Teachers/Diffusing Power - Post by Helen

I remember a lecture I really connected with regarding the concepts of Power Over, Power With, Power To.  It all related to the dynamics of a classroom set-up with chairs in a horseshoe layout. 

Power Over:  The prof still had overall control of the discussion and was the facilitator.  She kept the discussion flowing and on track.

Power With:  The discussions were an invitation to speak freely and to recognize each other’s contributions but also having the permission to disagree or counter each other’s viewpoints.  The prf joined the discussion.  We could argue with or against the prof’s viewpoint.  In a sense we were all on the same level with the prof, such as King Arthur’s round table...however there was still that opening at the “top” the horseshoe where the prof was situated, which visually signified she still had the ultimate power in the classroom, and could step back into a Power Over mode if needed.    

Power To:  Here the prof stepped back completely and gave us free reign on the topic.  We self managed the discussion/activity.  The responsibility was to report back to the whole class and summarize our thoughts of the discussion.  This is where the prof would step back into her role of Power Over as we were each required to contribute a point about the discussion, although we had the opportunity to pass.  This was a large class and the process worked quite well. 

  The following is an excerpt from my own paper in a philosophy class.  It correlates with power diffusion because once a child has a developed language acquisition skills, this gives them a sense of agency over their environments and hence control in their lives as they can express their needs and wants. 

If a backyard dog is bored, it will dig holes, chew on anything it can find and bark incessantly.  It requires stimulation which includes company, either that of humans or other dogs.  In Dr. Levykh’s article, “Vygotsky’s Notions of Learning-Teaching and Development,” he states that Vygotsky makes a differentiation between lower and higher mental functions.  The aforementioned dog is a creature of, “lower mental functions (which) are natural and primitive.” (2)  However as a child grows he/she develops, “higher mental functions (which) are mediated by cultural tools and signs.” (3)  The dog can be taken to a dog park and run around happily with other dogs.  It is essentially playing and hence being stimulated, but it doesn’t learn anything new, nor is there a permanent change in its behaviour.  Once returned to its backyard, it will resume its bad habits.  A child though, if he/she plays with a group of children goes much beyond expending pent-up energy. 

   One principle of Vygotsky’s Social Development theory is the acquisition of language.  Children show their understanding through many symbolic languages including drawing, sculpture, dramatic play and writing.  When they interact in pretend play with each other, they develop complex narratives.  “They begin to link object, actions, and language together in combinations and narrative sequences.” (4)  Vygotsky explores the language exchange with each other and inner speech; during play, children will nurture both.  Vygotsky believed that language develops from social interactions, for communication purposes. Later language ability becomes internalised as thought and “inner speech”.  Vygotsky sees "private speech" as a means for children to plan activities and strategies and therefore aid their development.  Language is therefore an accelerator to thinking and understanding.

I found the following regarding power in the classroom.  http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/publications/112.pdf

THE BASES OF POWER

French and Raven's (1968) bases of power are all founded on the perceptions of

individuals over whom the power might be exerted. Although French and Raven

(1968) were not writing with the classroom as their intended focus, we will examine

these power bases in this context below.

Coercive Power. A teacher's coercive power is based on a student's expectations

that he/she will be punished by the teacher if he/she does not conform to the

teacher's influence attempt. The strength of the teacher's coercive power is contingent

upon the student's perception of how probable it is that the teacher will exact

punishment for non-conformance and the degree of negative consequences such

punishment would entail, minus the probability of punishment from other sources

(eg. from peers, the behavior itself, etc.) if the student does comply with the teacher's

influence attempt. It is important to note here that in environments where very

strong peer-group pressure against the teacher exists, the teacher may have no

coercive power at all, even though the teacher may be in a position to exert a high

degree of punishment.

Reward Power. A teacher's reward power is based on a student's perception of the

degree to which the teacher is in a position to provide reward to her/him for

complying with the teacher's influence attempt. Such rewards may involve providing

something positive (positive reinforcement) or removing something negative (negative

reinforcement). As was the case with coercive power, the strength of a teacher's

reward power is mediated by the possibility of receiving other rewards from other

sources as a function of non-compliance.

Although it is often not recognized, coercive and reward power essentially are the

flip sides of the same coin. Coercive power involves introducing something unpleasant

or removing something pleasant if the student fails to comply. Reward power

involves introducing something pleasant or removing something unpleasant if the

student does comply.

.

Legitimate Power. Legitimate power often is referred to as "assigned" power. It

stems from the assigned role of the teacher in the classroom. Legitimate power is

based on the student's perception that the teacher has the right to make certain

demands and requests as a function of her/his position as "teacher." This type of

power generally is most related to mundane matters, such as controlling classroom

time, determining what unit should be studied, regulating interaction, and the like. It

generally does not extend beyond the school environment into the private lives of

students. In some cases, however, this type of power is much broader. A prime

example is the coach who sets up training rules. Usually the athlete will comply with

these rules because they are seen as "legitimate" demands from this person because

of her/his role as coach. Similar demands from the art teacher likely would be

ignored.

Referent Power. The foundation of referent power is the student's identification

with the teacher. This type of power is based on the relationship between two people.

Specifically, it is based on the desire of the less powerful person (the student) to

identify with and please the more powerful person (teacher). The stronger the

student's attraction to and identification with the teacher, the stronger the teacher's

referent power.

Expert Power. Expert power stems from the student perceiving the teacher to be

competent and knowledgeable in specific areas. Most information taught in a

classroom is presented from a base of expert power. The ideas are not "proven" in an

objective sense. They are presented with the expectation they will be accepted by the

student. To the extent the student sees the teacher as competent and knowledgeable,

this expectation will be correct. French and Raven (1968) stress that the main impact

of expert power is change in an individual's cognitions. Any change in behavior is a

secondary result of that influence.