Classroom interactions form the heart of the teaching practice and have been ascribed an inherent moral significance (e.g. Buzelli, 1996; Bloome, 2005; Bullough Jr., 2010). Inherent, here, signifies that the moral significance of classroom interactions is construed as something that permeates the work of teaching: any specific teaching act has an inherent moral significance (Jackson, Boostrom, & Hansen, 1993). An useful perspective to study the inherent moral significance of teacher-pupil interactions can be found in the works of proponents of the continental European pedagogy (e.g. van Manen, 1991; Biesta, 2009).

Before we go into the qualities of pedagogy for this particular purpose, we will elaborate on its continental European meaning. In continental Europe, pedagogy is a separate discipline apart from, for example, psychology and sociology, often located in separate faculties within universities. Author et al (2009) described the research object of continental European pedagogy as follows: ‘This science seeks answers to questions about what kind of human beings children should become and how they can be raised toward becoming such human beings, taking into account the context in which this process of upbringing takes place’ (p. 293). In the Anglo-American literature the word ‘pedagogy’ merely refers to teaching strategies or methods of instruction. In this paper we focus on education as a domain in which children are being raised towards adulthood. Because of the word ‘pedagogy’ can easily be interpreted in different ways we will use the term ‘pedagogy as human science’ when we refer to its continental European meaning.

Distinctive of the research object of pedagogy as human science is the characteristic or specific relationship between the upbringer, (in this case: the teacher) and the upbringee (in this case: the pupil) that intends the education of the child. As a consequence theories in pedagogy as human science do not apply to any other form of human relationships (van Manen, 1994). The daily interactions between teachers and pupils form an innate part of this relationship. Therefore, we consider pedagogy as human science a useful perspective to explore the inherent morality of teacher-pupil interactions.

In pedagogy as human science the interactions between teachers and pupils are always concerned with both the empirical question ‘what is the case?’ and the normative question ‘what ought to be the case?’ (Biesta, 2009). These dyadic questions with regard to what ‘is’ and what ‘ought to be’ have for the most part been played out at the level of ‘grand theories’, which are firmly grounded in educational philosophy (e.g. Lingard, 2009). However, it is not very likely that teachers will articulate their ideas about what they consider to be in their pupils best interest (and why), in abstract philosophical terms. This study addresses the what ‘ought to be’ question, and the legitimisation of what ‘ought to be’, at the level of teachers’ everyday classroom interactions. The main research question in this study is how do teachers legitimise their daily classroom interactions from a pedagogy as a human science perspective?

Biesta, G. J. J. (2009b). Evidence-based or value-based education. Paper presented at the Symposium Research in the Educational Praxis. Bloome. (2005). Introductions to the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy, in Particular. In R. Beach (Ed.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research (pp. 275-292). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Buzelli, C. A. (1996). The moral implications of teacher-child discourse in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 515-534. Bullough Jr., R. V. (2010). Ethical and moral matters in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 21-28. Jackson, P. H., Boostrom, R. E., & Hansen, D. T. (1993). The Moral Life of Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York:Norton. Imelman, J. D. (1995). Theoretische pedagogiek. [Theoretical Pedagogy]. Nijkerk:Intro. Lingard, B. (2009). Pedagogizing teacher professional identities. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing Teacher Professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 81-93). New York: Routledge. Ponte, P. & Ax, J. (2009) Action Research and Pedagogy as Science of the Child's Upbringing, in: S. Noffke & B. Somekh (Eds) Handbook of Educational Research (London, Sage Publications), 253-261. Van Kan, C. A., Ponte, P. & Verloop, N. (2010a) How to conduct research on the inherent moral significance of teaching: A phenomenological elaboration of the standard repertory grid application, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1553-1562. Van Kan, C. A., Ponte, P. & Verloop, N. (2010b) Developing a descriptive framework for comprehending the inherent moral significance of teaching, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 18(3), 331-352. Van Manen, M. (1991). Reflectivity and the pedagogical moment: The normativity of pedagogical thinking and acting. Journal of curriculum studies, 23(6), 507-536. Van Manen, M. (1994) Pedagogy, Virtue, and Narrative Identity in Teaching, Curriculum Inquiry, 24(2), 135-170.