Peer Groups, Power and Pedagogy - The Limits of an Educational Paradigm of Separation

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Elsa

The paper examines how teachers shape their relationships with young people, countering literature that attributes the growing teacher–youth divide mainly to students’ changing interests and expectations. Drawing on an incident involving 7–8-year-old boys in primary school, it reveals the limits of a teaching paradigm that separates and individualises students through teacher authority. The study argues the paradigm exaggerates individual agency and manages miscreance by individualising behaviour, creating a pedagogy of separation.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages22

Reading Time55 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Mainstream effective teaching and classroom control

Teachers’ frustrations and peer group influence

The teaching paradigm of separation

Impacts on teachers and learning environments

Peer Groups, Power and Pedagogy: The Limits of an Educational Paradigm of Separation Christopher Hickey and Amanda Keddie Deakin University and University of Southern Queensland Abstract In contrast to the plethora of literature that suggests that the increasing gulf between teachers and young people is due to the shifting interests and expectations of young people, the focus of this paper is on the roles teachers play in this relationship. Provoking our interest is a concern that some of the assumptions that underpin‘mainstream’ pedagogic theory and practice might actually contribute, albeit unwittingly, to hardening rather than softening the communication divide. Drawing on an incident that took place between a group of 7–8 year old males in a primary school setting, we reveal the limits of a teaching paradigm that encourages teachers to adopt authoritative positions from which to separate and individualise student behaviour. In theoretical terms, we argue that the application of this paradigm asserts an exaggerated notion of agency to individuals in the construction of identity. In practical terms it promotes processes that individualise behaviour as a way of dealing with miscreance. Together these manifest themselves as a ‘pedagogy of separation’. The process of building more productive pedagogic relationships, we conclude, needs to begin with teachers better recognising and engaging with the collective investments of young people. Introduction The boys can be really difficult, especially the year nines. You ask them to be quiet and they ignore you. Separate them and they throw things across the room to each other. Send them to the principal and they come back with smiles on their faces. Threaten to call their parents and they laugh at you. It doesn’t matter what you do; they’re not interested The Australian Educational Researcher, Volume 31, Number 1, April 2004 •57 CHRISTOPHER HICKEY AND AMANDA KEDDIE what teachers have to say. They’re only interested in who’s the funniest, who is the coolest or who can push you the furthest. Sometimes I think about getting out of teaching altogether. (Claudia, Victorian secondary school teacher) Whenever groups of teachers get together there is an alarming regularity with which the conversation turns to how difficult the practice of being a teacher has become, or is becoming. Whether such a perception is based on their qualitative experiences or romantic notions of what young people were like in the past, many teachers share a belief that their work has become more complicated and intensive (Dunham and Varma 1998, Huberman 1993) . Testimony to this is the explosion of conferences and publications in which teachers and researchers enumerate the problems and frustrations experienced by teachers in their work with young people. Notable in this sphere of activity is the plight of those teachers who regularly deal with students in the middle-school years. Foremost in the positioning of this cohort as particularly problematic is a widespread recognition of the influence of the peer group. Indeed, it seems that combating ‘groupness’ presents teachers such as Claudia with their most persistent obstacle to creating an ‘effective’ teaching/learning environment (Coleman 2000, Letendre 2000) . Pivotal in the mainstream discourse of effective teaching is the practical imperative that teachers are able to manage and control the learning environment. Indeed, thereis a bevy of literature available to expound the consequences for teachers not able to achieve this most fundamental demand. We have known for a long time that the absence of a ‘constructive’ educational environment will impinge on the learning process (Kozol 1994, Metz 2000) . Further to this, we are also now warned of the negative consequences for teachers themselves, should they not be able to manage or control the learning environment (Guglielmi and Tatrow 1998, Kyriacou and Sutcliff 1987) . Claudia’s comments at t

FAQs

What does the paper challenge about mainstream explanations for the teacher–youth divide?

It challenges the idea that the increasing gap is mainly caused by young people’s shifting interests and expectations. Instead, it argues teachers’ roles and assumptions in mainstream pedagogical theory may contribute to hardening the communication divide.

What incident does the paper use to analyze these dynamics?

The analysis draws on an incident involving a group of 7–8-year-old males in a primary school setting, focusing on how teaching approaches affect communication and behaviour.

Why is the “pedagogy of separation” considered limited in this research?

The paper argues that separating and individualising students from an authoritative teacher position exaggerates individual agency in identity construction and leads to processes that deal with miscreance by individualising behaviour, eroding productive pedagogic relationships.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Elsa