Recently, I found myself in the same situation when teaching a group of students unfamiliar with my methods. The topic of the classroom discussion was ‘Nora’s nervousness’ in Act II of Henrik Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’. The question for the discussion was to know personal insights, yet some of the students immediately opened their laptops, attempting to search for the correct answer. When repeated warning failed and still whispering continued, the ultimate solution arrived to me, where I had to ask them to leave the class if they were not interested in the session. However, they question back, “Tell us what had we done to leave the classroom.” Both sides were acting on what felt like self-evident truth, but our truths occupied completely different realities.
Perspective 1: The Perspective of Digital Efficiency
The major source of conflict is born from the students’ perspective
of digital efficiency. For this generation that raised on instant information
access, the educational process is often perceived as a rapid search for the
single, correct data point. Their immediate instinct is to open laptops, go to
ChatGPT or other AI tools despite the clear absence of a need of external
research. It is not an act of rebellion or defiance but of their deepest
academic habit. For them ‘if a question exists’ then ‘an answer exists’, and if
answer exists, then the correct method to search the answer is the method which
can give answer rapidly, quickly. Students’ perspective is validated by the
speed of ChatGPT, leads to their firm belief that they are correct. They were
being productive and efficient. And that is why the teacher’s instructions to
stop was perceived as an obstacle to learning.
Perspective 2: The Perspective of Teaching Method’s Intention
Here, the teacher’s perspective is defined by the process.
My insistence on putting down the devices and raising hands was not a power
move, but a necessary defense of a specific, critical learning goal.
The question about Nora’s crisis demanded listening,
synthesising and respective argumentation. The intention of the
activity/discussion was to force students to grapple with ambiguity, test their
memory and interpretation, and build on each other’s contribution. From this
point of view, students’ behaviour was not only disruptive but it was uncooperating
to the learning environment. When they asked what they had done wrong, they
were demanding a rule violation, but the actual wrongdoing was the repeated
failure to acknowledge and participate in the group discussion which in way was
a communal intellectual contract. This perspective in the belief that process
matters more than product, makes our actions feel equally, and completely,
right.
However, the explosive moment was their question – Tell
us what we had done wrong to leave the classroom. These students are accustomed
to autonomy often given to the IBDP students. They interpret their freedom as
the ‘right to dictate their learning conditions’. Their habitual reliance on technology
and their intent to find the answer validated their actions, make them ignorant
to the two key violations of the classroom discussion.
First Key Violation: Disregard for the Procedure: They
were repeatedly instructed to stop and failed to comply, showing a profound
disrespect for the authority managing the environment.
Second Key Violation: Disregard for Peers: These students
were so fixated on their own intent that they completely ignored everything
else; particularly the consequence of their actions on other students’
learning.
In their minds, they were right, their intentions were
pure so they should not to be asked to leave the classroom. Their own
perspective blinded them to the simple truth i.e. When your ‘RIGHT’ to pursue
your own agenda repeatedly oversteps on the learning rights of others, then the
boundaries must be enforced.
The conflict in the classroom that day was not about
technology, discipline, or even a classic play; it was a pure collision of
validated self-perspectives. This dynamic where both parties are certain of
their own correctness is the greatest persistent challenge in education today.
As educators, we must recognize that the simple
enforcement of rules does not address the underlying problems in learning. To
truly break through, we must do more than state the rule; we must make the consequences
of their perspective visible. This requires teaching students to shift their
focus from their personal, immediate intent ("I am researching") to
the collective, social impact ("I am disrupting the learning of
twenty peers").
Ultimately, the lesson derived from this impasse is that
while we cannot eliminate perspective, we can, and must, teach the humility
required to acknowledge that our way is not the only way. Only by
dissecting these moments, showing how their belief in being right leads to
destructive outcomes, can we begin to nurture the collaborative, reflective
thinkers our pedagogy demands.
