Changes in the Beliefs and Practices of School Teachers as the Basis for Independent Action of Adolescents. Institutional Approach

Independence is one of the key results of modern school education, which is recorded in documents and reports at various levels. Research directly on independence is difficult, since there is no single approach to the operationalization of this phenomenon. The article attempts to fix the trend of destructuring and describe the features of its course in the beliefs and practices of school teachers of one general education school. As conceived by the author, this approach opens up prospects for theoretical and empirical understanding of the independent and initiative action of the student in the institute of school. For this, three elements of the institutional structure of the school were identified: rituals, disciplinary practices, the type of relationship between the teacher and the student, and the ways of destructuring in each element were described: refusal, mitigation, creation of new practices. The basis of the qualitative study was interviews with fifteen teachers from a primary and secondary school in a residential area of Moscow. The author comes to the conclusion that the process of destructuring is slower compared to other spheres of public life due to the limitations outlined in the article. The results of an empirical study can be useful for studying the independent and proactive behavior of an adolescent in the space of the school by teachers with varying degrees of rigidity in their practices, by teachers who use practices that are not typical for the institute of the school.

Introduction

In modern studies of education, there is an interest in the topic of children's independence [10]. Several works are focused on the study of independence (and related constructs) as a means of successfully mastering the educational programme. For example, within the framework of the theory of self-determination of personality, E.L. Daisy and R.M. Ryan (SDT) solves the problems of insufficient internal learning motivation, interest and engagement of students [13; 15; 16; 22; 24]. The constructs of self-regulated learning [21] and the analogue of ‘learning independence’ [5] are also ‘responsible’ for the academic result. Both constructs imply in general terms the student's ability to plan, control and evaluate the learning process. On the other hand, international reports and educational standards postulate the need to develop non-cognitive skills and personal characteristics, including the ability to take proactive action, initiative and agency [8; 12; 20]. With all the variety of constructs that describe the phenomenon of children's independence in the field of successful learning, there is a lack of theoretical attempts to comprehend and operationalise it in the field of achieving personal and non-cognitive outcomes.

The role of institutions, including schools, in the development of certain qualities of an individual is evaluated ambiguously. Classical institutional theories postulate the crucial role of institutions in shaping and regulating behaviour [11]. In the traditional sense, the institution of a school is a strict regulatory system. E. Goffman, describing such structures, uses the term ‘total institutions.’ He believes that they block the ability to control their behaviour, lack the right to choose roles and the possibility of free expression of will [3]. Current school practices prescribe to the child their place (desk), way of communicating with teachers (from the position of a subordinate), time to speak (raised hand), opportunities to act (when allowed by the teacher), ways to learn (didactics). On the one hand, according to this approach, there are no spaces for free action of the child in the school, which significantly limits the opportunities for developing independence. On the other hand, today there is an empirical trend of destructuring or reducing the stability of structures [6; 11]. In his article ‘Annual Review of Sociology’, American sociologist Lars Udehn argues that at the present stage of the development of institutions, the individual's action becomes less structured and less regulated [25]. The process of ‘destructuration’ (reducing the stability, rigidity of structures and their binding force in relation to action) also occurs in the field of education [11]. A review of the literature allowed us to identify the features of this process in key public institutions [11; 17; 25]:

• there is a decrease in the stability of the structure, increased volatility;
• the binding force of the structure in relation to individual action is reduced.

In search of a space for independent action at school, we decided to compare the classical and modern sociological views of the institution of school. It seems to us that the analysis of existing school practices and teachers' perceptions through the prism of the process of destructuration will allow us to detect and describe the nature of changes in the school institution and, if they are fixed, it will open up the future the opportunity to study independent behaviour of students, understood as initiative, transformative, individual behaviour. To narrow down the search, we have identified three key elements of the school structure as the most institutionalised, with established strict rules and scenarios: rituals, disciplinary practices and the type of teacher–student relationship. Udehn metaphorically described the destructuring process as a transition from a logical scenario to a game with flexible rules [25]. We will use this metaphor as a basis for analysing existing practices and views.

Organisation of the Research

The purpose of the study is to fix and describe the process of destructuring in the institute of school as one of the conditions for the development of independent behaviour of the students. To achieve it, several tasks were solved:

- highlight elements for analysis in the views and described practices of teachers;

- highlight the signs of destructuring in each element through the scenario approach;

- typology of practices and ideas for each selected element.

The work was carried out within the framework of a qualitative methodology. The analysis was based on semi-structured interviews. As part of a pilot empirical study, we studied the views of 15 teachers of mathematics, Russian, history, computer science, English and biology in the main and secondary general education schools of the residential district of a large Russian metropolis with at least 3 years of work experience. The sample was formed randomly. The principal sent letters to the internal mail of the school with an offer to participate in the interview. Twenty people responded. The sample size was determined based on the criterion of maximising the information received: when we began to receive responses from informants similar to those already available, it was decided to stop data collection. The age of teachers varies from 25 to 60 years.

Interview Process

Interviews were conducted from November 2021 to January 2022 using the zoom service. The informants agreed to use the audio recording and transcript of the interview for research purposes. To ensure the confidentiality of the collected data, we do not disclose the names of teachers and the school number. Interviews lasted up to 2 hours, with an average of about 1.5 hours. The interviews were organised as free ones, based on an approximate list of questions from the guide, which is shown in Table 1. The questions in the table are divided into three groups corresponding to each element of the structure.

Table 1

Elements of the school's institutional structure

In the process of analysing the data, the following methods were used: condensation of meaning and interpretation [1; 4].

1. Condensation of meaning. When transcribing, we got a large amount of material (about 200 sheets of printed text), which had to be shortened without losing meaning.

2. Interpretation. Each category element required additional interpretation, as the data needed to be placed in a broader institutional context and described from the point of view of the destructuring process.

Results

Element 1: Rituals

The course of the lesson, its beginning and end are traditionally filled with ritual practices. Most rituals demonstrate the teacher's power over children. There are two ways to implement ritual practices. Either teachers keep them, or there is a refusal of ritual actions. Let's divide the teachers' responses into two groups. The first group adhered to a strict scenario, put it differently, they used the rituals of the lesson that were traditional in the institute of the school. The other group chose not to use them (Table 2).

Table 2

Groups of teachers' responses depending on the way of implementing a ritual practices

Element 2: Disciplinary practices and rules

Disciplinary practices and the rules of conduct that have developed over time at the institute of school have the greatest binding force in relation to the child.

Teachers' responses to discipline and rules can be arranged on a continuum from the harder scenarios to the soft ones. The results of the classification of teachers' responses are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Discipline scenario is located on the soft–hard practice continuum

In the responses of teachers, describing their practices, there is a softening of the forms of disciplinary action. Teachers use such methods of discipline as an explanation, after-school conversations, additional tasks, make attempts to interest, involve through a discussion, a problem situation, explaining the meaning, goal setting. Such practices are characterised by a more complex, detailed system of influence, which requires time and effort on the part of teachers, in contrast to more concise and simple forms such as, for example, raising voice. More rigid methods of discipline were used in the weaker classes. For such ‘weak’, ‘difficult’ classes, soft ways of disciplining are rather a privilege.

Most of the contradictions were found in the answers about the measure of freedom in the classroom, the situation of choice. On the one hand, there is a certain degree of making it easier. Teachers try to increase the number of situations where the child can choose: the type of tasks (difficult or not, from the list), the method of deciding whether to do homework or not. But on the other hand, the choice was often implemented according to the scheme of no alternative. Teachers admit that the lesson is not a place for freedom of expression.

Element 3. Type of teacher–student relationship.

We were able to identify two types of relationships between children and teachers: vertical and horizontal relationships (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Diagram of the types of relationships between teachers and students based on the results of qualitative data analysis: horizontal (partnership) and vertical (power).

Vertical relationships. This type of relationship is characterised by authoritarianism and emphasised authority in interaction practices. These relations have been institutionalised and consolidated. Teachers consider themselves charismatic leaders who set the limits of what is acceptable and unacceptable in their relationships with children.

P4: ‘I like to lead the class and keep everyone on their toes.’

Teachers justify the need for hierarchical relationships with children because the system is closed.

P11: ‘I don’t want a horizontal relationship in a public school. The school is a closed system. There is no rotation of personnel, no change of practices. This is a system that is not being updated. Therefore, this may not turn out to be very good thing. Like paedophilia and such nasty stuff. I don't want to be friends with children.’

Within this type of relationship, there is also a softening in the form of shortening the distance, appearing of rapprochement in the relationship, they are emotionally filled, without losing their power properties.

P5: ‘What about older students, the distance is minimal. We often move into the informal space of social media communication.’ Often they are more like a parent–child relationship than a partnership. The metaphor of maternal/paternal care most fully describes this type of relationship.

P7: ‘I'm attentive, caring and sometimes overprotective.’

P3: ‘Sometimes I get so carried away myself that I'm dangerously close to making the distance go down. I am afraid when the hierarchy is broken. I like the “good father” attitude. But this is the kind of perfection.’ The statements contain concerns about reducing the distance, but if there is a softening of the scenario in this element, it is either along the path of transformation into a parent–child relationship, or the relationship is imitated as a partnership while maintaining clear signs of a power relationship.

P7: ‘I am in partnership with my students, but I protect them like a mother.’

Horizontal relationships. They are characterised as more partnering, built on mutual respect. Teachers avoid dominance, consciously avoid the parent–child type of relationship, and emotional rapprochement.

P10: ‘They tell me when I turn on the strict mode, they say, I don’t like them when I’m strict. I tell them, I don't have to be kind to you, you have a family for it.’

P14: ‘I follow the chain of command with my students. My pedagogical position: a teacher should not become a significant adult for a child. In such a situation, you start to strongly influence the child, and I would not like it to be so. I would like to create an environment where children would develop as individuals, and not listen to me. It contradicts the idea of developing critical thinking. The school is the place where it is formed. And the teacher can contribute to this by reducing authority, increasing the space for the student.’

Small changes can be recorded in situations where children assume the traditional role of an adult as a knowledgeable and capable person. There are many similar situations when working with gadgets, technologies and information. Teachers ask their children for help to fix or adjust something.

P2: ‘Teachers can learn something new from students as well. They open up new sources of information for me. They may know some details better than I do.’

Conclusion

The described research allowed us to consider the ideas and practices of teachers regarding their organisation of the lesson and interaction with students through the prism of an empirically fixed process of destructuration. We found small changes in the three elements identified: rituals, disciplinary practices and relationship type. Of course, these elements do not cover the full range of institutional characteristics, but they were sufficient. The process of destructuring took place in the form of:

• refusal;
• softening’
• the emergence of new practices.

Let's list the results for each element. Such practices as greeting the teacher, walking the teacher in rows and raising hands are usual and still form part of the lesson routine of some teachers, but either their use is justified from the point of view of increasing the productivity of learning, or there is a gradual abandonment of their use. The persistence of some teachers' attachment to ritual practices is consistent with the dominance of conservative views of teachers recorded in studies [14].

In terms of discipline and rules, we observe a dispersion of practices on a continuum of soft and hard scenarios. On the one hand, there is a simplification and stereotyping of practices characteristic of institutions. Raising your voice, commanding communication and making points are the easiest ways to achieve obedience, especially in such ‘difficult classes.’ Increasing the importance of discipline when working with ‘difficult teenagers’ is consistent with the world practice recorded in research [19]. The lesson space is strictly regulated, and teachers' attempts to soften the requirements a little are limited to the subject result evaluated on the OGE and EGE. The presence of a choice situation in the classroom ‘reduces the binding force of the structure’, but in reality, it does not create gaps in the lesson that are free from formal requirements, and the choice options are always made so that the final subject goal is achieved. This conclusion is consistent with studies on insufficient support for students' autonomy on the part of teachers [18; 23].

At the same time, we found the participation of children in creating rules, the appearance of more flexible rules, and the desire of teachers to build a lesson depending on the request of children. Teachers actively fight for the attention and interest of children through goal setting, communicating the meaning of learning and the value of knowledge.

The relationship between teacher and student in the classroom continues to retain the features of classical power relations. Despite the appearance in the lexicon of teachers of the words ‘partnership’, ‘equality’, ‘democracy’, relations continue to be built as vertically hierarchical. This picture is consistent with studies confirming the dominant role of the Russian teacher in relations with students [26]. However, mitigation of hard scenarios occurs here as well. Elements of the partnership type of relations with children were recorded, when the teacher deliberately refused to take the position of a significant adult and ‘friendship’ with the child, pushing the students to a more equal relationship.

The softening of practices, the appearance of more flexible rules and the change of roles are associated with extracurricular activities. The emergence of such practices as informal communication in social networks, ‘co-working’, ‘reflective circle’, in turn, allows you to respond more flexibly to the interests and requests of children, create conditions for the manifestation of children's independence and initiative. Despite all the attempts of many teachers to reduce the pressure of the programme, the lesson is still a highly normative space. This, in turn, contradicts the modern scientific discourse, which justifies the need to implement the model of adolescent school as a space for children to try and experiment [2; 7; 9].

In general, the school has the potential to move to softer practices due to the willingness of some teachers to circumvent institutional requirements, their openness to experimentation, and the use of extracurricular space on the initiative and design of children. It can be assumed that the process of destructuration in the school system is much slower than in other areas of public relations due to:

• the dominance of the subject result in teachers' perceptions;
• lack of tools and tools to implement the seemingly contradictory requirements to make the child ‘knowledgeable’, and at the same time expand the space of the lesson for free action of the child;
• the necessity to prepare for certification and the Unified State Exam, which deprives the teacher of the opportunity to act more flexibly, to provide the child with more choices and opportunities in the classroom.

The results of the study should be extrapolated with caution to the entire educational institution due to the small sample size and limited representativeness. Of course, the process of destructuring, as a global phenomenon, should be recorded and described on large samples within the framework of large sociological theories, but the specifics of its course are divided into many special cases, which allows supplementing the trend with new details obtained in the course of small qualitative studies. The institutional approach in describing the practices and teacher beliefs, used in this study, is quite capable of capturing the ongoing changes in the institution of the school in different sociocultural fields, which, in turn, allows us to begin studying the directly independent behaviour of students in different sociocultural environments, including lessons of teachers with varying degrees of rigidity of implemented practices.

1. Busygina N.P. Kachestvennye i kolichestvennye metody issledovanii v psikhologii: Uchebnik [Qualitative and quantitative research methods in psychology]. Moscow: Yurait, 2019. 423 p.
2. Gromyko Yu.V., Margolis A.A., Rubtsov V.V. Shkola kak ekosistema razvivayushchikhsya detsko-vzroslykh soobshchestv: deyatel’nostnyi podkhod k proektirovaniyu shkoly budushchego [School as an Ecosystem of Developing Child-Adult Communities: An Activity Approach to Designing the School of the Future]. Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-historical psychology, 2020. Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 57—67. DOI:10.17759/chp.2020160106
3. Goffman E. Total’nye instituty: Per. s ang. [Total institutions]. Moscow: Elementarnye formy, 2019. 464 p.
4. Kvale S. Issledovatel’skoe interv’yu [Research interview]. Per. s ang. Moscow: Smysl, 2009. 304 р.
5. Kosikova S.V. O sushchnosti uchebnoi samostoyatel’nosti shkol’nikov i urovnyakh ee razvitiya [On the essence of the educational independence of schoolchildren and the levels of its development]. Problemy sovremennogo obrazovaniya // Problems of modern education, 2018, no. 4, pp. 143—150.
6. Kravchenko S.A. Uslozhnyayushchiesya metamorfozy — produkt «strely vremeni» i faktor sotsioprirodnykh turbulentnostei [Increasingly complex metamorphoses are a product of the “arrow of time” and a factor of socio-natural turbulences]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya // Sociological research, 2018, no. 9, pp. 3—11. DOI:10.31857/S013216250001952-0
7. Lazarev V.S. K probleme postroeniya modeli «shkoly budushchego [To the problem of building a model of the school of the future]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education, 2021. Vol. 26, no 4, pp. 69—79. DOI:10.17759/pse.2021260406
8. Obrazovanie dlya slozhnogo obshchestva [Elektronnyi resurs] [Education for a complex society]. P.O. Luksha [i dr.]. Doklad Global Education Futures. Red. P.O. Luksha, P.D. Rabinovich, A.A. Asmolov. Moscow, 2018. 213 p. URL: https://vbudushee.ru/upload/documents/obr_sloj_obsh.pdf
9. Rubtsova O.V., Poskakalova T.A. Teatral’naya deyatel’nost’ kak sredstvo razvitiya i obucheniya v podrostkovom vozraste: rezul’taty empiricheskogo issledovaniya [Theatrical activity as a means of development and learning in adolescence: results of an empirical study]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological science and education, 2020. Vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 144—156. DOI:10.17759/pse.2020250612
10. Sorokin P.S., Vyatskaya Yu.A. Mezhdunarodnaya ekspertnaya povestka v obrazovanii: klyuchevye kharakteristiki i problemnye zony [International Expert Agenda in Education: Key Characteristics and Problem Areas]. Obshchie voprosy obrazovaniya // General educational issues, 2022, no 1, pp. 11—52. DOI:10.17853/1994-5639-2022-1-11-52
11. Sorokin P.S., Frumin I.D. Problema “struktura/deistvie v XXI v.: Izmeneniya v sotsial’noi real’nosti i vyvody dlya issledovatel’skoi povestki [The Structure/Action Problem in the 21st Century: Changes in Social Reality and Implications for the Research Agenda]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya // Sociological research, 2020, no. 7, pp. 27—36. DOI:10.31857/S013216250009571-1
12. Federal’nyi gosudarstvennyi obrazovatel’nyi standart osnovnogo obshchego obrazovaniya [Federal state educational standard of basic general education]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 2015. 61 p.
13. Galand B., Hospel V., Dellisse S. Understanding behavioural engagement and achievement: The roles of teaching practices and student sense of competence and task value. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2020. Vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 887—909. DOI:10.1111/bjep.12342
14. Griaznova O.S., Magun V.S. The Basic Values of Russian and European Schoolteachers. Russian Social Science Review, 2013. Vol. 54, pp. 42—68. DOI:10.1080/10611428.2013.11065505
15. Groccia J.E. What Is Student Engagement. New directions for teaching and learning, 2018, no. 154, pp. 45—54. DOI:10.1002/tl.20290
16. Iannone P., O’Brien B. Students’ experiences of teaching at secondary school and university: sharing responsibility for classroom engagement. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2018, pp. 1—15. DOI:10.1080/0309877X.2017.1332352
17. Meyer J.W. World Society, Institutional Theories, and the Actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 2010. Vol. 36, pp. 1—20. DOI:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102506
18. Niemi R., Kumpulainen K., Lipponen L. Pupil`s participation in the Finnish classrooms: turning the UN Convention on the Right of the Child into pedagogical practices. Children’s Rights, Educational Research and the UNCRC. In Gillett-Swan J., Coppock V. (ed.). The UK. Oxford, England: Symposium Books, 2016, pp. 81—100.
19. Nurmi J.E. Students’ characteristics and teacher—child relationships in instruction: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 7, 2002, pp. 177—197. DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.03.001
20. OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Concept Note. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2018. URL: https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/learning-compass-2030/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_concept_note.pdf
21. Pelikan E.R., Lüftenegger M., Holzer J. Learning during COVID-19: the role of self-regulated learning, motivation, and procrastination for perceived competence. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 2021, no. 24, pp. 393—418.
22. Reeve J., Tseng C-M. Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2011. Vol. 36, Issue 4, pp. 257—267.
23. Reeve J. Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In Deci E.L., Ryan R.M. (Eds.). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2002, pp. 183—203.
24. Takase M., Niitani M., Imai T. What educators could do to facilitate students’ use of a deep approach to learning: A multisite cross-sectional design. Nurse Education Today, 2020. Vol. 89, pp. 269—286.
25. Udehn L. The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism. Annual Review of Sociology, 2002. Vol. 28, pp. 479—507. DOI:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140938
26. Väyrynen S., Kesälahti E., Pynninen T., Siivola J., Flotskaya N., Bulanova S., Volskaya O., Usova Z., Kuzmicheva T., Afonkina Y. Finnish and Russian teachers supporting the development of social skills. European Journal of Teacher Education, 2016. Vol. 39, Issue 4, pp. 1—15.