Teacher Power and Gender in Libyan Language Teacher Education

Abstract

Teacher power (TP) is a function of teacher knowledge that makes teachers far superior over their students. How TP is exerted in language classrooms can influence students’ emotional well-being and can hinder active participation. This case study employs a discursive approach- rather than a perceptive one- to explore how Libyan EFL teacher educators exercise power and whether such power is influenced by gender. Teachers’ discourse is recorded and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively to determine the extent to which male and female teachers utilise pro-social or anti-social power how student–teachers respond to and perceive TP is also investigated. Six teacher educators (three males and three females) were observed over 18 lectures (22 hours) involving 47 students. Personal interviews were conducted with the educators, besides holding focus groups. The findings reveal convergent patterns of power with unique gender variances in TP ratios (anti-social: pro-social). Male power ratio (2.3:1) was much greater than the females’ (1.5:1) who displayed command power, zero criticism, and zero coercion; Female power was distinguished by politeness, compliment and “command softening” whereas the students tolerated command, interruption, and questioning, unwarranted coercion and unconstructive criticism were met with silent protest. Balancing power was deemed crucial to foster affective stress-free learning.

1. Introduction

In Libyan, and Muslim culture at large, teachers are very much esteemed by both students and society [1]. It is because of the knowledge they possess and convey to others that teachers are rendered superior over their learners [2]. Notwithstanding how teacher superiority, or teacher power (TP), is perceived, learners as recipients of power are somewhat sensitive to how it is exercised. While learners react positively to constructive comments, teacher praise, or encouragement, they are endowed with a sensitive threshold to power, that is perhaps embedded in their culture. Excess power, for example, coercion, criticism, or over-interruption can harm the less-powerful learners, hence causing increased anxiety and/or avoidance of further class contribution [3].

When teachers are conscious of the adverse consequences of power, they will be able to mitigate power to reduce anxiety and promote a relaxed classroom environment. Mitigating TP using “command softening” expressions has proven successful in the present study. Therefore, a conscientious understanding of how to manipulate TP, appreciate how affective learning and learner contribution are influenced is indispensable for EFL teaching practitioners. Therefore “understanding power use in the classroom is essential to setting up positive, pro-social learning environments and avoid abusing (or the perception of) teacher power” [4].

1.1 Related studies

Earlier studies on TP were largely quantitative and based primarily on students’ perceptions of exerted power (e.g. [5, 6, 7, 8]). In particular, those studies reference the five power sources [9] as bases for TP measurement, which were not originally intended for classroom contexts and were founded on the perceptions of students, over whom power was exerted [5]. More recently though several qualitative case studies were carried out with emphasis on power relations and specific strategies of teacher power:

For example, a case study was undertaken to explore politeness strategies by Indonesian teachers and students in high school settings using video-recorded observations [10]. The results show that positive, negative, and bold forms of politeness, perceptions of teacher and students of power, as well as social distance all contributed to the politeness strategies used.

A later case study explored gender effects on politeness strategies by Iranian EFL teachers’ classroom interaction [11]. The researchers carried out classroom observations of ten classes involving five male and five female teachers. Frequencies and percentages of politeness acts were worked out and then compared. The results showed that students’ interaction and learning were positively influenced by the females’ politeness strategies; moreover, the females were more interactive and supportive of student’s mistakes; they asked more referential questions, complimented more, and used fewer commands. A direct relationship between polite strategies and learning processes was posited.

Another case study was conducted to examine Malaysian secondary school classroom discourse in which they used classroom observations and pedagogic discourse analysis [12]. It was found that discourse is characterised with teacher domination controlling discourse and student behaviour, e.g. in turn taking and in the types of questions posed.

An additional case study employed classroom observations of twelve EFL classes to analyse command strategies of Malay university teachers [13]. Their findings reveal that while lecturers do not always use directives, teacher talk dominates teaching and learning; the students on the other hand acknowledged adherence to teachers’ orders.

Power relationships among teachers and students were explored in Filipino private universities [14]. Eight teachers and eight students were interviewed using open-ended and semi-structured interviews. Exceptional and convergent experiences of power relations emerged from the thematic analysis used. Both teachers and students revealed that their experience of power or lack of power could be described in terms of differences in knowledge and expertise. Several limits to teacher power were identified by both groups.

A further qualitative case study on politeness was carried out to analyse the realisation and choices of politeness strategies in an Indonesian EFL teacher education context [15]. The study used a framework of politeness strategies [16] to analyse the classroom discourse of thirty students and their teacher in two classes. The findings disclose positive politeness, negative politeness, and bald on record. Positive politeness was to maintain a close teacher–student relationship, negative politeness to minimise coercion, and bald on records to give explicit instruction. Sociological factors, e.g. distance, power, and degree of imposition, influenced choices of politeness strategies.

1.2 The gap

Whereas previous studies focused mainly on teacher power use in Asian countries, little emphasis was made on Arab EFL contexts. More specifically, to the authors’ best knowledge, no research has been conducted in Libyan EFL teacher education or even higher education as a whole. This research, therefore, contributes to the field through a qualitative case study that explores the extent of teacher power use with particular emphasis on gender differences and the discursive strategies applied.

1.3 Research questions

Based on the underlying perspective set out thus far, three pivotal research questions have been posited to direct data collection instruments:

1. To what degree anti-social and pro-social power are exerted in the classroom discourse of Libyan EFL teacher educators?

2. What gender differences in anti-social and pro-social power are exhibited?

3. What are the students’ perception of and reaction to anti-social and pro-social power?

2. Conceptual framework

2.1 Teacher power

The source of power is invariably traced to possession of knowledge [2]. Broadly speaking, power is an individual’s capacity to influence the behaviour of another person or group of persons [17]. That is, teachers are capable of applying power over their students due to the knowledge they possess [18]. “Power”, “influence”, and “control” are treated as synonymous in the relevant literature [19]. The view that power is control of action and cognition is sustained [20]. This means that teachers not only have the potential to limit the freedom of students but also to influence their minds through cognitive learning. More specifically, power is perceived as one’s capacity to make a person do something that he/she would not otherwise do has he/she not been exposed to power [21]. Hence, “the teacher is considered superior in terms of his/her knowledge, experience, and judgements, whereas learners are the ‘lesser’ partners in the interaction” [1].

Further perspectives consider teacher power as “the teacher’s ability to affect in some way the students’ well-being beyond the students’ control” [5], rendering them unable to avert its consequences. More importantly, teacher power is exerted through classroom discourse, and consequently, its impact will be felt by students in multiple facets, in their affective learning [5], motivation to participate in class activities [22], and in their academic achievement [23].

An interrelationship of power with discourse is emphasised by advocating a “difference between knowing and teaching, and that difference is communication in the classroom” [24]. Power is then “linguistically expressed by teachers and presented in the classroom” [18]. Accordingly, teacher power discourse is expressed not only by content-knowledge alone but more specifically through the manipulation of discursive strategies: “We now realise that knowledge of content material is an insufficient condition to instruction; the practising teacher must learn the communication strategies that can control student behaviours requisite for learning” [6].

Since power is manifested through language, or put another way, language is power [25]; an assessment of teacher power must therefore be embedded in the discursive features employed by the teacher [1] instead of power as simply perceived by the students.

2.2 Teacher power strategies

Expressions of teacher power are identified through teacher power strategies (TPS) that embrace “behaviour alteration techniques” which teachers employ to control or modify student learning activities. When power strategies are not employed, or misused, the teacher’s potential to enhance student learning is diminished. Thus, managing power strategies is critical to teaching effectiveness and to classroom management [6]. A discourse-based classification of TPS typically used in classroom discourse has been compiled from relevant literature.

The following classification provides eight sources for TPS that have been used in this case study to evaluate how power is revealed through teacher discourse. These are as follows:

3. Command

As one of the most common forms of classroom power [13], this strategy is typically associated with the use of imperatives to issue instruction.

4. Questioning

Questioning is an essential classroom activity which teachers use to elicit information, check comprehension, or to evaluate students. A teacher “has the right to give orders and ask questions, whereas the students have only the obligation to comply and answer” [25].

5. Interruption

This strategy is typically used by people with high-power status as a “device for exercising power and control in conversation” to interrupt other speakers and thus control discourse [26].

6. Criticism

Teachers legitimately possess power to be critical of students. Criticism, however, may have negative outcomes, for it can “discourage and intimidate the learner and may even stop him answering future questions” [1].

7. Coercion

Coercive power is known to have negative consequences on learning [5]. It is based on learners’ expectations that they would be penalised if they do not adhere to requirements; thus “the strength of a 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” [5].

8. Politeness

Politeness involves using appropriate words in context, a tactic that is governed by social norms [12]. Hence, a teacher may mitigate power with forms of politeness to make learners feel more at ease.

9. Compliment

Offering compliment or praise is another strategy that reduces power. One common way of giving a compliment is positive feedback, which can “boost learners’ sense of confidence and simultaneously decreases their language anxiety which is very common in FL classroom” [3].

10. Reward

This form of power “involves introducing something pleasant or removing something unpleasant, if the student does comply” [5]. Teachers may also use reward power, e.g. grades, prizes, or privileges, in different ways to influence learners’ behaviour; however, that the influence of reward is associated with how desirable that reward is to students [27].

10.1 Anti vs. pro-social power

Teacher power exerted through classroom discourse can influence students positively or negatively [8]. A positive impact of power is attributed to pro-social strategies, such as politeness, complement, and reward, which have motivating effects on students [22]. Pro-social power is also said to assist in achieving learning outcomes [4]. Negative power, on the other hand, is associated with the exertion of anti-social strategies, e.g. interruption, coercion, and criticism, the overuse of which can lead to withdrawal from learning activities. Command, criticism, coercing, interruption, and questioning in various degrees do cause increased student anxiety [3].

Table 1 classifies TPS into anti-social teacher power (ATP; 1–5) and pro-social teacher power (PTP; 6–8).

ATP	1. Command	2. Questioning	3. Interruption	4. Criticism	5. Coercion
PTP	6. Politeness	7. Compliment	8. Reward

Table 1.

Sources of anti and pro-social power.

11. Method

The research methodology for this study is based on exploratory qualitative case-study design. An exploratory approach allows researchers to explore an event or activity through a variety of methods [28]. Further, a case study is characterised by in-depth inquiry where data describes and explains the explored phenomenon [29]. The typicality of case (commensurate with a sampling frame in quantitative research) is significant in qualitative research and has been described in the sense of singularity that is “expected in some way to be typical of something more general; the focus is the issue not the case as such” [29]. That is why the present case study is explanatory qualitative, for in pursuit of improving practice it seeks to explore or narrate a story [30] of how Libyan EFL teacher educators exert power through a display of classroom discourse.

Concerning generalisation from a qualitative case (parallel to external validity in quantitative research), the researchers particularly find the argument; “generalisation is a process in research, as much or more than it is a product of research… Well-designed qualitative research can be just as useful for generalisation as well-designed quantitative research” [31] accommodating. Therefore, in accordance with this outlined methodology, the following data collection methods were pursued:

11.1 Classroom observation

Having obtained consent to carry out classroom observation, the researchers considered it necessary to initially conceal the exact purpose of the study. To guard against threats to internal validity, power behaviour needed to occur genuinely, not due to reactivity (e.g. [32]), otherwise known as the Hawthorne effect [33]; the process where subjects adjust their behaviour in response to being observed. It is recommended [34] that the Hawthorne effect is mitigated by gathering data through unobtrusive tactics such that participants are unaware of being researched as long as no harm is inflicted. When later debriefed, the case teachers confirmed they would have almost certainly moderated their power strategies in some way had they known the exact research purpose. Debriefing is the act of informing participants about the intentions of the study in which they just participated; during this process, researchers reveal any deceptions that occurred and explain why deception was necessary [35]. Following such debriefing, the case teachers consented to their transcribed data being anonymously reported.

11.2 Teachers’ interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six Libyan EFL teacher educators (three males and three females). The purpose of the interviews was to understand their perceptions of power, and it is employed in teacher education classrooms. Appropriate consent was obtained to record and anonymously report responses. Each of the interviews lasted between 30 minutes and 40 minutes.

11.3 Focus group discussion (FGD)

Seven focus group discussions were conducted involving 47 second-semester students who attended the observed lectures. Each FGs was associated with a particular skill subject taught (reading, writing, grammar, listening, vocabulary, and speaking). All the students volunteered to take part and consented to audio recording and having their responses reported anonymously. The discussion themes addressed students’ perceptions of power and how anti- or pro-social power concern their emotional well-being and how they participate in class activities.

12. Results and discussion

A mixed-method approach to data analysis was adopted. Observed incidents of TPS were categorised as anti- or pro-social power, according to TP classification (Table 1), which were then transformed into percentages. TPS data (frequencies, per cent, and ratios) were compiled from observation data for each educator. On the other hand, content analysis was used to highlight relevant extracts from the teacher interviews and students FGDs, both of which were reported verbatim to preserve language competency and style. Where applicable, insertions in square brackets are added to clarify intended meaning; exclamation marks in square brackets indicate redundant words.

12.1 Background data

Table 2 summarises the educators’ background data including age, experience, subjects taught, and the hours observed. To maintain anonymity, the teachers are referred to alphabetically from A to F.

Teacher	Gender	Age	Teaching experience	Subject taught	Hours observed
A	Male	57	33	Reading	3
B	Male	47	1	Writing	4
C	Male	57	35	Grammar	4
D	Female	34	5	Listening	3
E	Female	31	7	Vocabulary	4
F	Female	43	19	Speaking	4
					22

Table 2.

Background data on the case teachers.

What follows is a discussion of observed power in 22 hours of classroom discourse. The flow of discussion addresses the research questions posed by the study: the extent and the proportions of manifested power, gender differences in power use, and the student–teachers’ perception of and response to exerted power. The terms teacher-educators, educators, and teachers are used as synonyms; the same applies to students and student–teachers (other alternatives though not used in this study are pre-service teachers, trainee-teachers, or trainees).

12.2 Observed teacher power

Table 3 illustrates the case teachers’ observed antisocial teacher power (ATP) contrasted with pro-social teacher power (PTP). The power strategies are displayed in descending order along with the ensuing TP ratio.

TPS		f	%	Cum%	Ratio
ATP	Command	615	36.7	36.7	2.3
	Questioning	442	26.4	63.1
	Interruption	75	4.5	67.6
	Criticism	22	1.3	68.9
	Coercion	7	0.4	69.3
	Subtotal	161	69.3	—
PTP	Politeness	343	20.5	20.5	1
	Compliment	167	10	30.5
	Reward	5	0.2	30.7
	Subtotal	515	30.7	—
	Total	1676

Table 3.

Anti- and pro-social power ratios.

12.3 Anti-social power

Overall, the case teachers (males and females) exhibited a higher degree of anti-social (69.3%) with respect to pro-social power (30.7%), which works out at more than twice the ratio (2.3:1). Antisocial power was predominantly exerted through command (36.7%), i.e. using imperative forms, a finding that is consistent with previous studies, e.g. [13, 15].

• Command power was typically applied to issue classroom instruction, with which the students complied. However, the teachers’ interview data revealed inconsistency with their practice. Teacher A (male) had claimed a preference for politeness over command, yet he was observed to exert the highest level of command power (68.2%).

I prefer to ask my students politely. This [does] not mean that I do not give imperative[s], but sometimes. I prefer to ask politely; [for example] could you please answer this question (Teacher A; male).

Further, he advocated balancing command power with polite instruction, which, again, did not materialise in his classes:

I do not agree [like] this way (commanding) because some students feel sense [sensitive] from this way. Maybe the teacher must… mix between these ways, imperative and the other way [politeness] because some students need to make [follow] your way by strong [force]…other students [are] against that, so he must make [use] both ways not command only (Teacher A; male).

Teacher C (male) also expressed opposition to the use of pure command. His claim is to accommodate for students’ emotional needs:

I do not agree [like] this way [using commands] because some students feel sense [sensitive] from [to] this way. Maybe the teacher must mix between these ways; imperative and the other way [politeness] because some students need to make [follow] your way by strong [force]…other students [are] against that so he [the teacher] must make [use] both ways not imperative only (Teacher C; male).

That a teacher’s behaviour contradicts his/her retort can only be attributed to “response bias”, e.g. [36], where respondents attempt to portray a positive impression for themselves. The anticipation of such phenomenon was one reason for initially concealing from the case teachers the exact purpose of the study. The other reason is reactivity; the likelihood of participants altering behaviour upon being observed (see Method).

• Questioning (26.4%) was the second most frequent ATP used mainly for pedagogic purposes. Open-ended questions were posed more often than yes/no questions to engage students, who mostly responded in short phrases or sentence fragments.

This questioning excerpt is from Teacher C’s (male) grammar class. The topic involved negative imperative construction:

1. T: How can you form the negative form of imperative?

   S1: Not.

   T: Yes, but what comes before not?

   S2: Do not!

   T: Thank you! Do not or do not. Give me an example.

   S2: Do not come late.

   T: Very good, thank you.

   In a questioning routine by Teacher F (female), she followed through with probing questions to elicit appropriate responses. The topic under discussion was forms of life in the future, and she came up with a good idea herself:

2. T: What do you think life will be in future?

   S1: Changing in technology.

   T: OK, change in technology in terms of what?

   S2: New style of living?

   T: Good!…like what?

   S2: How people communicate…

   S3: New video phones.

   S4: Maybe no mobile phones…use hand watch.

   T: You mean wristwatch!

   S4: Yes, wristwatch… wristwatch phone.

   T: Perhaps wrist-mobile.

   • Teachers’ interruption, criticism, and coercion power (4.5%, 1.3%, and 0.4%, consecutively) together constituted a minor proportion (6.2%) of total antisocial power. Interruption was used primarily to correct students’ grammar and pronunciation.

   Being a grammar instructor, Teacher C (male) displayed maximum interruption power (13.5%); extracts 3–5 are cases in which he interrupts to correct or indicate errors:

3. S: This word uncorrect.

   T: uncorrect?

   S: Sorry! incorrect.

   T: Good, so this word is incorrect.

4. S: She is coming from France.

   T: Shouldn’t it be in the present simple.

   S: She come from France?

   T: She come?

   S: She comes.

   T: Correct.

5. S: This one match.

   T: Add “es”.

   S: Matches.

   T: Thank you.

   In (3), Teacher C interrupted by highlighting the wrong word (uncorrect) with emphatic stress. The student reproduced the correct form. The teacher initially ignored the missing verb “be” (is) as he focused on the word form, but later reiterated the sentence correctly, placing slight stress on “is”. In (4), a student produced the present continuous form inappropriately. The teacher interrupted by asking the student to use the present simple instead; however, the verb “come” was missing an “s” which made the teacher re-interrupt. In (5), the teacher interrupted to correct the form of present simple.

   Although error correction is viewed as a controversial issue in terms of immediate versus non-immediate or delayed correction, Teacher C (male) revealed a kind of response bias regarding interruption for he claimed a belief in letting students express themselves without being “cut off” [interrupted] to sustain the flow of information:

   [The] teacher must not interrupt… [he] must be [follow] step by step. If he asks [a] question to [a] student, [he] must leave him [to] complete his answer because if [the] teacher does this thing, the student in front of him will cut off [disengage]; let the information distributed [flow] or [it will be] destroyed (Teacher C; male).

   • Criticism at a low 0.4% was apparently used by Teachers A, B, & C (males) in association with a perceived lack of progress and failure to engage in class discussion:

6. I think I’ve done [a] big effort but without any benefit (Teacher A; male)

7. You are university students… you aren’t high school students (Teacher B; male)

8. You are not with us; you are sleeping (Teacher C; male)

   Teacher A praised himself for “doing big effort” (6) and criticised the class for lacking progress (without any benefit). Despite such unconstructive criticism, the students did not object or argue; they appeared to endure criticism in silence.

   Teacher B (7) criticised his class for low competence by comparing them with high school students. Though the students were dissatisfied, they did not contradict the teacher, for he possessed the authority to criticise, be it unconstructively.

   In (8), Teacher C caught a student “daydreaming”. He asked her a question, and she looked in bewilderment. Her classmate tried to help by whispering something, but it was too late; the teacher had delivered his verdict. In all three cases of such criticism, the students protested in silence.

   To a certain extent, tolerance or compliance to teacher power is by convention embedded in the Arab culture; students traditionally show respect by remaining silent and only speak when asked [37].

   The reported incidents of criticism (6–8) appear unconstructive. They lacked a well-reasoned opinion and gave negative personal comments in a non-friendly manner. Such unconstructive criticism is associated with irresponsible teacher behaviour and can “harm the teacher–student relationship and fuel retaliation by the students as a response” [38]. Unconstructive criticism could also lead to “reduced motivation and limited engagement with future feedback” [39].

   • Coercion was observed only in the case of Teacher A (male):

9. You are playing with your phone… looking at your photos. You’ll be doing [repeating] Reading Two next semester.

10. I’ll fail you all. Next semester you’ll be doing Reading Two.

11. If I come to class, and [you] ask me [I/you} need [a] pencil, I may throw you from the window.

    In (9) a strong, perhaps unwarranted, form of coercion (repeating Reading 2) was applied to reprimand a student who was looking at photos in her mobile phone during the lecture. Quite embarrassed, she put her phone away and looked down silently.

    In (10), as the class failed to answer a question (What is the next word?), the teacher resorted to unwarranted coercion; this time to “fail all”. The students objected silently, for premeditated silence can be interpreted as protest [40]. Silent protest meant the students withdrew from further class interaction.

    Coercion recurred on a third, less harmful occasion; being thrown “from the window” if they do not bring their pencils (11). Grinning at each other, the students took this with some sense of humour (perhaps “humorous coercion”).

    12.4 Pro-social strategies

    The pro-social strategies displayed by the case teacher (30.7%) suggest a moderate level of positive power.

    • Politeness (20.5%) was affected with expressions, such as please/ can/ could/ would you? which helped to reduce the impact of command. According to Teacher A (male), who exhibited a low rate of politeness (3.1%), politeness can be applied in a pragmatic fashion:

    It depends on the type of student; some students need to be ordered… some of them, but most of them prefer to be treated politely (Teacher A; male).

    Such differential treatment by teachers may give the impression of unfairness or injustice.

    Teacher B (male) expressed preference for using politeness, which he claims to apply, but at 24.7% rate of politeness power, this claim was unrealistic:

    I like to be more polite [when I] to use [use] these [this] power. As you know, they (the students) are adults and they need high respect. (Teacher B; male).

    The highest rate of politeness among the case teachers was demonstrated by Teacher D (female) at 30.2%. She confirmed:

    I want to give instructions with politeness or to see [the] difference between giving orders and giving polite structures. So, could, may… I like to use them a lot in my teaching, to be honest. (Teacher D; female)

    • Teachers’ total complement power (10%) was used primarily to praise and motivate students, e.g. good; that’s good; thank you; well done; excellent. When used, forms of praise encouraged the students to take part in class discussion/ activity without worrying too much about mistakes. Teacher E (female) acknowledged linguistically incorrect responses without bothering to correct. Teacher D (female) frequently used compliment to encourage contribution regardless of quality:

    I want you to answer questions with no worry; do not worry if you answer wrong way [wrongly], just try to express yourself (Teacher D; female).

    Error tolerance by teachers did encourage student contribution; it reduced anxiety and facilitated stress-free learning [41, 42]. Other teachers, e.g. Teacher A, rarely offered compliment (1.8%). A lack of complement, coupled with unconstructive criticism, raises anxiety and may harm affective learning [3].

    • Though reward power (0.2%) was seldom used by the case teachers, it was offered in a bizarre manner by Teacher A (male):

12. If you tell me [the] right topic, you [can] go to Reading 3 from now.

13. I think I [will] let you pass to Reading 3.

    The students were “promised” to pass to the next level of reading and “from now” if they could guess the topic for a given paragraph, which is neither practical nor acceptable.

    A more pragmatic way to apply reward power was used by Teacher E (female); she offered extra marks to encourage student participation:

14. You’ll get ten marks for class participation (Teacher E; female).

    Teacher F (female) also followed a similar reward tactic:

15. If you need to collect more marks, you have to discuss and speak (Teacher F; female).

12.5 Teacher Power and gender

Table 4 demonstrates antisocial power and pro-social power by male and female teachers. It reveals case teachers’ individual power strategies (a%–F%) and percentages (sum%). “Ratios” (across) represent TP ratios for each teacher.

TPS		Male Teachers					Female Teachers
		A%	B%	C%	Sum%	TP; Ratio	D%	E%	F%	Sum%	TP Ratio
ATP	Command	68.2	41.8	37.6	49.3	3.5	20.7	16.4	32.6	19.8	1.4
	Questioning	22.1	25.5	12.2	19.1		32.2	22.1	32.6	34
	Interruption	0	0	13.5	4.5		0.6	0.8	12.8	4.3
	Criticism	1.8	5.1	0.7	2.3		0	0	0	0
	Coercion	2.1	0	0	1.0		0	0	0	0
	Subtotal	94.2	72.4	64	77.6		53.5	39.3	77	59.2
PTP	Politeness	3.1	24.7	21.2	15.3	1	30.2	19.1	11.9	25.8	1
	Compliment	1.8	2.9	14.8	6.3		16.3	40.2	6	14
	Reward	0.9	0	0	0.3		0	1.3	0.4	0.2
	Subtotal	5.8	27.7	36	22.4		46.5	60.6	18.3	40.8
	Ratios	16.2:1	2.6:1	1.8:1	3.5:1		1.1:1	0.6:1	4.2:1	1.4:1

Table 4.

Male versus female teacher power.

Remarkable gender differences in TP have emerged. Anti-social strategies were applied less frequently (59.2%) by females than the males (77.6%). This finding is in agreement with previous studies, e.g. [13, 15, 43, 44]. Moreover, the females exhibited higher pro-social power (40.8%), which is almost twice as much as the males (22.4%). That is, the female teachers displayed a tendency to use more politeness, complement, and reward strategies than their male counterpart. This inclination towards positive pro-social power helped reduce learner anxiety and created a relaxed classroom atmosphere for the student–teachers, hence attracting active involvement [45], an observation that was less evident in the male classes.

Figure 1 highlights gender differences concerning antisocial power strategies.

Figure 1.

ATP contrast by male and female teachers.

Commanding by the male teachers was more evident (49.3%) than the females (19.8%). The female teachers also mitigated command power through what was termed “command softening” by introducing attenuating expressions, such as try toand just…, which helped to mitigate the impact of command power, a technique that was not detected in the male teachers’ discourse.

Interruption power was applied almost equally by both sexes (4.5% by males; 4.3% by females). Whereas criticism, unconstructive at that, was exercised 22 times (2.3%) by the male teachers, it was absent from the females’ discourse, i.e. zero criticism. The same was also true for coercion power (zero coercion). This “uncritical non-coercive” tactic minimised female teacher power and created an increasingly relaxed and stress-free learning environment that supported active participation.

Contrasting male and female pro-social power (Figure 2) reveals more politeness strategies (21.5%) by the female teachers (14.8%), which is consistent with findings in [13, 42, 43] endorsing decreased female power.

Figure 2.

PTP by the male and female teachers.

Instead, the female teachers appeared to apply a much higher proportion of complement strategies (14%) than the males (6.3%), a result that conforms to those in [11, 43, 44]. Reward power was negligent and almost similar for both males and females (0.3% and 0.2% consecutively).

Based on TP ratios (Table 4), it is apparent that the females adopted a far more balanced approach to teacher power than their male counterparts did. Remarkably, female Teacher D was the only one who manifested a higher rate of pro-social than anti-social power (0.6:1).

Teacher F (female), nonetheless, broke the pattern of female pro-social power dominance. She had displayed a higher anti-social power ratio of 4.2 to 1 by exerting a high level of command (32.6%) and interruption (12.8%).

Gender differences in teacher power as outlined in the findings could be explained in terms of masculine versus feminine discourse features. The male teachers tend to adopt a more masculine style of discourse demonstrated through the exertion of command power, which stretched to a relatively high 49.3% in contrast with the females’ 19.8% (Figure 1). Moreover, the female teachers employed compassionate feminine features of discourse notably through expressions of politeness (25.8% against 15.3% for males) and compliment (14% as opposed to 6.3% by males) as Figure 2 demonstrates.

12.6 Student: teachers reactions

The student–teachers’ perception of and reaction to teacher power are discussed in terms of ant-social and pro-social power. Concerning antisocial power, tolerable and intolerable forms were discussed. When applicable, the number of students (out of 47) who preferred a particular aspect of power is included.

12.6.1 Tolerable anti-social power

Unanimously, the student–teachers acknowledged ATP and accepted that teachers have a privilege to exercise command, questioning, interruption, criticism, or coercion but at an appropriate tolerable level. The students believe that antisocial power can be tolerated when used for the following purposes: accomplish pedagogic objectives or maintain discipline (S1, S5, S8), get attention (S2, S5), issue instruction (S3, S5, S6), pose questions (S7), maintain respect (S8) or, to a certain extent, interrupt students (S6). The following excerpts reveal some of the students’ attitudes to ATP:

S1: [The] teacher must control students because there have [has] to be discipline in the class. [A]teacher without power, his students will not take him seriously.

S2: Power of teacher is very important to make students focus; [so that they] do not get to lose [lost] in the lecture.

S3: Sometimes power is good when it is about the lesson (giving instruction). [In that case] It is good. It is not bad.

S4: I think it’s [asking questions] the key for understanding. If [the] teacher does not have [ask] any questions, the students will have the same thing [knowledge]. It’s my opinion.

S5: I would prefer high power. It helps learning in class when [the teacher has] high use of power or authority. It will help [when] we are forced to concentrate, focus, grab your [our] attention…leads to better understanding.

S6: It [interruption] helps to give information; sometimes it is good when [a] student say[s] something wrong just to explain this point; maybe to correct your answer and put another idea for your answer so [to] help.

S7: Teacher power is [a] good idea to control the class. Students must be control [controlled] and maybe [make them] love [the] subject…to answer it [questions] in [the] final…to respect [the] teacher like dads and sons.

12.6.2 Intolerable anti-social power

All the students opposed excessive use of anti-social power. For them, overuse of power (expressed as “power” or “high power”) was unacceptable; it deeply harmed their emotional well-being, e.g. feeling afraid (S10, S11, S12); scared (S11, S12, S13); discouraged (S8); uncomfortable (S8, S9); unconfident (S10, S11). More importantly, excessive anti-social power affected students’ cognitive development (S9, S12), keeping up with lecture (S8); asking questions (S9, S10, S11, S12); expressing opinions (S10); participating in activities (S8, S13):

S8: High power will make us uncomfortable in [when] asking questions and in thinking [keeping up] with him [the teacher] and sharing ideas. It will affect [us] for sure, especially for [in] English learning.

S9: The teacher that has high power can make me feel afraid to speak and ask questions; afraid to say my opinion. It makes me hard [uneasy] to feel confident when speaking.

S10: It will be hard to ask questions to the teacher that have [who has] high power and hard to feel confident to talk with the teacher; [I] feel scared… afraid he will not accept my question.

S11: I think it [high power] will affect participation. It makes students scared to ask questions. If so afraid [to ask], they will not learn.

S 12: If [the] teacher was very powerful on [over] his students will be negatively affected by the teacher.

S13: When the teacher uses power too much, [he/she] becomes scary [and] of course, students will not participate; [they] will feel frightened. He should be [in] command but in a formal way, not over-control [over-powerful].

Specific strategies of anti-social power, e.g. command were rejected by most students (39). Instead, they preferred a modified or mitigated version of command:

S14: The student should feel being asked to do something not being ordered and that would make [a] difference.

S15: I do not like [the] teacher when [he/she] say[s] ‘do that’, ‘not to do that’. I think ‘please’, ‘could you’, ‘do you mind’ is more politely [polite].

Teacher interruption power was a thorny issue. A majority of the students (39) disliked being interrupted for no reason, especially when frequent. It could lead to a loss of focus and withdrawal from an activity.

S16: When the teacher interrupt[s] anyone [it] is not polite and I’ll not be comfortable with [the] teacher who interrupt[s] me all the time. Ok, I will not focus, and I will not say anything.

Teacher interruption for cognitive aims was nevertheless tolerated by most students (32), e.g. to supplement or rectify a response (S18), or to correct grammar/pronunciation mistakes (S19).

S17: Sometimes [it’s] good for teachers, maybe to correct an answer and put another idea to help [the] student; to give him some words to him keep going. Sometimes [a student] [is] feeling shy, so interrupt[ion] maybe [may] help the student.

S18: I like [the] teacher when [he/she] correct[s] my grammar mistakes. I want [to] improve grammar to be [a] good teacher. Sometimes [the] teacher correct[s] pronunciation. In speaking, pronunciation must be in [a] good way.

However, being interrupted for non-cognitive purposes, e.g. when making a presentation, expressing an opinion, or when engaged in an open activity or conversation was equally disliked by a majority of students (42), for they lose the point or ideas (S19, S20, S22), get confused (S19, S20), lose confidence (S20), feel unimportant (S21):

S19: Teacher interruption confuse[s] me; I lose the point. That happens with me many times. [It] make[s] me confused.

S20: When [the] teacher interrupted [interrupts] that will interfere in our way; [the] students will not feel confident.

S21: It [interruption] makes me feel [that] what I say is not important and I do not have to participate again.

S22: When you talk about something and [the] teacher interrupt[s] you, your ideas going [vanish] and you cannot say anything else.

One student praised her (female) teacher who encouraged her students to speak freely without paying attention to mistakes. Such attitude of error tolerance was praised by all students:

S23: I like her way (Teacher D). She said we should speak with no worry about [the] mistakes we do. Now I feel confidence [confident] to speak in her class.

Criticism was a sensitive issue for students. Now, criticism overlaps with interruption; a teacher may criticise immediately by interrupting a student while speaking, or later through delayed criticism. In either case, (immediate or delayed) criticality can be constructive or unconstructive, a topic of interest under corrective feedback. Whatever the case may be, a large majority (45) hated immediate criticism to the point of complete withdrawal, especially in front of peers:

S24: I do not like [it] when [the] teacher criticise[s] me in front of [the] class. I feel embarrassed; it’s not good for me if [the] teacher [is] critical all the time; I stop talking.

The students also thought that the teacher should have ample space to listen to them first, then criticise later (delayed criticism):

S25: The teacher has got enough time to criticise or when he wants to say something. The teacher has to listen carefully and then respond and interact with the students.

Criticising students for improper behaviour was deemed a teacher’s duty by all students, so long as he/she deals with in a professional non-provocative manner.

In response to Teacher A’s coercive power, the students reacted to two types of coercion. One was unwarranted (threat of being failed) which they met with silent resistance on two occasions and withdrew from further contribution, a counterproductive consequence to coercive treatment. Keeping silent was the only form of resistance whilst maintaining respect for the teacher. On a third coercive incident, a humorous variety of coercion (the threat of being thrown out of the window if they do not bring their pencils) emerged. The students took this unlikely threat with a sense of humour.

12.6.3 Pro-social power

Contrary to the students’ views on high or anti-social power, they unanimously favoured teachers who exercised pro-social power more often, e.g. politeness and complement. Instead of exerting control purely to impose authority, they expected teachers to come down to students’ level. The students argued that teacher politeness and praise make them feel less anxious and more motivated to participate. Such pro-social approach to power manifestation created a friendly and relaxed atmosphere (S27; S28; S30), facilitated a positive learning environment (S27; S28), and encouraged active participation (S28; S29).

S26: Teachers who minimise [power] are better; this makes you love [the] teachers more and appreciate and respect them more.

S27: Less power helps to feel relaxed in the lecture, [the result of which is] asking and understanding more.

S28: Politeness is very good to use because [it] make[s] [the] teacher have [a] relationship like father and sons. I like this teacher to learn and participate with.

S29: The students will feel comfortable with the teacher and they will not get embarrassed because they will feel relaxed; the students feel being asked to do something not ordered and that would make [a] difference.

12.6.4 Balance of power

The students clearly disapproved of excessive teacher power. It raised anxiety and negatively affected class contribution. Surprisingly, however, a high degree of pro-sociable power was unfavourably perceived. It emerged from the focus group discussions that a balance of power was appropriate. Teacher power should neither be too high to depress and dissuade active participation nor too low to drop teacher respect:

S30: When [a] teacher does not have power, I will not understand or I can understand but not like one [who] has power in teaching. At the same time over of power [overpower] it [!] will not help the student; so [it should be] in the middle.

S31: Not too low [power], not too high level, because I need to feel that person in front of me is a teacher and he deserves respect because of his position.

S32: I hate [it] when [a] teacher become [becomes] closer [too close] to students because they would not be so polite with him; he will lose place [status].

S33: I prefer the medium between them [anti and pro-social power], because eventually he is a teacher, and he is on the top of students [has higher status]; I think he should be in the middle.

13. Conclusion

Teacher power manifestation, overall, was loaded with anti-social power more so than pro-social power, resulting in over double the ratio (2.3:1). Command (36.7%) was the most commonly used power to give instruction and maintain control, questioning rated second (26.4%) with more open questions to engage students. Interruption appeared much less (4.5%) mainly to correct mistakes. Occasions of unconstructive criticism (1.3%) and unwarranted coercion (0.4%) were unwelcome and confronted with silent protest.

Remarkable gender differences emerged. The females revealed far less antisocial power in terms of command, but employed questioning techniques that motivated student interaction. The impact of female command power was mitigated by “command softening”. Little gender differences occurred regarding interruption or reward. On the other hand, a higher ratio of politeness and compliment was observed which. In combination with zero criticism and zero coercion and a tolerance for error, notably reduced student anxiety and facilitated livelier class participation.

The findings align with those by [46, 46] who assert that females utilise feminine communication strategies, e.g. hedging, polite forms, and question intonations. In contrast, men dwell on a masculine style of discourse where they use less polite language and are insensitive about question intonation. Therefore, to enhance teacher–student communication and inspire positive learning environments, it is strongly recommended that teachers, males in particular, revise their classroom practices of power use and their perceptions of how power strategies influence learning.

The students acknowledged the teachers’ privilege to exercise power, e.g. command and questioning to facilitate instruction. Interrupting was welcome to augment response or correct mistakes, but not while engaged in dialogue or a presentation.

The students tolerated endured unconstructive criticism and unwarranted coercion with silent resistance. Whereas excessive anti-social power discouraged contribution, teachers with low power risked losing students’ respect. Teachers should therefore balance their act of power in such a way that it is not too anti-social to trigger anxiety and discourage participation, nor should it be highly pro-social to lose control.

14. Implications

Libyan EFL teachers and educators are encouraged to undergo a shift in attitudes from traditional and inefficient teacher-centred approaches to learner-centred pedagogy that is based on “students’ needs and shared power relations” [47]. Since teacher power strategies are critical to effective teaching [6], teachers should employ them consciously to facilitate learning and advance learner cognitive development. Accordingly, teachers must self-monitor their teaching styles and how they exercise power in order to facilitate not dominate.

According to the notion of affective filter hypothesis [48], factors such as anxiety, motivation, and self-confidence influence learning. Therefore, teachers are advised to minimise anti-social power, e.g. unnecessary interruption, unconstructive criticism, and unwarranted coercion, which hinder learner motivation and self-confidence. Using command softening techniques to mitigate power also reduce anxiety and contribute to creating positive affective learning. It is not how frequent anti-social power occurs that is consequential; it is the impact on students’ emotional state of well-being that is at stake. Silent resistance, commensurate with Libyan Arab culture, in response to unconstructive criticism or unwarranted coercion, is a point in case.

Notwithstanding the apparently frequent mistakes reflected by the students’ verbatim quotations, a tolerance for error in EFL teacher education is an issue of concern since the objective is to produce competent language teachers. While error tolerance has been shown to encourage stress-free engagement in speaking lessons, it may be argued that tolerance for grammar errors, particularly in the teaching of grammar, can be counterproductive since the student–teachers are expected to teach grammar after graduation.

Therefore, a skill-oriented error tolerance approach could be tuned to harmonise with certain teaching activities. For example, in teaching speaking, students are infrequently interrupted, but not so in teaching grammar or writing. In the latter case, students are often required to respond in short target-structure form; hence, teacher interruption does more good than harm.

15. Limitations

The authors acknowledge the fact that the case study is based on a small number of teachers (six). Arguably, a case study typically entails a small sample of participants within a reasonably controlled environment [49], where “the experiences, features, behaviours, and processes of a bounded unit” are understood in context [50]. More specifically, case study research pursues to answer questions of “how a phenomenon is influenced by the context within which it is situated” [51], an issue that cannot satisfactorily be answered through quantitative enquiry. Additionally, this study investigates, for the first time as it happens, how teacher power is truly manifested through Libyan EFL teacher educators discourse. Research is invited to expand the scope and reliability of the current findings to encompass other faculties of education and/or pedagogic contexts within Libya or beyond.