Power in the classroom is current topic within not merely European educational theory (Barraclough, & Stewart, 1992,  Golish, & Olson, 2000, Richmond, McCroskey, Davis, & Koontz, 1980, Schrodt, Witt, Myers, Turman, Barton, & Jernberg, 2008, Staton, 1992, Šeďová, 2011). Although the theory of power is rich, the European research of power in the classroom needs to be strengthen.

The concept of power in the classroom is conceptualized in different theoretical orientations. Richmond, & McCroskey (1984)  looked for a connection between individual bases of power and cognitive and affective pupil learning. Another authors emphasize teachers’ use of power bases and learner empowerment (Schrodt, Witt, Myers, Turman, Barton, & Jernberg, 2008). Different perspective is employed by Barraclough & Stewart (1992) who focused on specific types of behaviour by teachers, students and pupils.  Woods’ (1983) ethnographic study, considered to be a classic in the field, describes pupil behaviour that arises in adaptation to teachers’ demands. Some researchers described behaviour of pupils who avoid or negatively react to teachers’ demands, e.g. Barquist Hogelucht and Geist (1997). Traditionally the phenomenon of power is connected with  educational communication, e.g. Watzlavick, Bavelas, & Jackson (1999), Cazden, (1988), Edwards and Mercer, (1995).

The aim of the research is to describe in detail how student teachers and their pupils negotiate, use, and perceive power in Czech lower secondary school education during their long term teaching practice (i.e., within the duration of one semester during which student teachers meet with pupils from one class on a regular basis).

Main research questions are:

1)      How does the process of power negotiation between the student teachers and their pupils take place in Czech secondary schools?

2)      How is the process of power negotiation subjectively perceived by sudent teachers?

3)      Which resistance strategies do pupils develop?

Barquist Hogelucht, K. S., & Geist, P. (1997). Discipline in the classroom: Communicative strategies for negotiating order. Western Journal of Communication, 61(1), 1-34. Barraclough, R. A., & Stewart, R. A. (1992). Power and control: Social science perspectives. In V.Richmond, & J. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the Classroom: Communication, Control and Concern (pp. 1-18). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom Discourse. The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann. Edwards, A. D., & Mercer, N. (1995). Common knowledge. The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge. Golish, T. D., & Olson, L. N. (2000). Students’ use of power in the classroom: An investigation of student power, teacher power, and teacher immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 293-310. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom II: Power and learning. Communication Education, 33(1), 125-136. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Davis, L. M., & Koontz, K. A. (1980). Perceived power as a mediator of management communication style and employee satisfaction: A preliminary investigation. Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 37-46. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Myers, S. A., Turman, P. D., Barton, M. H., & Jernberg, K. A. (2008). Learner empowerment and teacher evaluations as functions of teacher power use in the college classroom. Communication Education, 57(2), 180-200. Staton, A. Q. (1992). Teacher and student concern and classroom power and control. In V. Richmond, & J. McCroskey, Power in the Classroom: Communication, Control and Concern (pp. 159-176). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Šeďová, K. (2011). Constellations of power in educational communication. Studia Paedagogica, 16(1), 89-118. Watzlavick, P., Bavelasová, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1999). Pragmatics of Human Communiation. Hradec Králové: Konfrontace. Woods, P. (1983). Sociology and the School. An interactionist Viewpoint. London: Routledge.