IDENTIFICACIÓN Y CARACTERIZACIÓN DE LAS VARIABLES

In the previous sections, attention has been drawn to the way in which time is constructed by

teachers and administrators. What is also important for teachers’ construction of time is the understanding of how time is viewed as a variable in learning and teaching. For teachers,

time is mostly used for teaching – thus defining learning time through allocated time,

engaged time (Rosenshine, 1978; Rosenshine & Berliner, 1978; Smyth, 1980; Hornberger,

1987; Johns et al., 2008), academic learning time (Berliner, 1990; Sliva, 2007), and time-on-

task (Anderson, 1984; Berliner, 1990; AERA, 2007; Rocha, 2007; Silva, 2007), among other

time definitions (Bloom, 1974; Cuban, 1985; Berliner, 1990; MacBeath, 2000; McFadden &

Munns, 2002; Woodward & Munns, 2003). Of particular importance is the academic learning

time, defined “in terms of a combination of allocated time, student engagement, and student accuracy rate” (Hornberger, 1987, p.219: endnote #5; Berliner, 1990; McFadden & Munns, 2002; Woodward & Munns, 2003), and the “amount of time students are working on rigorous

tasks at the appropriate level of difficulty for them” (AERA, 2007, p.1), thus giving students “time to gain and retain subject knowledge” (Silvia 2007, p.3). Hargreaves (1990) suggests that administrators are likely to view classroom practice monochronically, not necessarily

polychronically. The monochronic view of time may explain why changes initiated and

supported by administrators seem to move much too slowly for the administrator’s liking

(Hargreaves, 1990). It is recommended generally that education policy experts and reformers

must now view time in schools and/or teaching time as the same for all teachers or view

teaching time as unrelated to other aspects of teacher time. The literature shows that teaching

time is linked to the time teachers spend with students (Smyth, 1984; Wang, 1984; Darling-

Hammond, 1999). In addition, the subjective experience of time by teachers also contributes

to the use of teaching time.

A few conceptual frameworks for cross-cultural analysis of the effects of educational change

on teachers have been suggested. In the literature Collet, Menlo and Rosenblatt (2004), for

example, show that educational change affects teachers’ work lives. Teachers’ work lives

affect their affective response to alterations in work lives. The affective response to changes

to the nature of the teacher’s work affects the teacher’s disposition toward future changes (Poppleton & Williamson, 2004). Teaching time is a distinctly personal investment for

teachers and they tend to covet it. There is ‘a struggle among teachers and reformers over

teaching time’ and policy initiatives should be focused on facilitating ‘teacher leadership,

responsibility taking and involvement in school change’ (Collet, Menlo & Rosenblatt, 2004,

p. 246), providing time for teaching and better use of instructional time, as well as easier

workloads for teachers. Policy makers must also endeavour to create “eureka time” – time

when pupils can be left alone to use their own imagination and good learning time – when

learning actually occurs (Galton et al., 2000; MacBeath et al., 2000). Also absent is time for

the teacher’s informal learning (Bound & Middleton, 2003; Lohman, 2006), and meaningful professional development (Clement & Vandenberghe, 2000; Day et al., 2008; Yamagata-

Darling-Hammond (1999, cited in Stoll, Fink and Earl, 2003, p. 98) argues that “the time

teachers spend with each other and with other knowledgeable educators ... is just as important

to students’ opportunities to learn as the time teachers’ spend in direct facilitation of

learning”. Johnson (1990) suggests that reformers have advocated lengthening teachers’

working hours and the working year to bolster their public image and justify higher salaries.

Reformers should therefore reduce the ‘excessive demands on non-teaching duties’ – ‘paperwork to the eyeballs’ (Gardner & Williamson, 2004) and ‘excessive and unproductive committee work consumes the precious after-school time of teachers’ (Johnson, 1990, p. 48).

Johnson (1990) stresses that schools as workplaces affect how teachers view their work, and

by extension teachers’ attitudes to their own work should affect how teachers use their time at

the workplace, and thus by a further extension affect how teachers use their time outside the

workplace. Reeves, Emerick and Hirsch (2006, p. 1) argue that “teachers thrive in school

environments where they have sufficient time to plan, collaborate with colleagues, and

discuss student work and effective teaching strategies”. Johnson (1990) views the school as a

workplace – a place of work where teachers must view their work from four dimensions or

perspectives; namely, the sociological, political, economic, and psychological dimensions of

work.

First, the sociological dimension requires teachers to focus (at their workplace) on the “roles

of teachers and their subsequent/consequent relationships with colleagues, superiors, students

and parents” (Johnson, 1990, p. xviii). How teachers respond to the requirements of work in order to create and sustain the “role of teachers and their subsequent/consequent relationships

with colleagues, superiors, students and parents” (Johnson, 1990, p. xviii) is not clearly presented.

Second, teachers assess the political character of the schools and have a sense of the extent to

which they can influence policy. This is the political domain of teaching. Third, the

psychological dimension of teaching requires or involves teachers’ assessment of the extent to which the meaning of teaching as a job is diminished or enhanced structures that define a

teacher’s workplaces. In other words, are the professional stresses tolerable? Is there enough scope at the workplace for personal development? In terms of teachers’ time at the workplace

one may ask the question: do teachers have time for their own learning, growth and

professional development? Finally, it is imperative to look at the economic

dimensions/perspective of teaching, in as far as it is related to the financial and non-financial

rewards of teaching and the investment placed on education.

Given the complexities of schools as workplaces, it is imperative therefore that greater

analytical and policy attention should be paid to how teachers allocate the available

instructional time, contribute to organising the school curriculum, and teachers are enabled to

cope with the scope, pace and complexity of classroom life (Benavot & Amadio, 2004). The

organisation of the school-time is the object of sustained attention by education officials

(Lortie, 1975; Brown & Saks, 1987). Especially important are decisions regarding how time

should be distributed to meet the general educational objectives and specific curriculum goals

(Benavot & Amadio, 2004).