The conceptual model developed in this thesis is focussed on the activities of individual
teachers and considers what the teacher does during school and out of school hours. To make
the activities easy to track, the issue of the teacher’s role is presented using a set of simple dichotomies that accord the flexibility to place a teacher in only one of several spatial units
(for example, in the school or out of the school; or, in the classroom or out of the classroom).
in teaching as work. In addition, the teacher is rewarded in personal ways through his or her
perception of the net non-financial rewards of teaching. The combination of financial and
non-financial rewards of teaching make the teacher allocate time in any optimum way
conceivable in order to attempt to undertake a core task – increasing engagement time with
the learners. A list of activities undertaken in the school, classroom and ultimately at the core
of the teacher’s engagement is generated. The classroom, in its ‘cathected form’ (Lortie, 1975) remains the “most meaningful locus of action for both teachers and pupils ...” (Huberman, 1993, p.18). The classroom is often construed as not only the “main source of
self-esteem and fulfilment but also vulnerability” (Osborn et al., 2000, p.50), frustration and a
source of significant role conflict (Rice, 2005) and emotional labour (Shalem, 1992;
Hargreaves, 1997; Doherty & Mayer, 2003; Sutton, 2005; Trevaskis, 2006; Ayako, 2008;
Sammons et al., 2007; Jones, 2008). It is this emotional labour, role conflict and vulnerability
that also puts teachers’ work under pressure – under ‘constant bombardment’ (Williamson & Myhill, 2008) from the thumbprint of educational reform.
A skeletal shell of the conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.2. It is maintained in this thesis
that dichotomising teachers’ work and placement produces a skeletal shell that looks like a thumbprint. The venue of the application of the centre of pressure of the teachers’ thumbprint is the classroom. The metaphor of a teacher’s thumbprint is then used, therefore, to show all
the strong points in the design of the conceptual framework. A detailed description of the
Figure 1.2 Conceptual Framework for the Analyses of Teachers’ Time-Use
The skeletal shell shown in Figure 1.2 is used to: (i) develop an analytical framework for
computing the total time expended on each of the activities, (ii) describe the time allocated to
each of the activities, as well as the time allocated to a typical day or week of teaching, (iii)
highlight the significant efforts teachers make in order to create conditions conducive to
learning and subsequent achievement in schools (through engagement time), and (iv) create
an appreciation of the realities of teachers’ work. The skeletal shell is at the core of the focus of the thesis – describing the time use of primary school teachers in Tasmania. For example,
in Figure 1.3, teachers work with the school and the community, pursuing their own
professional development, teaching alone or teaching with others in a classroom environment
with the aim of generating as much engagement time as possible (Mulford & Edmunds, 2009;
Mulford & Edmunds, 2010). So, in Figure 1.3 the clockwise spiral takes engagement time
away from the core, and teachers and the system in these hard to staff schools have to make
al., 2001; Ingersoll, 2004; MacBeath et al., 2006. The arrows shown, in Figure 1.3, represent
therefore the desired net – result of teachers’ efforts.
Schools and the community
Inside Classroom
Engagement Time Teaching with others
Professional Development
Figure 1.3 Locus of Teachers’ Activities Inside and Outside Hard to Staff Schools
However, the scenario captured in Figure 1.3 is for teaching in hard to staff schools, similar
to those described in Woofter (1917), Steffy and Wolfe (2001), Woodward & Munns (2002);
Lashway (2003), Munns (2007) and Kirkgoz (2008). In order to conjure an image of teacher
struggle (similar to the struggles observed in other disciplines, (see Parker, 1980;
MacFarlane, 1990)), the spiral in Figure 1.3 runs anticlockwise. The arrows, representing
teachers’ endless effort are also in an anticlockwise direction. In order to maintain the connection between time and gears – consolidate an image of time-use in clocks, a clockwise
direction of rotation of the clock is presented. The core is where the crux of learning is
the various difficulties encountered in achieving an endowment of academic learning time,
through purposeful time-on-task and engagement time in the hard to staff schools.
Schools and the community
Inside Classroom
Engagement Time Teaching with others
Professional Development
Figure 1.4 Locus of Teachers’ Activities Inside and Outside Good Schools
In Figure 1.4, the whorls still spin clockwise, and thus generate a current that carries the also
clockwise net rewards of teaching in such a way that provides the attainment of academic
learning time (effective engagement time and /or time-on-task (Woodward & Munns, 2003)).
Figure 1.4, as a heuristic represents, therefore, a skeletal shell of the eventual or desirable
locus of teachers, time-use in the not so-hard-to-staff schools (Good, Clark & Clark, 1997;
Smith, 2000; Ingersoll, 2004; MacBeath et al., 2006; Rocha, 2007).
Additional, examples of the imagery of the teachers’ thumbprint are presented in Chapter 3. These images extend the application of the teachers’ thumbprint model to explain time allocation behaviour of part-time teachers, relief teachers, and paths towards teaching
competencies (to name a few, (see Perrachione, Rosser & Petersen, 2008)). Engagement time
and time on task are at the centre of the teachers’ thumbprint, as required in the theoretical premise by Johns et al., (2008) and Masci (2008) where teachers battle as they struggle to
help ‘remedy lost time-on-task’ (ASCD, 1982; Smith, 2000; Masci, 2008).
The model of the teacher’s thumbprint can also be viewed in the context of the six professional life phases (PLPs), as developed by Sammons et al., (2007). These PLPs include
“commitment (support and challenge), ..., identity and efficacy in classroom, ..., managing change in role and identity, ..., work life tensions, ... [and] ..., declining motivation and ability
to cope with change ...”(Apple & Jungek, 1990; Reynolds, 1992; Shalem, 1992; Graham, 1993; Talbert, 1993; Clandinin et al., 1995; Sumara & Luce-Kapler, 1996; Collinson & Cook,
2000; Lynn, 2002; Vogt, 2002; Webb et al., 2004; Sammons et al., 2007, p.686; Basol &
Bardakci, 2008; Jephcote & Salisbury, 2009; Webb et al., 2009). Teachers go through
development stages that are “associated with increased effectiveness – from being a novice through to advanced beginner, competent, proficient and expert” (Baldwin, 1934; Chapel,
Leask & Turner, 1997; Johnston, McKeown & McEwen, 1999; Duggleby & Badali, 2001;
Ejieh, 2003; Sammons et al., 2007, p.686). Day, Sammons and Gu (2008, p.337) found “a
relatively greater decline in commitment among late-career teachers ... [and that] ... teachers
in their early years were, in relative terms, no more or less committed than teachers in their
middle years” (Lynn, 2002; Day, Sammons & Gu, 2008, p.337). It is important, therefore, to examine time allocation behaviours of teachers using socio-demographic and school variables
as much as they can be supported by theory and data.