ACCIONES DE DISCIPLINA, ORDEN Y SEGURIDAD

This chapter presented and discussed studies and theoretical accounts with the purpose to illuminate what is known about how teachers respond to curriculum reforms and the factors that seem to enable, inhibit or prohibit, in other words influence the enactment, of a new curriculum inside the classroom. Reflecting upon such studies and theoretical accounts, there is one lesson learnt: Change always creates reactions. Although scholars mostly agree on what prompts those reactions – be it in light of “uncertainty and ambiguity” (Maitlis, 2005, p. 21) or in response to “unfamiliar and problematic situations” (Archer, 2007, p. 39) that require teachers to “retain control over their work” (Archer, 2007, p. 222) – they diverge on the components that seem to form them. Several studies, for instance, emphasise on the role of teachers and the effect of their cognitions on how a new curriculum is perceived, and enacted inside the classroom. Such studies, a small number of which was discussed in this Chapter, regard teacher cognitions as cognitive frameworks upon which new curriculum recommendations are contested. Other studies provide evidence of teachers’ cognitions as being shaped and influenced by contextual factors. Lastly, several of the studies that were presented and discussed above focus on re-centralising teacher cognitions by proposing that teacher agency might be “constrained and supported by boarder social and institutional working contexts” (Ryder et al., 2018, p. 552), yet it is also, and necessarily, “framed by the individual’s personal goals” (Ryder et al., 2018, p. 539). These competing points of view show the remnants of a greater debate, out of which the question of how teachers and context interact with each other, grew into a question of which of the two exert more influence and power on the other (see Archer, 1995; 2000; 2007; Eteläpelto et al., 2013; Weick et al., 2005). This debate, referred to as the structure-agency debate (see Priestley et al., 2012b; Vähäsantanen, 2015), concerns the relationship between purposeful behaviour (intentionality) and social structure, and the nature of their interaction (Archer, 2000). There is an apparent dilemma here; one that is part of the cognitive and sociocultural divide and the perennial question of whether cognitions are to be looked at as something that reside within the mind,

or as something that is constructed within and in response to contextual factors (see Archer, 2007).

Without delving deeper into the cognitive-sociocultural divide, it could be argued here that studies such as the ones presented and discussed in this chapter, should be considered, beyond their ontological and methodological differences, as having contributed to the understanding of how teachers’ responses to curriculum reforms are resourced. Collectively, such studies suggest that, in responding to curriculum reforms, teachers are influenced by their cognitions; what they know, but most importantly, what they believe about aspects of their work (e.g. purpose of subject matter, students) (e.g. Burkhauser & Lesaux, 2017; Collopy, 2003; Cronin- Jones, 1991; Cross, 2009; Datnow & Castellano, 2000). Yet, such studies further suggest that contextual circumstances, relevant to the social structures and cultures of their working contexts, are also at play as teachers respond to curriculum reforms. In fact, such studies often provide a number of reasons why many teachers do not respond to curriculum reforms as intended, despite their congruence with the reform (e.g. Biesta et al., 2015; Pardo, 2006; Priestley et al., 2012b). Taken together, such studies counter the view that teachers are, by virtue of what they believe, a conservative group, or that curriculum innovations fail because of teachers’ restrictive cognitive repertoire. They further suggest that the question of how teachers respond to curriculum reforms will not be adequately studied, unless both teachers and their contexts are thought of, and investigated, as interrelated elements that exert influence on each other (e.g. Ryder et al., 2018; Vähäsantanen, 2015). Such understandings promote the idea that teachers are not just mere implementers of an externally driven curriculum, but rather they engage with the reforms in a process that involves ongoing negotiations, meaning making, and deliberations (Ball et al., 2012). This work adopts what can be regarded as a holistic perspective on teachers’ responses to curriculum reforms. Yet it further proclaims the central role of teachers in navigating their actions towards what they believe to be important and worthwhile (Archer, 1995; 2007; 2013). With that being said, the question of how context influences action is important; yet of equal importance is the question of how cognitions influence what teachers become aware of, how they think and reflect upon their surroundings; in other words make meaning of their world (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005), before enacting trajectories of action. What it is implied here is that, in order to make valid propositions about how teachers act in times of change, research must take the realm of cognition, as well as the realm of socioculturalism, into account. In other words, it is important to explore teachers’ actions in the context of curriculum change; yet it is also

important to investigate the process by which teachers make meaning and negotiate with their contexts as they respond to curriculum reforms.

5 Chapter 5: Conceptual Framework

5.1 Introduction

Driven by the research purpose – to investigate meaning making and agency in the context of the new language curriculum – this work suggests that, in order to understand how teachers respond to curriculum reforms, entails a reconciliation between such perspectives that tend to divide action as either referring inwards to cognitions or outwards to the context. This work endeavours to further such reconciliation by conceptualising agency as being located within a sensemaking process that involves both teachers and their contexts in a state of negotiation. This conceptualisation emanates from writings on sensemaking (e.g. Maitlis, 2005; Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005) and teacher agency (e.g. Archer, 1995; 2000; 2007; Emirbayer & Mische, 1998). The sensemaking framework for teacher agency, developed for the purpose of this study (see Figure 1), outlines how teacher agency is conceptualised within this study; as the outcome of teachers’ negotiation of meaning within their working contexts. Section 5.2. justifies the importance for investigating teacher agency from a sensemaking perspective. Section 5.3. discusses what is known about sensemaking and agency, and section 5.4. discusses the sensemaking framework for teacher agency, and defines the elements that this study regards as being part of teachers’ sensemaking process. In short, such elements, as discussed in section 5.4., are thought to influence and shape the ways in which teachers make meaning and enact their agency within and in response to their surroundings.