23 SES 11 C, Teachers and Teaching
The teacher policies of last decade have sought to strengthen the professional teacher capacity employing the prescription of standards skills, hoping of that these would be key in the obtaining of individual improvements, especially as for teaching practices (Biesta, 2010; Creemers, Kyriakydes & Antoniou, 2013).
Together with these, the regulations that impose the evaluability of performance have transformed in a topic of controversy in Europe and America (EFEE-ETUCE, 2015; Lamont, 2012), since they have occupied the role of an exogenous force that presses the institutional frames and teachers values. It, because his results impact as a factor to considering inside the processes of legitimization to his couples and with other audiences (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounbury, 2012; Suddaby, Bitektine & Haak, 2017).
From the neo-institutional approach, the teacher policy its described as a structure of rules and resources that seek to restrict the individual conduct but that do not become institutionalized for itself: they need the human agency to do it (Coburn, 2016; März, Kelchtermans y Dumay, 2016). That is to say, to be effective the educational standards and evaluations must be legitimized as accepted process by teachers. In this respect, the teachers can be seen as agents of the means which allow him legitimization, in the sense that they construct cultural suppositions to explain and to support his knowledge and practices, to build social meanings, rhetorical or narratives in his interaction with policies and diverse actors (Datnow, 2012; Priestley, Biesta & Robinson, 2015; Suddaby et al., 2017).
In this respect, the tension between agency - structure emerges in the processes of implementation of the policies. In answer to the uncertainties that introduce the regulations, professionals try to adapt, innovate or resist the new regulatory frames. As institutional agents, they search of conditions that allow supporting his legitimacy and of his practices, which introduces the possibility of distortions respect of the original policies (Bridwell-Mitchell, 2015; Coburn, 2016; Priestley et al., 2015).
The idea of that the legitimization is constructed using narratives and rhetorics allows understanding the importance of a community of couples to diffusion of rationalizations and arguments in the constitution of the legitimacy of the group. Also, the team is relevant to carry out delegitimación, the social process of elaborating the illegitimacy of specific practices, regulations or groups (Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005; Suddaby et al., 2017).
In relation to the teacher evaluation, this is considered to be a relevant aspect of the teacher policies for professional strengthening, in the sense his results can determine the opportunities for development and wage improvements, especially in countries in which there have been implemented quality assurance systems and individual accountability policies (Marcos, 2015; Isoré, 2009).
In Chile, from the year 2003, the frames of teaching skills and the evaluation by standards were promoted as a tool for the self-monitoring and supervision of the practices of teaching and in this sense, as a suitable alternative to help to improve the students learning (CPEIP, 2008). Nevertheless, from his beginnings up to the date the levels of adoption of these frames of practices have been kept low between the teachers, in such way that in the year 2016 only 40% of them could obtain approbatory level in the portfolios of practices in a classroom (MINEDUC, 2016).
In this scene, the investigation centered on the study of social interactions, rhetorical and narratives with that the teachers are, in the context of the collegiality of couples, implementing the teacher evaluation in Chile. This could help to understand the functioning of this kind of policies and the answer that professionals give to it.
There was realized a study of qualitative character, in that 40 teachers took part in in-depth interviews and under the protocol of informed assent (Flick, 2014). The participants were included from a meaningful sampling: for the colleges (average score in teacher evaluation; region) and for the teachers (sex, years of experience in the classroom, teacher's professional title, evaluated 2013-2016). The interviews were recorded and transcribed under the protocol of literal transcription (Kowal & O'Connell, 2014). Every interview was analyzed under a model of narrative analysis, who put particular emphasis in the presence of processes and speeches about the configuration of legitimization (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015; Suddaby et al., 2017). Every interview was thematically pre-codified from topics prefigured from the referential frame and the aims of the investigation (Saldaña, 2013). Then there was carried out the first opened codification and contrasted between three codifiers to confirm the emergent categories; then to go on to a process of synthesis to form substantive categories, which realize of the principal subject matters and narratives that arise from the analysis (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015). The analysis gave proved a total of 62 codes, grouped in 9 substantive categories.
It is discussed two narratives of delegitimation that teachers use: of pollution, which indicates that nowadays students and parents are complex need population, and to they devalue the education that they receive and to the teacher who offers it. This narrative explains the inability to implement teacher standards and to obtain the educational improvements that from them are expected. The second narrative: the fiction of the frames of teacher standards and the process of TE, that would prescribe conditions of work and skills that would be neither real nor pertinent for the teachers. This narrative it is proposed as a contrast with the affirmation of the daily work and the professional expertise as a criterion to evaluate the educational performance, proper of a professional logic. Close to the previous thing, they recognize that TE results have an important effect on the teachers social reputation. As a way of confronting this risk, teachers have legitimized the right to defy the individual format and carrying out TE using collaboration teamwork. In this modality, they spread technics and codes that are relevant to answer and to approve, besides offering and to receive the support of others with good previous results (Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011; Marcos, 2015; Tao, 2017). The results are discussed regarding how the professional narratives affect the dynamics of adoption of standards and teacher policies, across dynamics and practices of delegitimation of the proposed frames. Also, it emphasizes how the professionals define his role in interaction with diverse audiences, affecting the dynamics of school-family collaboration. Finally, how the interplay of all these elements is determining the access of the teachers to opportunities of wage improvements and professional development, and for the educational practices that they need to be innovative and inclusive for future citizens (EFEE-ETUCE, 2017; MINEDUC, 2017).
Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N. (2015). Theorizing teacher agency and reform: How institutionalized instructional practices change and persist. Sociology of Education, 88(2), 140-159. 10.1177/0038040715575559 Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3th ed.). New York: Sage Publication. Coburn, C. (2016). What´s policy got to do with it? how the structure-agency debate can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 122 (May), 465-476. 0195-6744/12203-0007 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS. (2017). Strengthening european identity through education and culture the european commission's contribution to the leaders' meeting in gothenburg, 17 november 2017 CPEIP-Ministerio de Educación. (2008). Marco para la buena enseñanza. Santiago: CPEIP-Ministerio de Educación. Creemers, B., Kyriakides, L., & Antoniou, P. (2013). Teacher professional development for improving quality of teaching (1st ed.). London: Springer. Flick, U. (2014). The sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (2014). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Isoré, M. (2009). Teacher evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review, OECD. Kowall, S., & O´Connell, D. (2014). Transcription as a crucial step of data analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (1st ed., pp. 64-78) SAGE. Lamont, M. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology., 38, 201-221. Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 812-819. 10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.001 Marcos, A., MAchado, E., & Abelha, M. (2015). Effect(s) of teacher evaluation on collaborative practices: Induction or inhibition? . Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3674-3680. März, V., Kelchtermans, G., & Dumay, X. (2016). Stability and change of mentoring practices in a capricious policy environment: Opening the black box of institutionalization. American Journal of Education, 122 (May)(3), 303-336. 0195/6744/2016/12203-0002 Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. UK: London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. Ruiz, J. I. (2007). Metodología de la investigación cualitativa (4a ed.). Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto. Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451-478. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, (1), 35-67. Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective. London: Oxford University Press.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.