Explaining Student Silence from the Perspective of the Islamic Approach to Action and Its Implications in Educational Interaction

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor in Philosophy of Educational Sciences, Department of Philosophical and Social Foundations of Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor in Philosophy of Education, Department of Philosophical and Social Foundations of Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor in Philosophy of Education, Department of Education, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

4 PhD Student, Department of Philosophy of Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction

Although classroom interaction includes dialogue and silence between teachers and students, the role of dialogue is often emphasized, while the role of silence is either overlooked or considered negative and indicative of non-participation. However, this silence can have different meanings, and non-participation is just one of them. This study introduces another meaning of silence, viewing it as a human action that can play a role in educational interaction. Attention to the meaning and concept of student silence has also been considered by some researchers, some of whom have tried to reveal the meanings of silence and assist teachers in communicating with their students. Examining the presented meanings shows that some of these silences can also be considered the students̕ actions; however, this point has been overlooked. This study aims to explain the nature of the action of silence based on the perspective of human agency. This perspective arises from the anthropological view of the Islamic approach to action, which posits that human behaviors, possessing cognitive, affective, and volitional foundations, can be considered human actions and hold the agent responsible. This study aims to answer two questions:  1. How can student silence be considered their action? 2. what educational implications does their action of silence entail?
 
Method
The methodological approaches in this study are conceptual analysis and inferential methods; therefore, to answer the research questions, we first used the conceptual analysis method to achieve the conceptual framework of the action of silence and then, according to it, we presented the corresponding educational implications using the inferential method. This method is the same as Brody’s derivative method, which responds to educational questions with a philosophical perspective. This practical response is extracted from and inferred philosophical foundations (Bagheri, 2009, p. 101). In other words, in this section, the philosophical basis of agency is the perspective that responds to the educational issue related to the interaction of teachers with silent students. That is, to deal with student silence, attention must be paid to the agency of both the teacher and the student in a practical syllogism, which includes the following three stages:

The teacher should realize educational interaction. (normative proposition)
Realizing educational interaction depends on a safe emotional atmosphere and the negation of protective silence. (realistic proposition)
The teacher should provide a safe emotional atmosphere and eliminate protective silence to realize educational interaction. (normative proposition)

 
 
Results
The findings are presented in two sections. First, silence can be considered a human action with cognitive, affective, and volitional foundations, leading to various types of actions, including silence due to ignorance, imposed silence, domineering silence, protective silence, silence as a sign of respect, silence as a sign of protest, and contemplative silence. Paying attention to student silence as an action in interactions increases sensitivity to it; therefore, teachers need to appropriately address the foundations of these actions to achieve constructive interaction.
In the second section, the educational implications and principles are discussed. These implications include the necessity for teachers to regard student silence as an action, to identify different types of student silence, and to respond appropriately to each type of silence while adhering to corresponding educational principles. These principles include guiding silence due to ignorance, providing an atmosphere for contemplative silence, transforming domineering silence into critical dialogue, ensuring a safe atmosphere for protective silence, breaking protest silence and inviting dialogue, avoiding imposed silence, and fostering silence as a sign of respect.
 
Discussion and Conclusion
This study introduces student silence as a responsible action. Understanding student silence as an action and identifying its various types can open new perspectives for educators, helping them achieve constructive interactions with students, clearly understand their questions, and strive to enhance their learning. This paper emphasizes the complexity and ambiguity of the concept of silence and the sensitivity of the action of silence, highlighting the need for educators to pay special attention to student silence in education. Educators should not overlook any silence, as delayed attention to it may lead to serious consequences.

Keywords


  1. باقری، خسرو (1388). بررسی تطبیقی طرحواره اسلامی عمل با انسان‌شناسی (پسا) ساختارگرا. فصلنامه تعلیم و تربیت، 25(2)، 9−
  2. باقری، خسرو (1389). در آمدی بر فلسفه تعلیم و تربیت جمهوری اسلامی ایران؛ تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
  3. باقری، خسرو (1389). رویکردها و روشهای پژوهش در فلسفه تعلیم و تربیت؛ تهران: انتشارات سمت و پژوهشگاه مطالعات آموزش و پرورش.
  4. باقری، خسرو (1390). هویت علم دینی؛ تهران: سازمان چاپ و انتشارات.
  5. باقری، خسرو (1394). فبک در ترازو؛ تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
  6. باقری، خسرو (1399). عاملیت انسان رویکردی دینی و فلسفی؛ تهران: نشر واکاوش.
  7. چناری، مهین و کرباسچیان، فاطمه (1394). جایگاه زبان سکوت در تربیت دینی. دوفصلنامه علمی ـ ترویجی علوم تربیتی از دیدگاه اسلام. 5(3)، ۱۲۱−۱۴۶.
  8. سرل، جان آر (1387). افعال گفتاری (محمدعلی عبدالهی، مترجم)؛ تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم و فرهنگ اسلامی.
  9. علوی، حمیدرضا (1386). جایگاه سکوت در تعلیم و تربیت. مجله پژوهش‌های اسلامی.۱ (1)، ۱۲۹−۱۵۷.
  10. کومبز، جرالدآر، دنیلز، لو روی بی (1388). پژوهش فلسفی: تحلیل مفهومی. ترجمه خسرو باقری. در شورت، ادموند سی. روش‌شناسی مطالعات برنامه درسی، (مهر محمدی و همکاران، مترجمان)؛ تهران: انتشارات سمت.
  11. مشکی باف مقدم، زهره، چرابین مسلم، اکبری، احمد، و داوودی علیرضا (1398). تحلیل نشانه‌شناختی «سکوت» در مدیریت کلاس درس. پژوهش‌نامه مبانی تعلیم‌وتربیت،9(2)، 67−
  12. میرلوحی، سید حسین (1393). اهمیت تربیتی سکوت از دیدگاهی هستی‌گرایانه و امکان گنجاندن آن در برنامه درسی مدارس. در: برنامه درسی نظرگاه‌ها، رویکردها و چشم‌اندازها. مهرمحمدی و همکاران، تهران: آستان قدس رضوی (سمت).
  13. ویتگنشتاین، لودویگ یوزف یوهان (1388). رساله منطقی فلسفی. (میرشمس‌الدین ادیب سلطانی، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات امیرکبیر.
  14. ویگوتسکی، لوسیمونوویچ (1367). تفکر و زبان (بهروز عزبدفتری، مترجم). تبریز: انتشارات نیما.
  15. Baurain, B. (2011). Teaching, Listening, and Generative Silence. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing ,27(3), 89-101.
  16. Caranfa, A. (2004). Silence as the Foundation of Learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 54(2), 211 – 230.
  17. Caranfa, A. (2013). Socrates, Augustine, and Paul Gauguin on the Reciprocity between Speech and Silence in Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education,47 (4),577-604.
  18. Deans, C. (2013). Pupil perspectives on silence: the roles and meanings of silence in the classroom'. Journal of Trainee Teacher Educational Research, 4.195-234.
  19. Hamelock, M & Friesen, N. (2012). One Student’s Experience of Silence in the Classroom. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu.
  20. Hanna, A. (2021). Silence at school: Uses and experiences of silence in pedagogy at a secondary school. British Educational Research Journal, 47(5), 1158–1176.
  21. Jaworski, A. (1998), Beliefs about Silence in the Classroom. Language and Education,12 (4), 273-292.
  22. Journell, W. (2017). Politically Conservative Preservice Teachers and the Spiral of Silence: Implications for Teacher Education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44, 105-129.
  23. Lausch, S. (2018). Inviting Mindful Silence into Pedagogy: Supporting Agency, Voice, And Critical Engagement through Silence. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Communication. Boise State University.
  24. Lees, H. (2012). Silence in Schools. London: A Trentham Books/IOE Press. Available in Internet Archive. https://archive.org/
  25. Li, H. (2001). Silences and Silencing Silences. Philosophy of Education, 157-165.
  26. Ollin, (2004). Silence, Meanings and Learning. International Journal of Learning, (11), 441-447.
  27. Ollin, R. (2008). Silent pedagogy and rethinking classroom practice: structuring teaching through silence rather than talk. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38, 265 - 280.
  28. Schultz, K. (2010). After the Blackbird Whistles: Listening to Silence in Classrooms. Teachers College Record, 112(11), 2833–2849.
  29. Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts, an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
  30. Vassilopoulos, S. & Konstantinos, G. (2012). Teacher Use of Silence in Elementary Education. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8 (1),91-
  31. Zembylas, M., & Michaelides, P. (2004). The sound of silence in pedagogy. Educational Theory, 54(2), 193-210.