate.
The phenomena of the second
category are our main interest here.
Although the qualitative data
are central in this paper, I will first offer a rough indication of the extent
to which students are perceived by the teacher to tresspass his rules. To this
aim the (verbal) admonitions, in the first series of lessons recorded in the
autumn of 1999, were counted.
For further
qualitative analysis, nonparticipation is characterized with the help of the
dimensions passive-active and non-oppositional-oppositional (e.g. Wubbels, x):
1.
passive
non-participation (e.g. daydreaming, staring, sleeping);
2.
active non-participation,
more or less disruptive but not intentionally oppositional to
the teacher. s authority;
3.
active oppositional
behaviour.
Two remarks should be made before describing the observed behaviours
according to this classification. Firstly, the same behaviour may
be inspired by different intentions, which cannot always be inferred from
the observed actions. For instance, if pupils display disruptive behaviour, it
may not be clear whether they intend to challenge the teacher or are just
out for some fun. Secondly, between and among themselves, students and teachers may
differ with respect to what student and teacher behaviour is considered proper
or intolerable in given circumstances. For instance, spontaneous verbal
participation of students in interactions with the teacher, or horizontal
student-student interactions, may be welcomed or negatively sanctioned by
teachers, depending on their preference and teaching style. Students and
teachers may emphasise the other. s role in students. disruptive behavior
(Verkuyten, 2001). For these reasons it may be difficult to categorize the
observed behaviour unequivocally and student's and teacher. s perspectives
are needed to enable interpretation. In this section, I will present some
examples of the various types of (active) non-participation.
According to scholarly literature, most students
fall between the two extremes of persistent non-participation or complete
identification with the learning process. Usually they are partially involved
in the lesson, accepting the goals of education and the means to achieve them,
but trying to make up for the waiting and the boredom of school life (e.g.
Matthijssen, 1986).
This is exactly what we see Maktoub doing in
the following summary of part of a teacher-fronted lesson in The Sun. He
carefully listens to the teacher and tries to attract his attention several times, in
the meantime engaging in unobtrusive parallel activities close to the
teacher. s script. When his first two appeals are ignored by the teacher, he
softly utters some abusive words. After having successfully caught the teacher.
s attention and having been praised publicly by him, his attention drifts
away from the teacher. s script and he starts referring to romantic
couples among his classmates.
(The Rainbow, 161299) After the
explanation of chapter 5, Barbara packed her bag and raised her finger: . I
have finished everything, may I ( )?. . The teacher
approves, some time after which Barbara produces a book which she subsequently does
little with. She hides behind it for some time (just as Samantha next
to her), and seems to be eating on the sly. She is chattering with Samantha
and the girls behind her. There is an incident involving the teacher. s
intervention: Barbara has taken away Oumnia. s diary. Barbara has
packed her bag again well before the end of the lesson. Leila, who sits
diagonally in front of Barbara, tries to concentrate on her work but is
disturbed repeatedly by her neighbours.
Nouzha: sir, may (
) sit over there
Tatjana: yes sir
D: you
can to the central reception
Nouzha: I only want to ( ) last chance I beg you
Samira: (had
already been sent into the corridor, comes to the door opened by Nouzha) can I
get my purse from my jacket
D: no
Nouzha: can I stay there ((points to desk
in front of class))
Tatjana: yes can
Samira: can I get my ( )
Tatjana: yes that. s OK
D: you
may go there ((points to corridor))
Nouzha: ( )
D: I
think I have been clear enough
Nouzha: sir can I stay there
D: you
can to the central reception
Nouzha: I beg you
Tatjana: she. s begging you again
Nouzha: can I sit there now? yes?
D: ((waves
Nouzha away))
T: yes
sir GOOD
Almost immediately afterwards, Tatjana
raises her finger and asks if she can go to the toilet. The teacher
says no and Tatjana . I suppose I. ll have to do it on the floor.
.
D: Tatjana
whatever you do I am not sending you out
((laughter))
Tatjana: ( )
D: yes
young lady even if you hang from the ceiling
((laughter))
T: then
I will start to listen.
(The
Rainbow, 131299)
D: If
I turn my back on you again in a minute to write on the board and some people
again think it is a good idea to start talking then fine they can go and join
Halil (excluded earlier)
Nouzha:
yeah is that possible?
D: then I will see you back here for
the eighth and ninth hour
Nouzha:
don't have to
D:
and
so I will do it
((bustle))
Samira:
of course not, sir because we
have whatsit then ( ) have to eat
D: maybe you are not listening
carefully, but people who disturb me without permission
Samira:
impossible sir eight and
ninth don't exist
Nouzha:
quiet
other
student: quiet
D: To
whom this is not clear?
((Mustafa
raises finger))
D: ((to Mustafa)) what it means is when I am writing on the
board shortly and I hear you talking I will say Mustafa go away and I will see
you back here at three o'clock and I will give you a lesson between three and
quarter to four
L: ( )
D: now
from three to quarter to four I will give you a lesson /
L: ( ) really?
D: now
good we will do it aftwerwards you will still be there /
Farouk
K.: but that will be in your
free time
D: right,
but I will stay at school for you
Farouk
K.: that's fine then
Contrary to The Sun, almost all recorded lessons at
The Rainbow contain incidents of students quarrelling with each other. In
the following section from one of the lessons recorded near the end of the
school year, we see several of such instances. Whereas the measure of unrest in
the maths class at The Sun appears to have remained stable or even dropped somewhat
in the second series of recordings, the maths teacher at The Rainbow has
lost much of his hold over the students as the next transcript makes abundantly clear.
An indication is given by the fact that only 13 of the (24)
students have turned up at this lesson. Truancy has increased considerably, according to the
teacher: . I have a 6th and 7th hour and a first and second hour.
Well yes, the people who oversleep aren. t there at the beginning and
the truants aren. t there at the end. .
Oumnia Sir, they are taking my bags.
((bustle))
Oumnia Can I get my calculator?
D No,
work it out in your head.
Oumnia I need it.
D Just
in your head
Oumnia Yes but I can't. I will just go and
get it. (Oumnia gets the calculator)
((bustle))
D (?)
turn it off, do you hear. Or you will be sorry.
((bustle))
D Can
you just behave yourself as well
Oumnia Yes he is doing!
D Yes
and you too.
Erik
So, and you do nothing
D
She not with you and you not with her. Then we will all be happy
and now just stop!
Oumnia
Sir, he is kicking my chair.
Erik
Yes I did but it was an accident
Oumnia
Oh yeah, of course.
((bustle))
D
Dillan!
Dillan
Yes.
D
Get your things.
L
and get out
D
and sit outside
Dillan
What?
D
Sit outside
Oumnia
Sir?
Erik
Sir, she is hitting me.
Oumnia
Stop.
D
Azedinne, get your things too. You can go with Dillan.
Azedinne
Where to?
D
You can go with Dillan.
L
Outside.
D
Outside.
Azedinne
Why?
D
Now, maybe you will do something there.
Oumnia
Give up!
Martin
I swear I am not doing anything! On my mother. s life!
D
I will see you back in this room at a quarter to four.
Azedinne
I have to go
Martin
I have to leave at quarter to four.
D
And now you have a lesson, so I would get a move on or you will
have to stay behind there too.
L
Sir, I want to say something.
Oumnia
I will stay now, then I can go to Ms Towell with a yellow card.
LL
(Everyone says that s/he cannot stay behind)
L
Sir, can I stay behind for an hour tomorrow?
D
I think I have been very clear.
L
And if we do not come now?
Oumnia
Sir, I have to go to the hospital, honestly. Do I have to bring a
letter from my mother that I have to go to the hospital?
L
Sir, do I have to bring a letter from my trainer that I have to
selection training?
L
I will just not come
Oumnia
Can I stay behind for an hour tomorrow?
Just as there is no universal model of the ideal
student, there is no universal model of the ideal teacher or of the
optimal teacher-student relationship. However, it is considered possible
to formulate a number of minimal criteria which teachers must meet in
order to avoid demotivation and prevent order problems in class. According
to Créton and Wubbels (1984), pedagogical or relational aspects of teacher
behaviour are crucial. In line with Leary (1957) there are two dimensions
to interpersonal behaviour, i.e. power and proximity. Both dimensions are
also the main focus of literature on child rearing which
refers to them as control and support (e.g. Nijsten, 2000).
According to research by Créton and Wubbels (1984)
teachers are particularly effective when they combine support with
leadership. Supportive behaviour can be further specified as: being
interested in students, having a sense of humour and appreciating jokes,
being responsive. Leadership behaviour is behaviour with which teachers
inspire respect in their students. On the one hand leadership involves
giving students space, taking them seriously as individual people and
calling on their responsibility for themselves; on the other hand
leadership involves providing structure and clear rules where necessary.
If order problems arise, teachers should be able to correct pupils and to
do so consistently. In addition to teaching pupils the necessary things
and explaining clearly and in a stimulating fashion, these aspects of .
being a good teacher. are characteristic of the ideal images of both teachers and
students (see also Matthijssen, 1991; Verkuyten, 2001).
L: How long is there left?
D: To live?
L: (.....)
D: A long time, I hope.
L: (...) the lesson?
D: The lesson! Do you know how that sounds to me?
L: (.....) my old teacher (...) at (33.0) my other
school. She's just had a baby.
D: That's nice.
L: (.....)
D: That's nice, when, when are you going?
(....etc.)
L2 :
What you're doing is much better.
D
: (...)
L1 :
Why do not all teachers give it in advance, can we work on it if there's
nothing to do.
D
: Yes, but , it's a bit easier with math. It's good isn't it,
because you can plan a bit for it yourself. If you have to go and train
for a particular subject or sport.
L1 :
Yes, then you can do a bit more the next day.
L2 :
Quiet now.
(Rainbow, 161299) Almost right at the start of the
lesson, while the teacher is telling the students about what is going to
happen, Samira is given her first warning (talking with neighbour). She
nods humbly. After the test has been raised Samira raises her finger.
Judging from her attitude the question is urgent, in the meantime she is
also busy talking with her neighbour Leila. Samira catches teacher. s eye
and says (softly), beckoning with her hand , "sir, come here". Teacher
says something like no, I am now going to explain, wait a minute, and
Samira reacts angrily . there won't be any point in a minute!". From that
moment on she talks constantly to Leila, who listens but also keeps an eye
on the teacher. She pushes Leila to get more attention and this earns her
a 4th reprimand, at least according to the teacher, who keeps a count on
the board. According to Samira it is the 3rd warning! After that Samira
continues to talk to Leila, until the teacher sends her out of the class:
"every time I look you are chattering!". Samira sputters and tries to save
herself by saying that she is looking in her book (or is going to look).
The teacher persists and Azedinne calls . Samira just go now!. , at which
she reluctantly disappears.
D:
now I've got the table I have to
Nordin:
graph ( )
D:
get your things
(56.0) ((teacher waits, students are noisy))
D:
now I have to draw a graph from this table they always say draw the
axes first. We know all about axes from chapter 2
(18.0)
D:
these are the axes and I don't have to do anything else Faroek K.
(5.0)
D:
you often see draw the axes with a sawtooth you have to do that and
I'll tell you why ((Nouzha puts her finger in the air)) no no questions
yet
Nouzha:
no I (1.0) how many squares
D:
(...) I now have a few people with ssssss
((background noise))
D:
I've looked at a few people's work and a lot of people have done
this ((draws something on the board)) it's clear that this isn't the idea
((laughter)) ((pupils all talk at the same time))
Azedinne:
((puts finger in the air)) Sir, I know how to do Sir, I know
D:
Azedinne I'm getting a bit tired of you
As illustrated in these sequences, the manner of some
of the pupils is often seen as an order disruption in those cases where
pupils are actually involved. Some of the boys, Azedinne and Nordin in
particular, ask enthusiastically on several occasions for a turn at
drawing graphs on the board; their requests are always refused.
During individual work the teacher walks through the
class mainly to control the students; those with questions can turn to him
at his desk for help. This way, he says in one of the interviews, they do
not have to admit their lack of insight in front of the whole class.
However, it probably takes more courage to cross the classroom than to
signal the teacher for help when he is nearby, as in The Sun.
(Sun,
151199)
D
: I really think it's a pain if people don't pay attention. I'm not
going to explain a sum all that often. So when I do explain something it
really is something important. So you've got to pay attention, Edwin
L
: Yes.
The teacher at The Rainbow
usually resorts to techniques of power assertion, by warning,
shouting, lecturing and by threats of punishment or actual sanctions, such
as sending students out of the classroom, making them stay behind after
school, or writing lines. There was very little evidence of inductive
methods, or of any reasoning about the rules.
(Rainbow, 161299) The teacher has said a couple of
times that the pupils shouldn't all shout but should put their finger in
the air. Nordin raises his hand, and after a while has both hands in the
air. He claps his hands to get teacher. s attention - but in vain.
Azedinne also raises his hand, and shouts . Sir. a number of times and then
clicks his fingers. After a while they're all talking at the same time,
with their hands still in the air. The teacher, who has already warned
both boys, tells Azedinne off. A bit later, and still with their hands in
the air, he asks when they'll be finished, and whether they really do want
to stay behind Then he says: . if you continue to make such a noise then
you'll be back here later today. Just cooperate, so I can listen to
someone else's questions. . . Azedinne: . but I've had my hand in the air
for an hour.... . . It's not your turn. .
D
: Maktoub, what can you see on this graph?
Mak : Well eh.
L2 :
Your weight
L3 :
How many kilos you weigh.
L4 :
(
)
Mak : Well, well, the
first point is sixty kilos. There isn't a second point, we move on to the
next one. This is eh
D
: You can see that it's about me.
Mak : Yes.
D
: You can see that from the name. You can see it's about
weight.
((
Pupils all talk at the same time))
Toni : The weight of your
brains.
D
: Yes. So what has happened to me?
L
: You've put on weight.
D
: You think I've put on weight.
L1 :
Yes definitely.
L2 :
You can also see it Sir.
L3 :
You've lost weight.
D
: Eh, Deniz.
Deniz : I think you, because there
you.
L2 :
To the highest point.
L3 :
You go up and then you go straight down again, right down.
D
: Yes, and.
Deniz : Yes, and then you go up
again.
D
: That is an argument. Who else has an argument? Yes?
(( background noise)) (31,0)
D
: I want to hear more arguments. Zakaria.
Zakaria
: ((stands up and gesticulates excitedly)) Sir look, it's the other
way around.
D
: They're the other way around, because
Zakaria
: (
) that only goes down.
Zakaria
: Look, at the beginning it's ( ) If you go to buy something you see (
) little money. You go to the bank. You're there, then the money goes up.
(
). Then you go off to the shopping centre (
).
L3 :
How do you know that?
Zakaria
: And humour from the coach, that's different. For (
)
((laughing and noise; Toni gets up and shouts
something to Zakaria))
Toni : Yes but Zakaria, but
Zakaria, you can also be 1-0 behind (...) you're not happy
D
: Toni, Nouzha
((noise))
D
: Oh, I think it's great you're enthusiastic, but ( )
quiet. Eh. Hennia, wants to say something and then we'll take a vote.
Zakaria takes advantage of the opportunity to give a
performance. Interestingly, the teacher, according to his reflections
after the lesson, seems to interpret Zakaria. s contribution in terms of
involvement only in the assignment, whereas the pupils interviewed clearly
interpreted this episode as Zakaria showing off.
As will be clear by now, the teacher at The Rainbow does
allow for fewer opportunities for pupils to participate on their own
terms. A vertical one-to-one interaction prevails in the teacher-fronted
lesson parts, and students. answers are explicitly evaluated so that a
competitive atmosphere is created. The next incident shows that students
do not like too open displays of a competitive attitude. They certainly do
like the opportunity to interact horizontally. If the opportunity does not
come willingly they do not hesitate to enforce it as in the following
examples.
(Rainbow, 171299, biology) D. asks whether anyone
knows a different word for skeleton. Spontaneous answers: carcass. Erik
(with hand in the air): . yes, I wanted to say that as well. . Another
pupil: . ( ) Erik!. . A bit of a
dispute between Erik and a number of pupils follows. Some of them
(Tatjana, Barbara) make a gesture with their hand on their throat. Erik
complains to the teacher that they're threatening him. Farouk K: . keep
quiet, Erik!. .
(Rainbow, 080600)
E
: What do I have to read out?
L
: 2a
E
: I mean, I really do know, I was only joking, 2a.
D
: Eric, will you read out all of sum two and not just 2a.
E
: Where should I start?
D
: Will you just read out sum 2?
E
: yes.
L
: Start reading, then.
L2 :
Sum 2
L3 :
Read.
L4 :
What a Belgian.
E
: Here it comes.
L6 :
What a Belgian? You are a bunch of racists.
D
: Sst.
To conclude, it appears that the teacher at The Sun
meets the minimal conditions to keep students at the job and motivated
better than the teacher at The Rainbow. This conclusion is reflected in
the students. appraisals of their math teachers, as expressed in the
after-lesson interviews. According to Edith and Hennia, pupils at The Sun
are attentive because they know that the teacher will intervene if they
misbehave. The teacher is appreciated for his supportive attitude, for the
manner in which he explains the subject matter and for the time he invests
in individual help. As Nouzha and Hennia state, he is rather funny and he
offers his students the opportunity to participate and come forward with
their own opinions.
With respect to the teacher at The Rainbow, Johnny
volunteers that he does not listen. Even if you try to be nice, the next
time he is sullen again. Nouzha thinks he punishes too easily, for the
smallest things. Meryem
evaluates the teacher. s way of explaining things as reasonably adequate,
but Sabine resorts to Meryem's explanation. Both think it is boring;
according to Sabine it would be enhanced by the use of more elaborated
stories and Meryem is already familiar with the subject matter. She also
complaints about the fact that she often has nothing to do because she has
finished all her assignments.
5. Perceptions of students and teachers
How far the students go in this direction appears to
be related both to the pedagogical context and with student
characteristics such as ethnicity andgender, although the within-group
variation is considerable. On the whole, as we saw in section 2,
non-indigenous students seem to stand out as a result of a more pronounced
self-presentation. In this section, I will examine if and how engagement,
disengagement and disruption are perceived and how they are explained by
the students and teachers, by reference to the interviews held after the
lessons. My main question here is to what extent and in what way ethnicity
plays a role in their representations of what happens in the classroom.
We think that you can make an agreement, be honest,
and then these children think: oh, I got off easily there, (( )) I now
turn things around the other way, I punish first and talk afterwards.
Because I can also talk more honestly then, because before that, if I did
not do it, they think: this is just negotiating about my punishment. The
more smart things I say now, the less punishment I will get. Whereas, if
the punishment is already clear, in the sense that it is going to happen,
and I then talk about it not happening again, they do not feel the need to
negotiate.
Interestingly, the (Turkish) student supervisor of
The Sun has an entirely different explanation for the expressive behaviour
of the non-indigenous students. Based on conversations with them, she is
convinced that their minority status plays a significant role. Because of
their low status in society and the negative stigmas with which they are
confronted every day, upon entering school these students are very
sensitive about how they are treated as a person. In her view, their
attention-seeking behaviour should be understood within this context. To
find out where they stand, they provoke the teachers.
(The Rainbow, interview 100600) . I recently saw that
er, what was it called, that Kwik, Kwak and Kwek on TV..Now they also have
hats, and they also walk along with baseball bats and, (they) used to be
sweet little ducklings, but they are now right little thugs. .
(The Rainbow, interview 061299) ' ... in that
respect I find it hard to imagine what those students know and what not.
Apart from that, some students were born here. Or the non-indigenous
students that were born here, so they know it. But other students were not
born here and who do not know it. Probably, or not some of them. And
someone else again who comes out of the language lesson and doesn't know a
few words, or, there again, maybe he does because he has learned so well.
It just varies so much that you have no clear view of it' .
In summary, students and teachers agree that certain
students are more 'present' than others, both in the way they participate
in formal curricular activities and in the way they participate in peer
group activities. In both groups, it is mostly non-indigenous individuals
who are considered prone to this expressive manner and disruptive to
others. However, ethnicity and related cultural factors are hardly
mentioned in attempts to explain troublesome behaviour and disengagement
among students. The students mainly mention factors on the level of
school, e.g. the quality of the teacher and subject matter; with respect
to students. characteristics, gender and involvement in criminal
activities are mentioned as relevant. A differentiated and partly
individualized view of this type is also espoused by the teacher of The
Rainbow. His only reference to the ethnic background of students relates
to the Ramadan. Surprisingly, it is at The Sun, the school with a much
greater ethnic mix, that reference is made to ethno-cultural factors, and
very explicitly at that. Also, the maths teacher, who is also the mentor
for the junior classes, attaches a culturalistic outlook to the matter: he
traces the behaviour of non-indigenous students back to their personal
interaction culture and their disadvantage with gaps in the education. The
Turkish student supervisor attaches a more structuralistic view to the
matter and sees social exclusion as the primary cause of the provocative
behaviour of the non-indigenous students. Remarkebly, the role of the
teacher and of the participation structure in the classroom remains
unnoticed by the professionals.
Both the quantitative and the qualitative analyses
warrant some general conclusions.
Firstly, the degree of rule violation depends
strongly on the situational context. Teachers. definition of the situation
and their pedagogical habitus do make a difference in the extent to
which students disengage from the formal curricular activities and to
which the activities they turn to are disruptive to the classroom order
and underme their authority. Students respond more favourably to the
teacher that is supportive, personally interested, appeals to their
responsibility, induces respect but does not assume a patronizing manner
and allows them to participate in ways that agree with preferred ways of
socializing with their peers.
Secondly it appears that students differ according to
ethnicity, in that non-indigenous students generally are perceived to be
more assertive in their selfpresentation, both vis a vis the teacher and
the audience of peers. Boys stand out for their manifest presence in class
also, but among the non-indigenous students gender differences seem to be
less pronounced. The students. assertiveness is not to be (solely)
equalled with disengagement. They are both more prone to rule violation
and disruptive behaviour, and assertive in the way they participate in the
curricular activities. In both cases the driving force seems to be a
strong need to be noticed and to be affirmed (see also Van Zanten, in
press).
Thirdly, an interaction effect can be seen to operate
between teachers and students. One teacher does not acknowledge this need
of affirmation, but instead takes the behavior concerned, this .
attention-seeking. as he calls it rather depreciatingly, as another
manifestation of nonconformism. His answer to it is rejection which, added
to the omnipresence of control in his interaction with students, serves to
diminish students. willingness to cooperate. The other teacher represents
the opposite picture. He does acknowledge the students. need of
affirmation and consciously aims at bolstering their self-confidence. To a
greater extent he allows them the floor on their own conditions, taking
for granted the noisiness that comes along with their enthusiasm.
One question as yet remains open and that is how the
assertiveness of the non-indigenous students is to be explained.
Surely, the thesis of cultural discontinuity between
family and school is not corroborated in so far as it assumes docility in
students, resulting from the authoritarian socialization at home. The
indigenous students have appeared to be more docile in the classroom.
Differences in conceptions and practices of learning could well be assumed
to play a role in explaining for the attention-seeking of the students. If
rote learning and the display of knowledge is accentuated, this can lead
to dependence on the initiatives and approval of the teacher, even more in
a context in which students are supposed to actively construct
mathematical knowledge.
The thesis of cultural discontinuity needs
qualification for other reasons as well. Firstly, the present study is
concerned with young people in further education, who usually have a
number of years experience in the Dutch educational system. Secondly, as
stated in section 2 peers in the age group concerned become increasingly
important. Thirdly, and this is most important, this view does not easily
account for people. s adaptability nor for the complexities of situational
identity or of multiple social identities acquired by an individual over
time, or the active role that children can play in their own socialization
(e.g. eisenhart, 2001). According to Dutch research into the pedagogical
agreement between family and school, further education students are also
little inclined to change this situation. They would prefer to keep
control of the contact to themselves (Veugelers & De Kat (1998). The
peer group exists in both contexts and for students it therefore forms the bridge
between them. All this should mean that the peer thesis,
the role of and interactions between peers deserves more attention.
This might even be more true of non-indigenous
adolescents. Although independence from parents generally is less
stimulated within their families, one domain is clearly excepted: that of
education. With respect to this domain non-indigenous adolescents are
granted a considerable autonomy, far exceeding that of their indigenous
classmates (Coenen, 2001; Van der Hoek, 1994). This may contribute to
their assertive manner at school. Several studies point to the fact that
peers are more important to them as socializing agents than they are to
indigenous youth. Both in the educational domain and in the domains of
leisure and relationships the adolescents are faced with new questions and
demands. They can not always share these at home, for instance because
their parents have insufficient knowledge of the educational system or
reject the youth culture. Thus, peers can compensate for the lack of
support offered by parents (e.g. Crul, 2000; Pels, 2000). Following the
same line of argument, non-indigenous students might be more vulnerable to
negative peer influences also.
The student supervisor of the Sun has pointed to a
third explanation, which does not exclude the peer thesis: the experience
or fear of structural constraints and stigmatization can lead to an
offensive attitude. That non-indigenous in the Netherlands are excluded on
the labour market and are subject to negative stereotyping has been widely
documented (e.g. Dagevos, Odé & Pels, 1999). Their parents mainly have
reacted to these adversities by being silent and defensive. Their children
seem to have chosen differently. They aspire to succeed at school, but
also socially, in the here and now.
Bois-Reymond, M. du (1994). Die moderne Familie und
Verhandlungshaushalt. Eltern-Kind-Beziehung in West- und Ostdeutschland
und in den Niederlanden. In M. du Bois-Reymond, P. Büchner,
H. Krüger, J. Ecarius, & B. Fuhs. Kinderleben.
Modernisierung von Kindheit im interkulturellen Vergleich (pp.
137-219). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Crul, M. (2000). De sleutel tot
succes. Over hulp, keuzes en kansen in de schoolloopbanen van Turkse en
Marokkaanse jongeren van de tweede generatie. Amsterdam: Het
Spinhuis.
D. Amato, J. (1993). Resistance and compliance in
minority classrooms. In: E. Jacob and C. Jordan (Eds.) Minority
Education: Anthropological Perspectives, 181-208. Norwood: Ablex
Publishing.
Dagevos, J., A. Odé & T. Pels (1999). Etnisch-culturele
verschillen en maatschappelijke integratie van minderheden. Rotterdam,
ISEO/Erasmus Universiteit.
Dieleman, A.J., Lans, J. van der (red.), Bogt, T.
ter, Daalen, R. van, Meijers, F., Mommaas, H., Pels, T. & Veugelers,
W.M.M.H. (1999). Heft in eigen handen. Zelfsturing en sociale
betrokkenheid bij jongeren. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Distelbrink, M. & Pels, T. (2000). Opvoeding in
het gezin en integratie in het onderwijs. In: Pels, T. (ed.). Opvoeding en
integratie. Een vergelijkende studie van recente onderzoeken naar
gezinsopvoeding en pedagogische afstemming tussen gezin en school (pp.
114-139).
Assen: Van Gorcum.
Matthijsen, M.A.J.M. (1993). Lessen in orde
voor immigranten: Leerlingperspectieven van allochtonen in het
voortgezet onderwijs. Amersfoort: Academische
Uitgeverij.
Meeus, W., Pels, T. & Vollebergh, W. (1999).
Etnische verschillen in de oriëntatie van jongeren op ouders en
leeftijdgenoten. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 38,
357-368.
Nijsten, C. (2000). Opvoedingsgedrag. In: Pels, T.
(ed.). Opvoeding en integratie. Een vergelijkende studie van
recente onderzoeken naar gezinsopvoeding en pedagogische afstemming tussen
gezin en school (pp. 56-88). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Ogbu, J.U. & H.D. Simons (1998). Voluntary and
involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance
with some implications for education. Anthropology
& Education Quarterly, 2, 155-189.
Ogbu, J.U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity
and learning. Educational Researcher, 8, 5-14.
Ogbu, J.U. (1995). Community forces
and minority educational strategies: a comparative study. Final report
student survey. Berkeley; Dept. of Anthropology, University of
California (unpublished manuscript).
Pels, T & Nijsten, C. (coming forward). Myths and
realities of diversity in parenting and parent-child relations:
non-indigenous compared to indigenous families in the Netherlands. In: L.
Hagendoorn, J. Veenman & W. Vollebergh (Eds.). Assimilation and
Integration of Immigrants in the Netherlands.
Pels, T. & Nijsten, C. (2000). Jongeren over hun
opvoeding. In: Pels, T. (ed.). Opvoeding en integratie. Een vergelijkende studie van
recente onderzoeken naar gezinsopvoeding en pedagogische afstemming tussen
gezin en school (pp. 88-114). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Swaan, A. de (1979). Uitgaansbeperking en
uitgaansangst. Over de verschuiving van bevelshuishouding naar
onderhandelingshuishouding. De Gids, 142, 81-115.
Veugelers, W. & Kat, E. de (1998). Opvoeden in het
voortgezet onderwijs. Leerlingen, ouders en docenten over de pedagogische
opdracht en de afstemming tussen gezin en school. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Zanten, Van (2001). L'école de la périphérie.
Scolarité et ségrégation en banlieue. Paris: Presses universitaires de
France.
