159
Field Pedagogic disposition to dominance
• a private university at Malang,
Indonesia •
a large class with mostly low-proficiency students
Capital Practice
Personal institutionalized cultural capital • dominating talk during lessons •
self-confidence •
often answering his own questions •
enthusiasm for teaching not providing sufficient thinking
• ability to speak English fluently
time for students to answer •
nominating which students are to answer
Figure 10: Relationship between Andis pedagogic disposition to dominance and capital, field, and practice
6.4.2.1 Manifestations of Andi’s pedagogic disposition to dominance in his practice
Andi’s teaching actions show that he has a tendency to dominate the class. He dominates the talk during lessons and he controls the knowledge he imparts to the
students, which results in teaching based on one-way communication. The students speak only when Andi asks them to do so. The video recording of his lessons reveals
that roughly 75 of the lesson presentation around 100 minutes is taken up with talk from Andi; with the remaining 25 of the time allocated to the students to work in
groups. However, during the group activity, Andy still ‘controls’ what he wants the students to do. Some students even speak in Indonesian and or in the local language,
Javanese, during group discussions. As a result, they do not use opportunities to practice their English with classmates. In addition, Andi is the only one deciding what
knowledge is to be imparted to the students. His decision is based largely on what activities are included in the textbook and the students passively receive the
160 information. As such, Andi’s teaching contrasts with constructivist teaching principles,
which support learners to be actively involved in a process of meaning and knowledge construction.
Andi’s disposition to dominance is revealed in his habit of answering his own questions. This, in turn, reflects the fact that he often provided the students with
insufficient thinking time to answer the questions. The following example is taken from the video recording of his reading class when he reviews the previous topic on
“understanding statements”.
ANDI: You can do some ways to understand the statement. What can you do? STUDENTS: Find keywords [answering silently]
ANDI: Find keywords [writing the answer in whiteboard]. And then, what else besides finding keywords? Do you think having a good dictionary is important for you? [giving the clue to the
correct answer] Yes [directly answering his own question] So use dictionary [writing the answer on the whiteboard].
Andi’s tendency to answer his own questions as exemplified above demonstrates pedagogical dominance. Often he provides a direct clue to the answer and then proceeds
to answer the question himself, as shown below when he is explaining the lesson material to the students.
[Andi is explaining to the students the nature of different types of sentences] ANDI: Okay. From these three kinds of sentences, can we determine the difficulty only by
looking at simple sentence, compound or complex sentence? No, we can’t because the sentence may be a simple sentence, but the statement maybe not easy to understand. And the sentence is
maybe compound and complex sentence, but the statement is easy to understand. So these three kinds of sentences here have the same opportunity to be a problem for you in understanding the
statement.
The above excerpt again shows how Andi asks the students a question to get them to think sentence structures, but then directly answers his own question. Indeed, Andi does
not provide sufficient time for the students to formulate an answer on their own. This teaching action implies that Andi primarily focuses on the material he gives to the
students. He does not pay attention as to whether or not the students fully understand his explanations. As such, Andi dominates in the classroom activity.
161 A further example of the way in which Andi does not give sufficient time to the
students to think about and formulate an answer is illustrated in the following excerpt taken from the video recording of his lesson:
[After reviewing the previous topic, Andi invites the students to discuss the exercises in the textbook]
ANDI: Okay. So, once again grammatical knowledge is also very important. You can also use that as the keywords. Any questions so far? [waiting approximately three seconds for the
students to respond]. Okay good Now we will check your assignment page 10 up to 13.
The above excerpt demonstrates once again that even though Andi provides the students with opportunities to ask him questions about the topic discussed he often does not
provide them with the time required to formulate their questions. In the excerpt above, he answers his own question by saying, “okay, good”. The students would probably
require more time to think about what they would like to ask. Thus, it may be argued that Andi’s question, any questions so far? is only expressed as a formality without a
real intention to encourage the students to ask. Another teaching practice of Andi’s that is generated from his pedagogic
disposition to dominance is nominating which students are to answer his questions rather than allowing the students to answer voluntarily. An example of this action taken
from the video recording of his lesson is provided in the excerpt below:
[Andi is asking the students to answer the multiple questions in the exercise book and is discussing the correct answer]
ANDI: Number 2. Let’s start with Sulistiawan [asking Sulistiawan to answer] SULISTIAWAN: Padi wrote a letter to Susana before he wrote a letter to the bank. Afterwards,
he wrote the letter to his cousin, Mahfud [reading the question in the textbook]. D [suggesting the correct answer].
ANDI: So, first wrote to Susana and then the second to the bank and then the third to Mahfud. Yes, D [emphasising Sulistiawan’s correct answer]. Okay, next [pointing to Siska who sits next
to Sulistiawan]
By deciding which students were to answer the questions, Andi thus excludes other students from the opportunity to volunteer. His behaviour indicates how he dominates
the class by limiting the students’ opportunity to self-direct their learning and to express their ideas. Hence, Andi action of asking the students to answer the questions by
162 pointing to them reflects his attitude towards student participation, that is, passive
learning by the students by way of minimal participation. In addition, students who are nominated to answer the question may feel uncomfortable or anxious as a result of their
coerced participation. The excerpt below provides another example of how Andi nominates which
students are to answer his questions:
[Andi is discussing the questions in the textbook and asking the students to answer them] ANDI: Next, Nella [pointing to Nella].
NELLA: Both my parents wear glasses. I don’t want to wear glasses when I’m grown up [reading an answer in the textbook].
ANDI: Yes, both my parents wear glasses. Good. Priska? [pointing to Priska]. PRISKA: My grandmother is called, Theresa [reading an answer in the textbook].
ANDI: Yup, good. Next is Rosaline [pointing to Rosaline]. ROSALINE: My wife and the children are the best thing in my life. I love them [reading an
answer in the textbook]. ANDI: Okay. Florentina [pointing to Florentina].
Although both excerpts above indicate that Andi determines which students answer the questions; there is a difference in how he does it. In the first excerpt, Andi nominates
the students to answer in sequence, row by row. By contrast, in the second excerpt, Andi determines which students are to answer the questions by calling out their name
e.g. Nella, Priska, Rosaline and Florentina. Both examples above suggest Andi does not let the students participate by volunteering answers. Furthermore, data from the
video recordings of Andi’s lessons show he often asks non-communicative display questions rather than the referential questions. As a result, Andi does not encourage
student participation nor provide opportunities for the students to express their opinions. Andi’s way of interacting with the students is mostly through a material mode as
evidenced in the above excerpt. The sequence is classic IRF teacher Initiation, learner Response, teacher Feedback.
Initiation: Next, Nella. Response: Both my parents wear glasses. I don’t want to wear glasses when I’m
grown up [reading an answer in the textbook]. Feedback: Yes, both my parents wear glasses. Good. Priska?
163 As in the example above, Andi repeats the student’s response as a way to provide
feedback to the student. He does not use the third turn to encourage further opportunity for interaction and “very little interactional space or choice of topic are afforded as the
interaction is focused exclusively on the material” Walsh, 2010, p. 128. In other words, Andi requires the students to listen and respond, but the questions he asks are not
conducive to discussion. The questions are used to check comprehension rather than to develop thinking or interaction.
Generally speaking, Andi’s teaching practice is shaped by his pedagogic disposition to dominance and informalityfun. This implies that Andi wants to build a
strong and positive relationship with his students, but at the same time he does not promote active learning for his students. Andi does not encourage the students to be
involved in class participation other than at the level of providing single responses. As a result, although Andi is able to create a relaxed classroom environment, the students do
not actively participate in class activity and do not learn maximally. The relationship between Andi’s pedagogic disposition to dominance and capital, field, and practice is
discussed in the following subsection.
6.4.2.2 Relationship between Andi’s pedagogic disposition to dominance and capital, field, and practice
Andi can only participate in his field because of the capital he has. Moreover, Andi’s habitus determines the manner in which he uses his capital. The habitus then
shapes his teaching practice in his field. Thus, the relationship of habitus, field, and capital shapes Andi’s practices. Accordingly, Andi’s capital, in particular, his personal
institutionalized cultural capital including his self-confidence, his enthusiasm for teaching, and his ability to speak English fluently function as the resources, which
support his practices and pedagogic disposition to dominance. Andi tends to dominate the talk in the classroom. He often answers his own questions and does not give
sufficient thinking time to the students to formulate a verbal response, while he nominates which students are to answer his questions. During the initial interview
conducted before Andi engaged in a series of teacher self-evaluation activities, Andi was asked what he thought were his teaching strengths. He answered, “I think I always
try to balance between the portion of my talk and students talk. I also try to interact with
164 students more so that I won’t dominate the class” Interview 1, 18112011. This
response indicates that Andi is not aware that he has a pedagogic disposition to dominance that guides his instructional practice since habitus” beyond the grasp of
consciousness” Bourdieu, 1977, p. 94. This is in line with Jenkins’s 1992 claim that habitus is embodied through manner, styles, gait and language and unconsciously
generates action. Therefore, it may be argued that Andi’s practice is unconsciously shaped by his pedagogic disposition to dominance. Consequently, he dominates the
class talk and the students are positioned as passive learners and listeners during lessons.
Noble 2011, p. 51 asserted that “habitus is learned or adopted, and for teachers this has traditionally been scaffolding in and around the classroom and school”. As the
following excerpt shows, Andi may be adopting some of the practices of his own teachers or lecturers:
Almost all of my teachers in junior and senior high school had teacher-centred instruction. They always gave the students tasks to merely rewrite the textbooks
or ask one of the students to write on the blackboard and other students copied it in their books. They even sometimes got out the class and came back when the
class was over. When I entered the college, some of my lecturers had teacher- centred instruction as well. They were the ones who talk all the time in front of
the class almost for two hours. The students did not have enough opportunity to speak up and express their ideas. Some lecturers even often talked about their
personal experiences such as about their family Interview 3, 13062012.
As evidenced in the above statements, Andi is familiar with teacher-centred instruction as a result of his own educational experiences. The statements suggest he was a passive
learner and merely a good listener for his teacher. These experiences shape Andi’s thinking about how to teach. Hence, Andi is a product of apprenticeship of observation
Lortie, 1975 in that his experiences have provides him with a powerful understanding of teaching and of what teachers typically do Brosnan, 2010.
Furthermore, Roth 2002 pointed out:
When novice teachers first begin teaching, they often act in ways consistent with past experiences and thereby reproduce the structures that they themselves had
been subject to. Although they have not yet or little participated in teacher- student interaction from the teacher’s point of view, their habitus system of
structured structuring dispositions structures the way they question, itself
165 having been structured by the questioning sequenced they experienced with their
own teachers p. 47.
Andi’s pedagogic disposition to dominance is consistent with his past experiences. Teacher-centred instruction has become an education issue in Asian countries including
Indonesia. Particular focus is placed on the issues related to the teacher dominating the classroom talk and with students being positioned as passive learners who are taught to
be obedient and respectful to teachers. As a result, there are few opportunities for students to demonstrate critical thinking related to the learning activities in the
classroom. Andi is the product of this old-fashioned instruction method and these methods have influenced his own teaching actions.
Similar to the case of Maya in the previous chapter, Andi’s pedagogic disposition to dominance significantly influences the students’ learning in the class.
They tend to be overly dependent on Andi for their learning content, direction, and goals as he alone determines what is taught and how it is taught. The students are not
encouraged to develop their skills during lessons. To create a more effective teaching and learning process which supports and encourages students to fully engage in the
class activities, Andi should work with the students to ensure they benefit from his lesson. Andi should allow space for the students to develop their thinking skills by
reducing the amount of time he spends talking during lessons, and by providing a sufficient amount of thinking time to the students. Andi also needs to provide more
opportunities for the students to express their ideas and opinion during the class activities rather than nominating which students are to speak. The productive
disruptions to Andi’s pedagogic disposition that emerged from his self-evaluation mediational activity are discussed in the next section of this chapter.
6.5 Productive disruptions resulting from teacher self-evaluation as a mediational activity
Andi is already familiar with the concept of teacher self-evaluation as he engaged in the practice regularly while working at TBI. Self-evaluation in the current
study was driven by data from video recorded lessons and my observation notes, student feedback forms, and through participating in collegial dialogue with other teachers. In
addition, similar to Maya in the previous chapter, Andi recognized that every self-
