BASE DE DATOS DE LAS UNIDADES ESPACIALES

Teaching is a social human activity that represents a distribution of teaching effort over time.

This temporal dimension of teaching occurs in a range of spaces, and therefore teaching has a

spatial component. Four components of the time concept of teaching are important. These are

the duration, frequency, timing and sequence of teaching activities as part of social

preoccupation. Duration refers to how long the activity takes; frequency refers to how often

the activity occurs; timing refers to when the activity occurs, and sequence refers to the order

in which the activity occurs. These four components occur within a defined time-window

frame – this is the portion of time over which the activity is conducted. In general, the

activities can only occur in one space at a time – with the notable exception of online

teaching in which activities can occur over multiple spaces.

The literature suggests that time in teaching can be viewed as an allocation problem subject

to individual, institutional, managerial and political constraints (Fullan, 1998). The art of

teaching or act of teaching or the heart in teaching, whichever way one looks at it, involves

allocating time to the teaching activity (its preparation, planning, execution and evaluation).

Teaching is therefore a time-budgeting activity and therefore ought to be modelled in the

same way as other similar budgeting activities that have a social, human, temporal and spatial

component. In that respect, if time is money then models on household expenditure of income

(Greene, 1993) create a unique source of techniques for modelling time-use of teachers, since

for teachers time should be money too – with no reason for an exception. Time should

therefore be the main currency, and the analysis expenditure of time should be given priority.

Teaching is a form of activity-based social behaviour with time expenditure that can be

revealed by recording, observing or studying teachers’ activities over space-time (Turney et

be those displayed by each individual teacher, or a group of teachers. Time budgets can be

computed, therefore, to capture the patterns of this social behaviour (Dreeben, 1970; Blase &

Pajak, 1986; Acker, 1989; Casey & Apple, 1989; Biddle, Good & Goodson, 1997; Cinamon

& Rich, 2005). The duration, frequency, timing and the sequence of teaching is experienced

differently by each teacher. The subjective experience of time and teaching (as work) varies

from individual to individual, and between teachers and administrators (Hargreaves, 1990;

Acker, 1992; Huberman, 1993; Smyth, 1995; Huberman, Thompson & Weiland, 1997; Swain

& Swain, 1999; Easthope & Easthope, 2000; Woods & Jeffrey, 2002; Collet, Menlo &

Rosenblatt, 2004; Cinamon & Rich, 2005; Rice, 2005; Kutcy & Schulz, 2006).

2.3.1 Multiple Meanings of Time for Teachers

Similarly, teachers’ experiences of mixing and juggling student time, teaching time, learning time, innovation time (Stoll, Fink & Earl, 2003), managed time, administrative time, cyclical

time (Connelly & Cladinin, 1990), political time and experienced time (Collet, Menlo &

Rosenblatt, 2004) further define (characterise) the time allocation problem. This

characterisation of time allocation is unique to the individual teacher in their unique school

setting. All these time constructs are experienced by the teacher and encapsulate a teacher’s

life as it is lived in schools and out of schools (Kutcy & Schulz, 2006). This experience

makes time idiosyncratic, unique and peculiar to the individual teacher (Woods & Jeffrey,

2002; Collet, Menlo & Rosenblatt, 2004; Cinamon & Rich, 2005; Gardner & Williamson,

2006). It is known that the different types of time overlap and interact with each other

constantly (Hargreaves, 1990). The constant meshing of these time constructs and activities

performed within those time constraints define the monochronic-polychronic experience of

time in the phenomenology of teacher’s time allocation. One way of inferring how teachers experience time differently is to examine any differences in time allocation behaviours across

teachers of different demographic characteristics such as years of teaching experience, ages,

and year-class taught, to name a few.

Teachers construct time differently even though they are endowed with similar amounts of

time to spend (Hargreaves, 1990) – that is the allocated time endowment, and have similar

demographic characteristics. Most significant in teacher time-use is the view of time-inequity

(Stoll, Fink & Earl, 2003; Kutcy & Schulz, 2006) where some teachers may be viewed as

having an inequitable allocation of time. These inequities may take the form of a “lack of

transparency ... when school funds [are] disbursed to support ... programs ... or inequity in

administrative practices ... or conditions of classrooms and workspaces” (Kutcy & Schulz, 2006, p.82). Time expenditure over a variety of activities is therefore a function of the

teachers’ allocated time, school settings, classroom dynamics, the teacher’s view of work, and the teacher’s personality (Jones, 2008), preference, and cognitive style. Different teachers see their work differently and the way in which they cope with change over time also is

different. Similarly different teachers see and experience their teaching time differently. It is

imperative, therefore, to understand the multiple meanings of time for teachers.

The literature suggests that teachers may be attaching multiple meanings of time because of

the multiplicity of clocks of school reform that they observe (Cambone, 1994; Cuban, 1995).

Teachers may be looking at time from the perspective of five clocks of school reform as

described by Cuban (1995), cited in Stoll, Fink and Earl (2003). These five clocks operate on

different time zones and are viewed from different perspectives. The clocks capture: media

time; policy maker time; bureaucratic time; practitioner time; and pupil learning time (Cuban,

1995). The multiple meanings of time are constructed from these five clocks. For example,

the media time “is the fastest reform clock that ticks every second for every day” (Stoll, Fink

& Earl, 2003, p.9). Policy time chimes every two to four years. During policy time, it is

Students require an inordinate amount of time to learn – the practitioner’s time may not be

enough to support the speed and type of learning required by students.

2.3.2 Working in Monochronic or Polychronic Time

Teachers’ construction of time in schools is intricately linked to their teaching activities in schools and may involve a variety of activities that occur simultaneously or concurrently or in

sequence. In performing their activities/duties teachers experience time in a polychronic time

frame - a term used to characterise how teachers perform several tasks concurrently, and not

necessarily in a defined sequential manner/order. Administrators on the other hand may use

time in a monochronic time frame. In monochronic time frame activities are arranged in

linear fashion. The literature suggests that the focus on polychronic and monochronic time by

teachers and administrators respectively, creates a zone of conflict especially with respect to

school reform in general, and (in particular) the practice of teaching in schools (Hargreaves,

1990). On one hand, polychronic time requires a very high level of complex interactions of

activities, and takes considerable effort, concentration and dexterity on the part of the teacher.

The polychronic use of time shapes, therefore, teachers’ workloads and teachers’ work lives.

On the other hand, administrators in monochronic time may not be able to notice the complex

competing tasks and workloads that teachers face (Tye & O’Brien, 2002). In the context of

school reforms, teachers must devise ways to delineate different types of time (Carmona et

al., 2000; Kutcy & Schulz, 2006; Ballet & Kelchtermans, 2009) and make decisions that

depend on how teachers understand and value their relative use of time (Cotte, 1998;

2.3.3 Time-Use and The School Environment

The literature suggests that there is more considerable overlap between teaching time and

student time in primary schools, than in secondary schools. Teaching in primary schools is

viewed fundamentally as the ‘socialization of children’ (Stoll, Fink & Earl, 2003) whereas secondary or high school teaching is more about teacher time spent on transmitting

information. The whole phenomenology of teaching in primary schools is different from that

in secondary (high) schools and the teaching experience is different, and thus there are

differences in ways in which time is constructed by primary and secondary (high) school

teachers and other education workers (Heath & Clifford, 1980). The use of time by primary

school teachers and other allied workers differs from that of secondary school education

workers because these groups of teachers construct time differently. The cycles of time in

their respective schools are usually different, and therefore, their teaching time is usually

different. The characteristics of these socio-temporal cycles in schools are important for

understanding: (i) time in schools (Connelly & Cladinin, 1990), and (ii) the resistance or

inertia among school personnel when reform requires changes in schedules and school

calendars.

It is also reasonable to speculate that primary, secondary and tertiary teachers attach different

multiple meanings to the use of time. For all these types of teachers a range of time-hungry

activities seem to take the teachers’ time away particularly from instruction. These time- hungry activities and events include the systematic cuts in education funding, changes to

curriculum, increased accountability, changes in assessing and reporting students’ work, and

inclusive initiatives (Easthope & Easthope, 2000; Gardner & Williamson, 2004; Mulford &