Indirect Education

Front matter

Theorizing Education Series

INDIRECT EDUCATION

EXPLORING INDIRECTNESS IN TEACHING AND RESEARCH

Contents

List of illustrations vil About the author vill Acknowledgements ix Introduction: Expanding the forms of education 1

1 Justification: Education is indirect by nature—so what’s the problem? 7

2 Teaching: Four forms of teaching. Excerpts from observations at a secondary school 18

Chapter 2

Four forms of teaching. Excerpts from observations at a secondary school

The theme of this chapter is teaching. By way of classroom observations and teacher interviews at a secondary school, we shall take a closer look at different forms of direct and indirect teaching and examine when, or in what situations, teachers made use of direct and indirect approaches in their teaching. We shall also look into which fields, such as epistemology, morality and existence, and perspectives, either first-person or third-person perspective, the different forms of direct and indirect teaching were connected to. This way we can get a clue as to when it is most appropriate to use direct and indirect approaches in teaching.

*

The background for the study is that racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, discrimination and the like appear among parts of the population in Western Europe, in the form of prejudice negative emotions and hostile attitudes which exclude others (CNCDH, 2018; HL-Center, 2012; Hoffmann & Moe, 2017). While a democracy is characterised by inclusion (Irigaray, 2001), these referred studies reveal exclusion towards individuals or groups of people. Such exclusiveness can therefore be termed “undemocratic attitudes.” Why is this exclusion of others happening? Is it something society just has to expect, that certain people embrace undemocratic attitudes? Or can schools prevent and avert the formation of such attitudes? Can such attitudes also be removed, a kind of process of unlearning (Baldacchino, 2019)? It is difficult to answer the questions unequivocally, as it is almost impossible to know what it is that removes undemocratic attitudes and prevents the formation of undemocratic attitudes. It may be that the schools contribute in doing so, but other factors may also contribute. Nonetheless, the schools’ social mandate requires to do what it takes to remove undemocratic attitudes and prevent such attitudes from becoming part of the students’ existence and way of life. What can schools do then to remove, and prevent the formation of, undemocratic attitudes?

A theoretical assumption is that the achievement of the double purpose of education (see introduction) will remove undemocratic attitudes and prevent these attitudes from becoming part of the student. As for the purpose related to the individual perspective, different qualities are prominent, e.g. freedom, independence and critical reflection (Biesta, 2014; Dewey, 1998). In addition, the term ‘self-activity’ (in German: Selbsttatigkeit) is relevant in this context. The German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762—1814) gave rise to the notion of self-activity, which is related to pedagogy as an action consisting of “summoning to self-activity” (in German: Aufforderung zur Selbsttatigkeit) (Benner, 2012). More specifically, this can be understood as a first-person perspective in that the teacher summons students to work or act on an independent basis (Benner, 1995, pp. 21—22).

In addition to the individual’s self-activity and the unfolding of individuality, the double purpose of education relates to morality, responsibility, solidarity and humanity (Klafki, 2001, pp. 36-37; Stojanov, 2018; Rucker, 2020).The goal of such teaching is to prepare students to live in a society, whether large or small, in interaction with other people and in line with current democratic principles (Dewey, 1966; Heitger, 2004). Furthermore, the individual will be initiated in values and norms, traditions and cultures and the like (Saeverot & Biesta, 2013). In this way, the double purpose of education is a form of cultivation in which the initiation of the individual to cultural values, morals and societies is at the centre of the formation-oriented teaching activity (Meyer, Meyer, & Ren, 2018; Peters, 2007). This is a third-person perspective in which values and norms, tradition, culture and society function as the “third person” whom the cultivated individual is guided by.

However, the educational purpose associated with the world involves more than initiation and cultivation. As part of the purpose, each individual should be able to take personal responsibility towards others, in addition to ready-made norms and rules or what the individual has been initiated into in terms of such categories as morality, empathy and solidarity (Benner, 2012, p. 78ff.). Thus, the first-person perspective is also applicable in this context, as the double purpose of education implies that individuals act ethically and morally on their own free will (Biesta, 2014; Reichenbach, 2011; Uljens & Ylimaki, 2017).

Since the theoretical assumption signifies that the achievement of the double purpose of education will remove undemocratic attitudes and prevent these attitudes from becoming part of the individual, one may ask in a normative and generalised manner, How can one teach to achieve this double purpose? The fact is that there is not one particular way of teaching that will achieve the double purpose of education. One can of course argue for either this or that way, but such an approach will in any case give us nothing but a theoretical assumption. Moreover, we must not forget that the double purpose of education is an ideal that probably will never be fully achieved in practice.

What we can do though is to locate the double purpose of education in a concrete teaching situation. As such, we stand before a descriptive problem or research question, reading thus, How do teachers teach to ensure that each individual can live well in a world worth living in? If we contextualise this question, we may ask, How do teachers teach to remove undemocratic attitudes and prevent the formation of undemocratic attitudes in secondary school? As such, we will obtain something more than just a theoretical assumption, but still, we will at most only receive a glimpse, and certainly not a full answer, as to how teachers teach to remove and prevent the formation of undemocratic attitudes.

To address this latter question, the research team, consisting of two educational researchers and myself as the project manager of the project, had to enter classrooms and observe teachings in which issues related to undemocratic attitudes were prominent. As a first step, we established collaboration with two teacher groups at a Norwegian secondary school. The first teacher group related to the subject of social science (eighth grade), and the second teacher group related to the subject ‘knowledge of Christianity, religion, philosophies of life and ethics’ (KRLE) (tenth grade). This collaboration included two start-up meetings, observation and sound and film recordings of teaching sessions, as well as group interviews with two different teacher groups about the teaching which had been filmed and observed. This group interview and the conversations were specifically concerned with the research question, as well as the planning, implementation and evaluation of the teachings. The group interviews were used as a corrective source for the observations of the teachings (cf. Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Wengraf, 2001). In the first meeting, we discussed possible educational actions related to the double purpose of education, including ways to remove and prevent the formation of undemocratic attitudes. The goal was to have a mutual understanding of the main concepts and ideas of the study.

Secondly, the teacher groups planned a teaching session separately on a topic they wished to explore through their teaching. The teacher groups and the research team had already agreed that the chosen topic should be connected to undemocratic attitudes. Thus, within a predetermined framework, the teachers could choose a topic that was relevant and useful to the students and the goals of the school (cf. Creswell, 2014; Mason, 2002). The teacher group that I am mostly concerned with in this chapter related to the subject of social science, and they chose power as their topic for teaching. Next, the teachers sent us their planning forms as preparation for the observation and the sound and film recordings of their teaching. In addition to the recordings, the research team wrote field notes for documentation (cf. Creswell, 2013; King & Hornberger, 2010). The empirical material in the study is thus collected by way of field notes, interviews, observations and sound and film recordings of teaching lessons at a Norwegian secondary school. The teachings in the double lesson in social studies were conducted by one teacher while the other teachers in the group observed the actions.

In the following, I will bring the reader through the necessary steps, from analysis to findings, and finally to discussion and conclusion.

Categories of analysis

The sound and film recordings were transcribed, after which the data material from the teaching lessons was repeatedly studied and systematised based on three theoretical models for direct and indirect pedagogy, or three forms of teaching, i.e., direct instruction (DI), indirect summoning which is specified (ISS) and indirect summoning which is unspecified (ISU; Saeverot, 2017). In other words, the three models were used as categories of analysis. Let me henceforward present the models.

Direct instruction

As I pointed out in the introduction, a trend in modern education is the so-called visible learning paradigm (Nielsen & Klitmøller, 2017, p. 3). Since the publication of the book Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement in 2009, John Hattie has had a major impact on Western education (Terhart, 2011). Hattie’s book on visible learning consists of a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses, of which more than 52,637 individual studies are integrated. Although Hattie’s book consists of a vast empirical material, he also finds support from certain theoretical assumptions on what learning and teaching signify. One of Hattie’s projects has been to develop a theory of what good teaching is. At the heart of Hattie’s learning and teaching model, we find, as stated in the introduction, the term ‘direct instruction’ (Hattie, 2009).

A typical feature of DI is to show students what to do and how to do it. A way of doing so is to clarify goals in advance of the teaching so that the students can know exactly what is expected of them in terms of learning. Not least, the teachers are direct, explicit and as concrete as possible in their communication to the students. Clear explanations, descriptions and illustrations are given of that which is being taught. One of the goals of DI is to avoid misunderstandings while ensuring that the reception and interpretation of the content of the teaching become as easy as possible for the students. Therefore, the information and knowledge being taught are well structured in order for the students to learn that which the teacher communicates and disseminates (Figure 2.1).

As the model illustrates, DI is strongly teacher-driven. DI is therefore a third-person perspective, as the teacher points out the directions of the students, who in turn must trust the teacher's directives and guiding instructions. Learning different skills is at the centre of the model.

Message

Specified PON S o Teacher 4 tamrin E Student ——>

Figure 2.1 Model for DI (Saeverot, 2017). The figure shows a teaching situation and a communication relationship between teacher and student. Left: The teacher conveys a message to the student. Middle: The message takes the form of a specific instruction, i.e. the teacher is explicit as to how the student shall relate to the message. This means that the teacher provides a clear direction for the student. Right: The arrow at the far right of the figure illustrates that the student basically only has one choice, which is to follow the direction pointed out by the teacher. The two arrows that proceed from student to teacher illustrate the student’s response to the teacher.

Beyond this direct form of teaching, the double purpose of education implies teaching that is indirect, which may be both third-person oriented and first-person oriented. A first-person perspective of the double purpose of education, regarding both the individual and the social side of this purpose, does require an indirect approach (Saeverot, 2013, 2017). That is to say, if you wish someone to respond independently of a third person (e.g. a teacher) you cannot point out the answer beforehand; instead, you need to be indirect in ways that you find valuable in the particular situation (Saeverot, 2017). In education, there are several forms of indirect teachings, which can be divided into two main groups (ibid.). Let us look into these two groups.

Indirect summoning which is specified

The first group or form of teaching is referred to as ISS (Saeverot, 2017). A concrete example of ISS is the teacher who praises one of the students publicly in the class for having acted morally according to certain criteria and standards. As I pointed out in the introduction, such a form of praise communicates indirectly to the other students, who are indirectly summoned to act morally in the same or similar way as the student being praised. Actually, the teacher has acted indirectly in two ways. Firstly, the teacher has made a detour through an intermediary, which in this case is one of the students (who is praised), rather than communicating directly to the whole class. Secondly, the teacher has ‘wrapped the message’ by highlighting the ‘good’ behaviour of one of the students rather than saying directly that the other students may not have acted satisfactorily according to certain moral standards (Figure 2.2).

Message

Specified

Teacher ————> on => Student ———>

Intermediary

Figure 2.2 Model for ISS (Saeverot, 2017). The figure shows a teaching situation and a communication relationship between teacher and student. Left: The teacher conveys a message. Middle: This message goes through an intermediary, e.g. a fellow student. Even though the message goes through an intermediary, the message summons specifically how it should be received by the student (or group of students). That is to say, the teacher is rather explicit as to how the student should respond to the message. Despite the fact that the message goes through an intermediary, the teacher provides a clear direction for the student. Right: The arrow at the far right of the figure illustrates that the student basically only has one choice, which is to follow the direction pointed out by the teacher. The two arrows that proceed from student to teacher illustrate the student’s response to the teacher.

Although the teacher in this example is indirect, the teaching must be considered a third-person perspective, as the student’s choices are neither free nor independent of the teacher as a third person. Furthermore, the teacher’s summoning is specific even though it is not specified in words; that is, the teacher makes use of an example, specific words and perhaps also body language as a way of guiding and directing the students. This indirect summoning, which is specific, is therefore strongly teacher-driven and based on a relatively strong desire for control.

Indirect summoning which is unspecified

The other group or form of teaching which is indirect is referred to as ISU (Saeverot, 2017). A concrete example of ISU is teacher students who train to become teachers. Teacher students train to work in educational practice contexts and must therefore presuppose the indefinite child existing in an open and unforeseeable future. Educational practice is therefore highly unpredictable, compared to a craftsman’s practice, e.g. a plumber.Thus one should not teach a teacher student to become a full-fledged teacher in the same way as one teaches a plumber student to become a full-fledged plumber. Faced with teacher students, one must take into account that educational practice is unpredictable by nature (I elaborate on this in Chapter 7). For this reason, it is not beneficial to say specifically and directly what the teacher students should do before they enter educational practice. It will be like trying to seize time before it arrives, but that is simply not possible (the concept of time will be elaborated on in Chapter 5). Therefore, teacher educators should, to a rather great extent, be indirect in their teaching of teacher students. For example, this can be done by using moral examples from educational practice, examples that make room for reflection, which may enhance the students understanding and awareness of moral issues in educational practice.

Since the teacher educator in this example does not summon anything predetermined and specific through the indirect teaching form, the teacher students are free to respond to the example regardless of what the teacher educator might think of the matter. In this way, ISU is categorised as a first-person perspective, as the students must trust themselves, involving self-trust rather than relying entirely on the teacher as a third person (Figure 2.3).

Praise given indirectly, e.g. by way of criticism, is another example of ISU (Saeverot, 2011). This kind of indirect praise also creates space for the recipients’ freedom, as the one who hands out criticism, through which praise appears indirectly, does not summon or call upon anything specific. Instead of praising someone directly, criticism may be used, that is, a form of criticism which communicates indirectly that the recipient’s act or behaviour, or whatever it might be, is being credited as valuable, in addition to the criticism. Thus, the recipient has greater freedom and a more open choice when it comes to responding to such a form of indirect praise compared to direct praise which more clearly indicates and specifies the direction of the recipient’s response.

ISU, in contrast to DI, also provides multiple exits for the recipients. This is important, as recipients may be locked or trapped when there is only one way out. Let us return to the example of Schindler and Goth in Chapter 1. In order

Message 4 t P ?

Unspecified ` summoning aa >) Teacher ———> | => Student ———> _ |: Intermediary SS ?

Figure 2.3 Model for ISU (Saeverot, 2017). The figure shows a teaching situation and a communication relationship between teacher and student. Left: The teacher conveys a message. Middle: This message goes through an intermediary, e.g. praise by way of criticism. The message, which goes through an intermediary, does include a summon, but the summon is unspecified. That is to say that the teacher is open as to how the student should respond to the message. This is how the teacher makes room for choice. How to respond is up to the student, who may also choose not to respond. Right: The arrows and the question marks at the far right of the model illustrate that the student may respond in more than one way. The two arrows that proceed from student to teacher illustrate the student’s response to the teacher.

for Goth not to lose face, Schindler created space for exits. Thus, Göth could get out of the situation with his head held high. In fact, it was a win-win situation for both the communicator and the receiver, as Schindler also gave himself numerous exits. Another example is when the teacher has to mediate between two students, where one student has done something wrong to the other. How many times have we not seen adults forcing children to shake hands and apologise? In such cases, no exits are provided, and the danger is that at least one of the students will be humiliated or embarrassed. Besides, the handshake is directed by a third person; namely, the teacher. It may therefore be appropriate to be indirect so as to let the students solve the situation on their own initiative. The students are then given many exits. They may not have to apologise directly or because someone is telling them to do so. Even though they may not apologise at all, they are summoned to apologise indirectly. Such apologies can take on different forms, e.g. through bodily expressions shoving regret, laughter, making jokes, change behaviour towards the other, etc. When teachers act indirectly in such situations, where responsibility towards others is at the centre of the education, the students may not feel that they are indebted to each other.

Findings Direct instruction

The analyses of the social science lesson show that the teacher gave DI both to the students individually and in groups. For example, the teacher said the following at the start of the lesson:

The teaching henceforth will be about ‘power’ The first thing to do then is to open your books, and write for two minutes, completely on your own. You shall not talk to each other; rather, you shall write individually for two minutes what you associate with the word power. From now on.

The example shows a DI as to what the students should do individually. The findings also show examples of DI as to what the students should do in groups. Teacher: “Now you all have to listen well to what the groups say.’ During the social science lesson, the teacher also gave DI related to academic requirements. For example, the students were asked to make their own definition of the term ‘power, while the teacher added:“A definition is a short sentence that says what something is.” In this way, the teacher explained directly what was meant by defining a term. What he did was to give the students knowledge in the form of conceptual understanding before they started to define the term power.

Similar DI in connection with students at both an individual and a group level, alongside requirements for academic results, were revealed in the KRLE lesson. After the teacher gave instructions regarding group work, he gave the following message to the students: “Initially, you will receive pictures that you shall try to locate in the right place. To which religion and beliefs do the pictures belong to?” Shortly thereafter he added: “Your discussions are the most important part of this task. You must simply reflect.” Even though the teacher encouraged the students to discuss and reflect, he gave a clear indication of what this discussion and reflection should result in. He expected the students to acquire a specific academic form of knowledge. The teaching therefore equalled a DI as to what the students should achieve (by locating the pictures in the right place). During the group interview, the teachers pointed out that the purpose was to encourage the students to reflect, argue and discuss, and thereof figure out what was right.

Indirect summoning which is specified

After the individual work, the social science teacher asked the students to share their opinions on what they associate with the concept of power. At one point the teacher responded thus: “Some of them [the opinions] are quite obvious—they are associated with power. I hope you think thus:That was smart, I had not thought of that, but now I have.’ The teacher highlighted the good examples from some of the students, while indirectly encouraging the other students to learn from these examples. This assertion is substantiated by the following situation. After a response from one of the students, the teacher replied by addressing the whole class: “Now you must listen, as these remarks are important. Please, repeat what you just said.” The student repeated his words: “Children of rich parents are spoiled and look down on others.” The teacher responded, yet again, to the whole class: “Is this true? Is this the way we show others that we are rich, that is, by stating that this is not good enough for me?” The teacher made use of a student’s claim and lifted it up both in a positive and questioning sense. Moreover, the teacher made use of the student’s claim as an indirect summoning to the whole class, giving them the opportunity to reflect and take a stand on the issue.

During the group interview, one teacher told us that his job was “to seed.” He did so by using good examples so as to highlight valuable statements from the students. The findings also showed that the social science teacher, on several occasions, urged the students indirectly to reflect upon assertions and statements from the other students. He also used, on several occasions, the work efforts of individual students as intermediaries in the form of indirect criticism of the other students’ work efforts. For example, he uttered this to the whole class:“Then I saw that some of you were writing eagerly.’ He praised some of the students’ work efforts without criticising directly those who did not. Rather, the critique shone indirectly through the praise. At the same time, something else was indirectly ‘working’ through this form of criticism, as the teacher tried to spur some of the students to put more effort into their work. It all seemed to be an attempt to improve the students’ work ethic.

Indirect summoning which is unspecified

A concrete example of ISU was found through the following statement by the social science teacher: “Are there any of you who have power?” Yet again the teacher addressed the whole class, with an apparent direct question which could be answered either yes or no. On closer inspection, however, the question was both complex and indirect. For the first time during the lesson, the teacher directed the question of power directly against each and every student. At the same time, indirectness was at work as the question created space for each of the students to reflect on their own relationship to power; whether they themselves have power and how they possibly use power, and so on. Metaphorically, the teacher directed a ‘mirror’ to the students, and through this ‘mirror, the students could assess themselves.

The observations showed that none of the students responded directly to the teacher’s question, but there were new opportunities to do so, as the teacher followed up on his question with these words: “I believe some of you have more power than others. And I believe there are quite a few young people who experience power repeatedly.’ Notice that the teacher made use of the word ‘believe’ in both sentences.To believe indicates some kind of uncertainty and doubt, a form of assumption, but also an indirect ‘test; in which the students were given the opportunity to test out the teacher’s assumption and belief. The indirect approach being used by the teacher is related to unspecificity as no specific directions were given other than a summoning to think and reflect, that is, the students could, if they chose to do so, think and reflect upon their own relationship to power. Yet again, the students did not respond to the teacher’s reaching out, but that does not mean it was wasted. On the contrary, he had planted a seed so to speak and made it possible for the students to reflect on issues which concern their inner life and, ultimately, the way in which they exist morally in the world, in this case with regard to the concept of power.

In contrast to the social science lesson, the KRLE lesson had more focus on correct answers. We, therefore, found no use of ISU in the KRLE lesson.

During the group interview, the social science teachers pointed out the importance of challenging the students to reflect on their own whether they exercise power and, not least, how they influence others through their own use of power.The teachers were concerned about raising self-awareness concerning power. At the same time, they emphasised that they did not look for ready-made answers. The important thing was that the students had to think for themselves. As one of the teachers said, “We were keen not to dismiss anything.’ Another teacher pointed out that the students’ responses to experiences of power were never seen as wrong (“even though it was far from what I expected”). It was about challenging the students to respond, either publicly (aloud) or privately (in silence), and it was about the students’ unique responses and opinions.

Outlines for a fourth model of teaching: Direct-indirect teaching

In the analysis of the data material from the social science lesson, we also found indicators for a fourth form of teaching—namely, an interactive combination of DI and ISU, which I refer to as direct-indirect teaching (DIT; see Figure 2.4). Even though the findings are too weak to form a new model of the theory of indirect pedagogy, they form an outline or a sketch in which there are possibilities to either develop or refute such a model by way of further research. The particular finding was very demanding to discover in the analyses because at first glance it seemed that the teacher only instructed the students directly and explicitly on what to do and what they should achieve. Here is an example.

?

Message j t ?

Direct J :

instruction Teacher > T > Student ———> ?

l ox Unspecified ?

summoning { ?

Intermediary

Figure 2.4 Model for DIT. The figure shows a teaching situation and a communication relationship between teacher and student. Left: The teacher conveys a message. Middle: This message is both direct and indirect. Indirectness works through directness. The message, which goes through an intermediary, does include a summon, but the summon is unspecified. That is to say that the teacher is open as to how the student should respond to the message. This is how the teacher makes room for choice. How to respond is up to the student, who may also choose not to respond. Right: The arrows and the question marks at the far right of the model illustrate that the student may respond in more than one way. The two arrows that proceed from student to teacher illustrate the student’s response to the teacher.

Now you should spend a few minutes talking together in the group, and you must make notes on the sheet I gave you. Who, among youths—you may think in general, or you can use yourselves as examples—but in any case, you should say something about who among youths have power. And you should consider or say something about how that power works, and you should write something about certain characteristics of those who possess power.

Apparently, the teacher gave DI to the students groupwise on what he wanted them to do. Although the teacher was specific and clear on what he wanted the students to work towards, he did not require a ready-made answer. He was open to what the students as a group had to say about the matter. Even though he avoided seeking fixed answers he still wanted the students to acquire some kind of knowledge through his DI.