Habermas: Communicative Action in the Classrooms

The discussions are somewhat lengthy and historical in Teaching as communicative action: Habermas and Education as discussed by David Coulter. However, we can find a deeper appreciation for what teaching should be, especially as ‘communicative action’ is explained as attempts at two-way understanding, it must be democratic, and ruled by what is valid. Fresh in my mind is the old hypodermic model of teaching where the teacher lectures and where the students patiently listen [to perfect a quiz] with no interaction encouraged. Next, the teacher gives a quiz to try to withdraw what she has deposited. I remember this philosophy of teaching was credited to John Dewey and referred to by some educators hilariously as "Banking system of education." Amusing but true.

Communicative action as a theory appeals, in that whatever must be done is resorted through democratic consensus, not power [or money]. To understand power, we see that in the teacher-student relationship, clearly one holds the pharaoh’s whip by way of being the one who gives grades. If the teacher takes advantage of that, then she is not being democratic. Understanding this in a positive way, I think that in some colleges they have what are called "negotiated syllabus" where the syllabus becomes flexible eventually, depending on the needs of the class - if something comes up, requiring a necessary change. In the lower grades or in high school, however, I don’t see much application for democratic consensus except when students are old enough to claim rights more than, that the teacher be understandable in her teaching.

Again, the essence of this theory is that people will make claims that must be valid, not because of an accepted norm, but on universal definitions within the lifeworld. In teaching, therefore, we find that although the teacher takes center stage, she does not have absolute power to transmit what she personally believes in, but that her teachings should be tempered by what is true. Through Habermas' ideas of how communicative action should theoretically operate, one is able to see examples of the undemocratic way in which communication - even in the classrooms and the schools - is currently used. Perhaps some of us have encountered teachers who do not expect to be questioned, teachers who only lecture in the fill-in-the-blanks mode, and yet have only one answer to each blank – no synonyms allowed.

Needless to say, in making experiences as material for changes, on the level of study teams, teachers may collaborate for systematic writing of these syndromes in professional journals. There is much teachers can do in this regard.

Coulter, D. (2001). Teaching as communicative action: Habermas and education. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 90–98). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.