By Khosrow Bagheri¹, Narges Sadat Sajjadieh², Saeed Azadmanesh³ and Zahra Bateni⁴

Translated by Sayyid Ali Imran

Introduction⁵

The experience of being present in a classroom brings to mind the dialogues and silences that shape classroom interaction. Often, a student who does not participate in discussion is labelled a passive or silent learner. But what is the cause or meaning of a student’s silence, and how should one respond to it?

Numerous studies have sought to uncover the reasons behind students’ silence and to interpret its meanings. The findings of these researchers have led to the identification of various types of silence. For instance, Jaworski (1998) refers to two types of silence: “absolute silence,” meaning the absence of any sound in the classroom, and “conversational silence,” referring to the absence of dialogue. Bruneau (2011) likewise identifies two forms of silence, including “eloquent silence” and “mute silence.” Schultz (2010), in her work, highlights two meanings of silence: silence as a sign of power and silence as a form of protection. Other scholars, such as Hanna (2021), have focused on the functions of silence, distinguishing between silence for productivity accompanied by listening, and silence imposed upon students by the teacher. The diversity of these forms, some of which even contradict one another, reveals the ambiguity and complexity inherent in the concept of silence. It therefore seems necessary to examine the nature of silence through a deeper and more penetrating inquiry.

On the other hand, some researchers, noting that the educational dimensions of silence have often been neglected, have emphasized its pedagogical importance as a foundation for learning. Several Iranian scholars have also addressed the educational significance of silence and its place within religious education. Among them, Alavi examined the role of silence in education, considering its status in religious texts and in the lives of the saints and great religious figures, with particular emphasis on Islamic teaching and upbringing. Mirlouhi discussed the educational importance of silence from an existential perspective and stressed the necessity of incorporating it into school curricula. Chenari and Karbasian explored the meaning and position of silence in religious education based on Qur’anic verses and the traditions of the Imams (a).

As can be observed, the concept of silence and its role in education has been the focus of attention for several Iranian and non-Iranian scholars. Their efforts have resulted in the identification of diverse types of silence. Examination of these meanings indicates that some of these silences may be understood as an “act of silence”; however, this notion has not been explicitly addressed in previous studies. Furthermore, teachers who seek student participation in classroom interaction often regard silence as passive behaviour and as an obstacle to engagement, thus responding to it confrontationally. Yet attention to the varied meanings of silence can lead to approaches that go beyond mere opposition. Such responses can enrich teacher–student interaction and render the teacher’s engagement with student silence more logically grounded and pedagogically sound. Neglecting this issue may lead to educational failure and even harm to students.

In this context, the present study seeks to move beyond oversimplified understandings of silence and simplistic reactions to it. By clarifying the concept of the “act of silence,” introducing some of its types, and presenting educational implications based on the perspective of agency, it aims to provide guidance for teachers in their interactions with students.

Accordingly, the Islamic theory of action serves as the theoretical framework of this study. The reason for selecting this framework lies in its inspirational contribution to educational sciences, its recognition of both teacher and student as agents, and its attention to their interaction within the process of education and learning. Moreover, analyzing silence on the basis of action theory can open the way for innovative research. At first glance, silence may appear to be passive behaviour in opposition to action; however, it is possible to analyze it within the framework of action, provided that it fulfills the three foundational elements of action. In particular, given the centrality of will and choice in action, and consequently the responsibility inherent in action, analyzing silence in this manner can yield a responsible conception of silence. These considerations underpin the selection of this theoretical approach for the present study.

Based on this framework, the study seeks to answer two questions from the perspective of agency: first, how can students’ silence be understood as a form of action? Second, what educational implications follow from understanding their silence as action? In what follows, after introducing the concept of the act of silence and its various types, the educational implications for teachers in responding to students’ silence will be discussed.

Silence as Action

In the present study, it is proposed that student silence be analyzed on the basis of the Islamic approach to action. Baqeri has articulated the Islamic approach to action in light of the role of the human being in Islamic thought. According to the anthropological foundation of this view, namely, the concept of agency, the human being is an agent. This means that some of his behaviours qualify as actions, while others are merely behaviours; that is, human will and choice do not play a role in them. In reality, a behaviour is considered an action when it arises from cognitive, dispositional, and volitional foundations.

The cognitive foundation signifies that for an action to take shape, knowledge or cognition is required, encompassing the individual’s perceptions, assumptions, and beliefs regarding that action. Thus, behaviours become actions when they are guided by conscious purpose, giving meaning to one’s movement toward a goal. The dispositional foundation refers to the desire or inclination toward performing the action. This desire may manifest either as attraction or aversion. However, such desire differs from instinctive impulses, because inclination in this sense is a pull intertwined with knowledge and linked to the agent’s awareness. Finally, it is the volitional foundation that brings the action to completion. Even if an individual possesses knowledge and desire toward an act, without willing it, the action will not materialize. The internal conflicts and confusion one experiences when faced with alternatives, having to choose only one, clearly demonstrate the importance of the volitional foundation.

According to this approach, relationships among human beings are understood as reciprocal interactions, which may be horizontal (among learners) or vertical (between educator and learner). From this perspective, education is the product of an asymmetrical interaction between two agents – the educator and the learner – which leads to an asymmetrical transformation between them. In this study, the educational implications will be articulated in light of this understanding of education and interaction.

Given the close relationship between silence and speech, before explicating silence as action, a brief reference to speech as action is necessary. The notion that speech constitutes action has previously been discussed, most notably in speech act theory as developed by J. L. Austin and later expanded by his student John Searle. According to speech act theory, speech itself may constitute an act or bring about an act. Austin maintained that when a person utters a statement, three types of acts are performed: the locutionary act (the act of utterance), the illocutionary act (the act performed in saying something), and the perlocutionary act (the act performed by means of saying something). Searle subsequently developed and expanded these ideas.

From the perspective of human agency, speech, given its broad scope, can be regarded as an action. That is, when speech is grounded in awareness and knowledge, and accompanied by desire and will, it qualifies as action. Accordingly, not only human speech but also human silence can be considered action, provided that the cognitive, dispositional, and volitional foundations are present. In order to delineate the contours of silence as action, it is necessary to clarify each of these foundational elements so that a conceptual framework may be established.

The first foundation of silence as action is its cognitive basis. This basis is connected to the individual’s perceptions and beliefs that give rise to silence and form the motivation and intention behind it. Given the decisive role of this foundation in shaping silence as action, it holds particular importance. However, the manner in which this cognitive basis is formed is crucial, as it may be either correct or mistaken, thereby giving rise to appropriate or inappropriate action. Its significance lies in the fact that an individual may acquire beliefs that move him toward the stage of desire and inclination, the dispositional foundation of action. Indeed, beliefs may serve as the initial spark of desire, recalling painful or pleasurable experiences and thereby drawing the individual toward silence or toward speech. The volitional foundation then guarantees the realization of silence as action. In other words, silence becomes action when, based on one’s beliefs, the individual chooses silence from among various alternatives and intentionally commits to it.

Thus, when the foundations of action are present, human silence may culminate in the realization of silence as action. In the absence of these foundations, however, silence remains merely a human behaviour, one lacking intention and will, often occurring suddenly and bearing a passive character. Such forms of silence may stem from psychological factors such as fear, anxiety, shame, or emotional distress. Since the individual’s will plays no role in such cases, they assume a passive character. Accordingly, this type of silence falls outside the scope of the present discussion.

Types of Silence

After outlining the conceptual framework of silence as action, this section proceeds to clarify its various types. Before doing so, several points must be noted. First, although some of these forms of silence have been mentioned in scattered fashion in previous research, the classifications and terminology presented in this study are innovative and are grounded specifically in viewing silence as action. Furthermore, the explanation of these forms of silence is based on the foundational elements of action, which distinguishes this work from earlier studies. As noted in the introduction, previous researchers did not consider silence as action and instead examined its meanings in a general sense.

Another important point is that, from the perspective of agency, human action is not confined to the individual dimension; it may also manifest collectively. Individual silence refers to a case in which a person, based on personal reasons and beliefs that form his cognitive foundation, decides to remain silent and acts accordingly. However, when individuals present within a group decide to remain silent for similar reasons, such that the foundational elements of their action are shared, their conduct may be understood as collective silence. Given these formulations and the differences in their underlying foundations, various types of silence as action may be identified. Some of these are discussed below.

1. Silence Oriented Toward Not Knowing

This form of silence occurs when an individual lacks knowledge about the subject under discussion. In light of the foundational elements supporting silence as action, this type may be understood in two forms.

The first form is responsible or commendable silence: when individuals, due to lack of knowledge or ignorance regarding the subject under discussion, refrain from expressing an opinion. In contrast, some individuals, despite being uninformed, readily voice their views. This form of silence is often regarded as wise. Its cognitive foundation may rest on the belief: “I will not speak about that of which I have no knowledge.” This belief resonates with Wittgenstein’s well-known statement: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent”.

At such moments, the individual may encounter various internal states and inclinations. On the one hand, recalling the unpleasant experience of speaking without knowledge and the possibility of embarrassment may incline the person toward silence. On the other hand, belief in human fallibility may make expressing an opinion seem easier and encourage speech. Furthermore, a sense of responsibility may be activated: recalling that an incorrect statement might mislead others and cause them harm may draw the individual toward silence and strengthen the will to remain silent.

The second form is a silence that, depending on the context, may be irresponsible. For example, when students are expected to attend class prepared and to respond to questions and participate in discussion, silence in the sense of “I do not know” may signal a lack of responsibility. Teachers often interpret this type of student silence as a deficiency in attention, interest, or knowledge. This form of silence may manifest both individually and collectively.

2. Silence Arising from Imposition

Silence arising from imposition constitutes another form of silence as action. At first glance, the imposed nature of this silence may evoke the notion of compulsion and, by calling into question individual choice, appear to lack a volitional foundation. However, the foundational elements of action in this type of silence remain intact; they are simply reshaped under the influence of the imposed condition.

The cognitive foundation of imposed silence may be examined from two perspectives: first, the belief of the one who imposes silence, and second, the belief of the one who remains silent. Consider, for example, a classroom situation in which the teacher is speaking and insists that students remain silent. The teacher may believe that such silence is necessary for classroom order, management, and the effectiveness of the teaching–learning process. Students who are called to silence may comply based on different beliefs and understandings. These beliefs may include remaining silent in order to listen attentively to the lesson; remaining silent out of fear of disciplinary consequences or punishment, such as expulsion from class or grade reduction; or remaining silent with the goal of learning and avoiding reprimand from parents.

In such cases, the interplay between individuals’ beliefs and inclinations plays a decisive role in their will to remain silent. For example, when a student considers himself obligated to remain silent in order to learn, he may recall previous experiences in which failure to learn the lesson resulted in later difficulty and reprimand. The recollection of the unpleasant feeling of being scolded may draw him toward silence to avoid repetition of that experience. This dynamic may also apply to other disciplinary contexts. Conversely, if silence and attentive listening are associated with positive experiences, such as teacher encouragement or the satisfaction of learning, the likelihood of forming a firm intention to remain silent is strengthened. Ultimately, although the teacher’s imposition frames the situation, it is through the shaping of the student’s cognitive, dispositional, and volitional foundations that silence as action is realized.

3. Protective Silence

Protective silence occurs when individuals use silence as a means of concealment and self-preservation. In such cases, silence functions as a defensive mechanism, an instrument for withholding information in order to protect oneself from potential harm or threats such as ridicule or humiliation from others. Through silence, the individual withdraws from a situation perceived as threatening, seeking self-preservation. In this study, this form is referred to as protective silence.

To clarify the foundations of protective silence, consider a situation in which an individual finds himself in a group holding beliefs contrary to his own and in which he is in the minority. He faces several options. First, he may participate in the discussion and openly express his beliefs, thereby risking consequences such as conflict, confrontation, marginalization, or exclusion. Second, he may conceal his beliefs and even resort to falsehood, bearing the emotional burden of this concealment and the ongoing anxiety that his untruth may be exposed. Third, he may suppress his beliefs and remain silent to protect himself from consequences such as ridicule or humiliation.

At this point, he becomes entangled in internal tensions regarding which option to choose so as to minimize suffering and unpleasant emotions. Past experiences are often recalled; memories of prior encounters and of words or behaviours he may face again tend to incline him toward silence. The belief that silence may serve as a means of concealment and a path to relief from the difficulties of interacting within a dissenting group forms the cognitive foundation of his action. His inclination to avoid feelings of rejection, humiliation, or ridicule constitutes the dispositional foundation. When these foundations are sufficiently strong, they culminate in the will to remain silent. In effect, he seeks, through deliberate silence, to protect himself at the lowest possible cost.

As explained above, this type of silence most commonly manifests at the individual level. However, if several individuals within a group share similar conditions and motivations, their silence may appear collectively as group silence.

4. Silence as a Sign of Respect

At times, silence is adopted as a gesture of respect toward an individual or a figure of authority. This form of silence may occur either individually or collectively. The beliefs that shape this type of silence may be formed through educators or through social traditions. For example, in some traditional societies, one sign of good manners and proper upbringing is that younger family members remain silent, as a sign of respect, in the presence of elders’ opinions. No matter how strongly a younger person may disagree or consider the elder’s view incorrect, he is not expected to voice opposition.

Such beliefs, formed through years of socialization and upbringing, constitute the cognitive foundation of this action. Individuals learn that if they remain silent and listen when elders speak, they will be regarded as well-mannered and socially acceptable. Otherwise, they may be labelled as disrespectful and become subject to reproach, especially if their perceived discourtesy is directed toward someone widely respected and valued. In such cases, others’ feelings may be hurt, intensifying social disapproval.

Considering these alternatives often draws the individual toward conduct that secures social acceptance and the pleasant feeling of belonging within the group. The strength of this desire for acceptance influences the individual’s will. Thus, the inclination to gain a sense of belonging and to avoid blame or rejection ultimately culminates in the action of silence.

Zembylas and Michaelides refer to this type of silence in the classroom as an indication of respect for others. The “other” may include the teacher or classmates, though in relation to teachers, it carries particular significance, since many teachers interpret failure to remain silent and listen as a sign of disrespect.

However, an important consideration in silence as respect, when understood as action, is that such respect should arise from students’ genuine belief in the intellectual or moral standing of the teacher or speaker. It should provide assurance that by remaining silent and listening attentively, they can gain valuable knowledge that brings them the satisfaction and pleasure of learning. Otherwise, students may later experience regret, feeling that they have lost the opportunity to engage critically with meaningful content. In essence, belief in the speaker’s scholarly rank, the anticipation of learning satisfaction, and the desire to avoid regret together form the cognitive and dispositional foundations that culminate in the will to remain silent out of respect.

5. Silence as a Sign of Protest

Protest silence represents another form that may manifest individually or collectively. In this type, the cognitive foundation, the underlying reason for silence, may vary, but it typically reflects disagreement and resistance in response to the exercise of power or perceived injustice. For instance, students may remain silent as a form of protest or resistance against the teacher’s exercise of authority or neglect of their views and needs.

When students encounter unpleasant or distressing situations caused by a teacher or school authorities, they may seek to express their opposition. Such expression may take different forms. If conditions permit, they may voice their concerns through dialogue. Another option may be writing a letter of protest to articulate dissatisfaction. When such avenues are unavailable or ineffective, silence itself may function as a sign of resistance.

The consequences associated with these various modes of expression influence students’ beliefs and inclinations toward protest silence. For example, if students’ verbal objections are met with harsh or inappropriate reactions, or if written complaints are ignored and no corrective action is taken, feelings of frustration may emerge, drawing them toward silence.

Often, the sense of unity and solidarity students experience in collective silence strengthens their dispositional foundation. The perceived support and shared identity gained through such silence can reinforce their inclination and solidify their will to remain silent as a form of protest.

6. Silence Oriented Toward Reflection

Individuals often fall silent to engage in inner speech and reflection, suspending outward expression. In doing so, they create a space for concentration and thought, attaining a form of silence oriented toward reflection, which may occur individually or collectively.

The significance of this type of silence lies in the intellectual outcomes that result from reflection. Consider, for example, a classroom in which the teacher poses a thought-provoking question or designs an intellectually stimulating activity that evokes students’ curiosity. In seeking an answer, students may suspend discussion and immerse themselves in thought. Their action may stem from the cognitive foundation and belief that by remaining silent, listening attentively, and reflecting upon the teacher’s words, they will experience the pleasure of learning and arrive at new insights.

Furthermore, the more engaging and compelling the teacher’s content, capable of drawing students into reflection and deepening their intellectual involvement, the stronger their dispositional foundation becomes. The anticipation of learning satisfaction reinforces their inclination and strengthens their will to adopt silence oriented toward reflection.

Educational Implications

Based on the foregoing discussion of silence as action, several implications for educational interaction may be derived. Educational implications encompass aims, principles, and methods; however, given the limitations of space in this article, the focus here will be confined to educational principles. An educational principle may be understood as “a general guideline that provides rules for bringing about desirable transformations in human beings”.

As noted in the research methodology, the following section presents educational principles grounded in interaction with students who engage in silence as action. Such interaction must be considered from multiple angles and in light of the various types of silence as action. These principles can assist teachers in fostering meaningful educational interaction with their silent students.

1. The Necessity of Recognizing Silence as Action

When a teacher encounters student silence, an appropriate response is essential for realizing genuine educational interaction. The first step is to identify the nature of this silence. Failure to recognize it accurately or misinterpreting it may lead to inappropriate responses and further complications.

In particular, when silence constitutes action, the teacher must pay careful attention to these forms of silence and distinguish them from non-agentive silence. By considering their various types, the teacher should carefully examine the foundational elements underlying them. Understanding these foundations is crucial for determining both the nature of the silence and the appropriate mode of engagement. Without addressing and, where necessary, transforming these foundations, it is not possible to redirect a student from a form of silence that disrupts interaction toward dialogue and active participation in educational engagement.

2. The Necessity of the Teacher’s Appropriate Response to Different Types of Student Silence

Within educational interaction, students’ silence may either support and reinforce the educational process or disrupt it. Accordingly, the teacher’s response must vary depending on the type of silence encountered. These responses may be categorized along two dimensions: negative (to be avoided) and positive (constructive).

With regard to the negative dimension, two forms of response may be identified: authoritarian and passive. The teacher must avoid authoritarian reactions. He should not behave despotically by demanding that the student abruptly end the silence, nor should he threaten consequences such as grade reduction or disciplinary action if the silence continues.

At the same time, the teacher must also avoid passive indifference. Ignoring student silence without inquiry may overlook underlying beliefs or motivations that, if left unaddressed, could result in harm or further complications. Therefore, by refraining from both authoritarian and passive approaches, the teacher should adopt interactive responses that are proportionate to the specific type of silence. What follows elaborates on these constructive principles.

3. Positively Guiding Silence Oriented Toward Not Knowing

The response to silence rooted in not knowing depends on the underlying foundations and meanings it carries. If the student’s silence aligns with educational aims and constructive participation, such as refraining from idle talk or expressing a genuine desire to learn, the teacher’s response may appropriately involve encouragement and support.

However, when a student remains silent in response to a direct question, this is often interpreted as negligence or irresponsibility. If it becomes clear that the student has not adequately prepared for classroom evaluation, the teacher should provide guidance, helping the student develop better study habits or undertake compensatory learning to address educational deficiencies.

At the same time, the teacher must remain attentive to the various types of silence and recognize that a lack of response may stem from other causes. Therefore, caution and thoughtful discernment are required in addressing such situations.

4. Creating Conditions Conducive to Reflective Silence

Given the importance of reflective silence in nurturing students’ creativity, intellectual growth, and problem-solving abilities, the teacher plays a vital role in encouraging this type of silence. To this end, he should utilize available educational resources to create learning situations that stimulate curiosity and invite reflection. By fostering inquiry and idea generation, the teacher can direct students toward meaningful contemplation.

Positive and encouraging feedback further strengthens students’ inclination toward reflective silence. Since allowing sufficient time for silence and thought can lead to deeper insights and richer participation in educational interaction, the teacher must remain attentive to individual differences and provide adequate opportunities for reflection. Insufficient time may result in frustration or disengagement among some students.

It is important to recognize that silence oriented toward reflection may itself signify active participation in classroom interaction rather than withdrawal from it.

5. Securing a Safe Environment to Prevent Protective Silence

In collective classroom discussions, differences of opinion are inevitable. As discussed under protective silence, some students may resort to silence in order to shield themselves from perceived threats. Because this type of silence may create psychological pressure and discomfort, and potentially cause harm, it requires special attention.

In such situations, the teacher must manage the classroom appropriately, intervening when students judge or ridicule one another. He should cultivate a safe and accepting environment in which all students feel free to express their views, even when those views differ from others. By doing so, the teacher supports students who might otherwise seek invisibility as a means of self-protection and encourages open, respectful participation.

1. Professor in Philosophy of Educational Sciences – Department of Philosophical and Social Foundations of Education, University of Tehran
2. Associate Professor in Philosophy of Education – Department of Philosophical and Social Foundations of Education, University of Tehran
3. Assistant Professor in Philosophy of Education – Department of Education, Allameh Tabataba’i University
4. PhD Student, Department of Philosophy of Education, University of Tehran
5. Source – I have also removed many references for the sake of brevity, but they can be looked up in the original Farsi article