by Nehat Hyseni
Abstract
This study examines the transformation of teaching practice at Skanderbeg High School in Presheva, highlighting the shift from an authoritarian, centralized model to a creative, student-centered pedagogy. Drawing on personal experience from the late 1970s to the 1990s, the author describes how pedagogical authority, critical engagement, collaborative learning, and humanistic approaches replaced rote knowledge transmission and hierarchical control. Practical methods included structured discussions, group projects, and field research on Albanian culture, fostering both intellectual growth and civic consciousness. The work situates this pedagogical evolution within political and cultural contexts, demonstrating how education can be a vehicle for emancipation, creativity, and the formation of free and responsible citizens.
From Authoritarian Control to Creative Pedagogy: My Beginnings as a Teacher at Skanderbeg High School
From the paradigm of control to the paradigm of creation
In the history of Albanian education in the Presheva Valley, the Skanderbeg High School has been more than an educational institution. It has functioned as a space for national formation, as a center of institutional resistance, and as a laboratory of pedagogical transformation.
My beginnings as a professor at this high school coincided with a period when education was in strong tension between two paradigms: the paradigm of authoritarian and institutional power, and the paradigm of the creative, emancipatory, and formative mission of the free personality. This transformation was not only methodological; it was epistemological, professional, and ethical. It affected the conception of knowledge, the teacher-student relationship, the role of the school in society, and the very meaning of pedagogical authority.
Authoritarian paradigm: Education as an instrument of power
In the education system of the late 1970s and early 1980s, the influence of the Yugoslav socialist model was evident. The school was seen as an instrument of ideological formation and the reproduction of institutional order. The authority of the teacher was based on hierarchy, discipline, and control rather than on dialogue and creativity.
The main characteristics of this paradigm were centralization of curriculum and control of content, frontal teaching mainly oriented towards the transmission of knowledge, normative evaluation focused on the reproduction of information, and the formal authority of the teacher as a representative of the institutional order.
In this context, the student was perceived as a passive subject, an absorber of knowledge rather than a co-creator. Didactics was dominated by the traditional model, where learning was structured in a linear manner and individual creativity was often seen as a deviation from the norm.
My beginnings as a professor – awareness of the limitations of the traditional model
When I began working as a professor at the Skanderbeg Gymnasium, I was faced with a dual reality: on the one hand a strong institutional structure, and on the other, youth thirsting for identity, free expression, and meaning. My academic experience as a student at the Faculty of Political Science in Sarajevo had introduced me to modern pedagogical literature and critical theories of education.
This led me to reflect on fundamental questions. Is authority synonymous with authoritarianism and power? Should education reproduce order or problematize it? How can the classroom be transformed into a space for genuine, democratic dialogue and creative engagement?
These questions marked the beginning of a transformative process, not only for me as a teacher but also for the way teaching was conceptualized in practice at the Skanderbeg Gymnasium in Presheva and in other schools.
From formal authority to pedagogical authority
The first transformation was conceptual: distinguishing formal authority from pedagogical authority. Formal authority stems from the teacher’s institutional position as a representative of the school. Pedagogical authority stems from professional competence, moral integrity, and the ability to inspire students toward acquiring knowledge as an immanent need and as preparation for creative work.
In my initial and subsequent teaching practice, this translated into openness to classroom debate about topics and learning units, encouraging critical thinking, eliminating fear and instilling the courage to make mistakes, with the motto that one must always try, like a footballer who dares to shoot toward the goal without being sure of scoring because without shooting, scoring is impossible, and establishing a more horizontal communication relationship that softens the vertical teacher-student hierarchy.
This approach aligned with constructivist theories of learning, according to which knowledge is constructed through active interaction with reality rather than mechanical transmission.
From knowledge transmission to co-creation
In the didactic plan, the essential change was the transition from the frontal teaching model to active and collaborative methods. This included structured discussions, analysis of texts and teaching content with a critical approach, tandem and group work, and thematic field projects such as engaging students in collecting data about local customs, Albanian customary law in Presheva and the surrounding area, the phenomenon of blood feuds, revenge, and reconciliations within the framework of the sociology of culture course, a new subject at the time that required methodical experimentation and pedagogical creativity.
These methods increased student engagement in learning and extracurricular activities, strengthened analytical skills, and promoted individual and collective responsibility. The student was no longer merely a receiver of information, but an interpreter, critic, and creator. This represented the transition from a pedagogy of persuasion to a pedagogy of awareness.
Political context and impact on the educational mission
The period from 1981 to 1990 was marked by political tensions and ideological-political differentiations in education. In this context, the creative mission of education also took on an ethical and national dimension. The school was not only a place for learning subjects, but also a space for preserving Albanian cultural and linguistic identity.
For this reason, pedagogical transformation was both a professional and a civic act. Under conditions of institutional pressure, creative teaching constituted a form of symbolic resistance. It affirmed critical thinking, historical awareness, and intellectual dignity.
Psychology of the humanistic approach
Another essential element was understanding adolescent psychological development. High school students are in a phase of identity formation, where the need for individual autonomy and social belonging is crucial. My pedagogical approach was based on respect for individuality, active listening, and assessing engagement in learning rather than mechanical measurement of knowledge.
This humanistic model shifted the focus from rigorous control of behavior to the development of the student’s personality. The school began to be perceived as a learning community rather than a disciplinary mechanism.
The role of the teacher as mentor and model
In the new model, the teacher was not only a lecturer but also a mentor, intellectual guide, and civic and ethical model. Authority was built on coherence between word and deed. Students perceived authenticity, fairness, and commitment as fundamental elements of pedagogical legitimacy. This transformation gradually affected the school’s institutional culture, creating a more open, dialogical, and collaborative spirit.
Evaluation as an emancipatory process
A key aspect of the evolution was reconceptualizing evaluation. From a control instrument, it was transformed into a development tool. Qualitative feedback was emphasized, self-assessment was encouraged, and critical reflection was promoted. Evaluation was no longer a punishment or reward but a guide to improvement. This increased intrinsic motivation and reduced fear of mistakes.
Education as a creative mission
The transformation from authoritarian control to a creative mission was not linear. It was intertwined with institutional challenges, structural resistance, and political tensions. However, the experience at Skanderbeg Gymnasium proved that education can be a space of freedom even within limited structures, that authority can be built on dialogue rather than fear, and that pedagogical creativity is a socially transformative force.
In retrospect, my beginnings as a professor constitute a living laboratory of pedagogical transition: from education as an instrument of power to education as an emancipatory, creative, and formative mission of the free citizen.
Conclusion
The evolution of education at Skanderbeg High School in Presheva during my early teaching years represents a profound process of paradigmatic transformation. From an authoritarian model oriented toward control and ideological reproduction, it gradually moved to a creative, dialogical, and humanistic model. This transformation was not only methodological but also cultural, ethical, and historical. It demonstrated that teaching, when based on competence, integrity, and vision, can become a mission that shapes not only knowledgeable students but also conscious citizens and free personalities. In this sense, education is not simply the transmission of knowledge; it is a process of emancipation, and it is precisely in this emancipation of the student that lies the essence of the teacher’s creative mission.
