The generative temporality of teaching under revision

Abstract

What we have come to understand as education has a temporal dimension: the school year, progression based on time, timetables, and so on. Similarly, our understanding of teaching is framed by temporality, primarily through salary structures and an implicit coupling of performance with time in the field. We argue that this underlying generative temporality is under revision. This revision is taking place through policy moves such as the professional standards agenda, which unlike salary structures (at least current ones) privilege demonstrable performance over tenure. Such a revision places time not as an external measure in which events and practices take place, but as the very core of such practices and events. Taking stimulus from the role of workintegrated learning within initial teacher education, we engage with this revision of temporality in education. With increasing attention being paid to temporality in scholarship across a number of disciplines, there has arguably never been a more appropriate opportunity to engage with the temporality of teaching.

How much is too much? Refining normative evaluations of prescriptive curriculum

“…Given the importance of standardized tests for high-school graduation and college admissions, students need to master the tested material by the time they graduate from school. Curriculum must thus impose a temporal structure to ensure that instruction proceeds in a timely fashion (Eacott and Hodges, 2014; Roth et al, 2008). Temporal structuration is largely contingent on substantive structuration (i.e.…”

Time and the embodied other in education: A dimension of teachers’ everyday judgements of student learning

“…Time or theories of temporality are in this way of reasoning not something external to teachers' professional judgements but are unavoidably an integrated part that pleads for attention, since they both help to explain and affect conceptualisations of education and teachers' work (cf. Eacotta and Hodgesb 2014).…”

“Leadership” and the social: time, space and the epistemic

“…For example, Dinham (2005), produces a composite set of principal leadership attributes and practices contributing to outstanding educational outcomes but warns that "there is a danger with such attributes or factors in that context is not sufficiently recognized" (p. 354). Likewise, Gurr and colleagues' "Australian" model of successful school leadership' [5] has the objectives of: describing, explaining and categorising various kinds of leadership intervention and outlining their relationship and impact on student outcomes; providing a conceptual map of the interventions used by the school's leadership; and providing a framework for other practitioners to use as a guide to future action, including principal preparation (see Gurr et al, 2010). However, the authors themselves note regarding the model that "[I]t does not explain why these interventions work in some circumstances and not in others" (Gurr et al, 2010, p. 124).…”