Instrumentos de seguimiento y control

One behavioural expectation of the traditional learner subjectivity already discussed is the passive consumption of authoritative knowledge. As a power dynamic, this gives the teacher role dispositional power to ‘tell [students] what things mean, what to do’ (Shor, 1996, pp.11–2). The spatial dynamic that perpetuates the notion that the teacher role provides authoritative knowledge was founded in the observational data of this study; academics consistently positioned themselves at the front of the learning space, with undergraduates positioned further away and facing them (A, 2, Lec; A, 1, Lec; A, 2, Sem; A, 1, Sem; B, 3, Lec; B, 3, Sem; B, 2, Lec; B, 2, Sem). Kreisberg conceptualises the normalised behaviour of the traditional learner in terms of transmission teaching; he argues that, what Freire termed ‘banking education’ (1985), ‘cultivates passivity, conformity, obedience, acquiescence, and unquestioning acceptance of authority. It

makes objects out of students, it dehumanizes, it denies students’ experiences and voices, it stifles creativity, it disempowers’ (1992, p.8). There was a consistent recognition in the findings of the expectation that academics are the holders of finite knowledge; the internalised passivity of the traditional learner subjectivity ‘makes them feel safe because they’re being told what it is they need to know’ (B, PL) and this is what they are familiar with. The findings illuminate that undergraduates ‘perceive that [academics] know a lot more about the topic than they do and they want [them] to tell them about it’ (B, SL).

As part of their ‘action-environment’ (Wartenberg, 1990, p.80), individuals understand and evaluate the context in which they find themselves and act accordingly; because universities implement similar practices to other educational institutions and because it appears ‘so similar to […] school’ (B, 3, F, EL and MC), undergraduates naturally adopt the traditional learner subjectivity and follow the rules of the associated power relationship. Isaac argues:

To say that teachers and students are in a certain structural relationship is only to say that there are people called teachers and students who characteristically do the things which the relationship involves. If social power is never exercised, it can hardly be said to exist. But its exercise is always shaped and constrained by certain enduring relations (1987, p.23).

The subjectivities of the traditional learner and teacher have solidified over years of continuance in educational contexts and as such, the dispositional power of each subjectivity has also been solidified. As Haugaard argues, ‘the socially competent actor becomes constrained internally, without having to experience external implementation of constraint, because he or she knows what to expect’ (2012, p.39). As socially competent actors, undergraduates have internalised the behavioural characteristics of the traditional learner subjectivity, and its associated power relationship, which dictates that academics are ‘more educated than [undergraduates] are, and they’re there to teach

[them]’ (A, 2, M, E). Resulting from this internalisation is a need to act accordingly and accept that academics have ‘a prowess’ (A, 2, F, E) over undergraduates because of their expertise.

This authority is internalised as a natural and appropriate element of the traditional power relationship, which was corroborated by the perceptions of the undergraduates. One said: ‘I think because some of them are so intelligent, that I just feel like anything I’m going to say they’re going to be, like, “Really? Really?”’ (A, 2, M, E) and another said: ‘you always feel stupid, literally, you could have the best point ever and they, sort of, look at you as if to say, “What?” […] it’s almost like they’ve already thought of it when they’re brushing their teeth’ (A, 1, F, E and J). The perception of these participants suggests the acceptance of an academics’ authority because of their intelligence. As Hargreaves notes, traditional learners are used to abiding by the mantra of ‘what the teacher says goes’ (1972, p.139) and this becomes more pertinent for undergraduates because of the increased expertise of the academics. One said: ‘you have to put trust in the fact they’re academics, and that they are top of their field, and they know what they’re doing, and […] you do just have to sit back and accept that’ (A, 1, F, E and J). As a social practice, this acceptance of, and deference to, the authority of knowledge that the academic possesses is in virtue of their social role and the expectations that ‘they know what they’re doing’ (A, 1, F, E and J).

This notion of expertise was accepted by most undergraduates as a natural part of the power relationship because they have ‘finished their study and, in that sense, have a prowess over you’ (A, 2, F, E) and ‘they are more intelligent than you’ (A, 3, F, E). It was considered to be natural because, as Shor notes, ‘they expect the teacher to be a

unilateral authority. They expect an authoritarian rhetorical setting: teacher-talk, teacher-centered standard English, an official syllabus with remote subject matter, and unilateral rule-making’ (1996, p.16). However, despite it being accepted as a natural expectation of the power relationship, some undergraduates felt frustration at the power differential engendered by the academic’s authority of knowledge.

There was a general sense of frustration when academics exercised their authority of knowledge to undermine an undergraduate’s opinion:

We’re not on the same level, we’re not, intellectually we’re not equal because they have PhDs and higher qualifications […] there have been a couple of occasions where they’ve been like, “No, […] I don’t think that’s the case”, I’m like, “Well, that’s my opinion” so, in terms of a hierarchy, I’d say there are occasions when tutors would say that their opinion is more valid (A, 2, M, E).

Although this participant recognised that academics have greater knowledge due to their qualifications, he still felt frustration at being undermined. As a social practice, individuals are socialised into deferring to authoritative knowledge during compulsory schooling:

I absolutely hated being spoon-fed information at school because a lot of the time I didn’t agree with it [laughing]. I was sat there thinking, “Yes okay, but you’re reading this and I’m reading this” and there was no argument about it, there was no, kind of, alternate readings (A, 2, F, E and H).

Another participant felt this was perpetuated within universities through academics’ dismissal of ideas that countered their own:

I think there was one tutor that we all struggled with last year, because every, sort of, interpretation we put forward they were, kind of, like, “No, that’s not right” and we were all just getting frustrated like, “You can’t just turn everyone down” (B, 2, F, EL).

The authority of knowledge that constitutes the traditional power relationship, although accepted by undergraduates, was resented by some because it can impact their willingness to participate in the learning exercise: ‘it can be really difficult to then want

to put anything forward because it’s intimidating, because you’re fully aware that academically, they’re above you’ (A, 2, F, E).

Despite this frustration, though, the internalised expectation that undergraduates should defer to the academic’s authoritative knowledge was expressed by the majority of the interviewees and perceived to be a necessary characteristic of the traditional power relationship. Generally, academics endorsed the notion of the expert. One said: ‘I do believe in the notion of the expert as well, it’s not terrifically fashionable but I do’ (A, PL and ProgL) and another said ‘I am willing to listen but ultimately, I am the specialist […] sometimes, the experts really do know best’ (B, R). Shor argues that the socially structured subjectivity of the teacher requires social agents, performing in that role, to adopt expected characteristics and behaviours:

This in-process invention calls upon me to behave like an authority who is a legitimate teacher, someone who knows something worth learning, who knows how to teach what I know […] These are some minimal markers that reassure students of my competence and of the intellectual seriousness of the course. If I deny these professional signs of authority, I will broadcast incompetence or carelessness (1996, p.20).

Academics in general, perpetuated these expectations as natural characteristics of their roles as academics, and thus natural characteristics of the power relationship.

However, there were two academics, in particular, who disagreed with this notion of authority. The first academic said: ‘I don’t have a PhD for example, I don’t have a, kind of, sense of [pause] my academic authority as being higher or separate […] there’s

maybe some people that believe that the students are not equal’ (B, FDLT). The same

academic went on to argue:

At the start of your learning and teaching career, you’re, kind of, worried about looking like a serious academic, and slowly, I’ve, sort of, dropped a lot of those masks and layers and, I think that that can be helpful for lecturers. And students really appreciate that authenticity as well (B, FDLT).

The above emphasises the expectancy of adhering to the characteristics of authority and expertise, because of its association with the role of ‘academic’. The second academic, who interestingly did not have a PhD either, perceived the unnecessary perpetuation of an academic’s authority to be caused by the traditionalism of the English discipline: ‘traditionally, we see ourselves as an academic discipline, and I know that many colleagues are very reluctant to change, and that’s partly because frankly, we consider ourselves a little bit elite and it’s a very silly idea’ (A, SL and SEA). The same academic saw no reason why undergraduates should not have greater control over the curriculum and assessment design of their courses, which suggests that the socialisation of the teacher’s unilateral authority is perpetuated, not only by the systemically constructed subjectivity, but also by the socially constructed context in which the subjectivity of the teacher participates. Despite these anomalies, there was a cogent perception in the findings that the teacher has an ‘unavoidable’ (B, SL) authority over knowledge.