The iterational aspect of agency to be especially significant. It is evident that the two teachers (Gerald and Debbie) who espoused broad, educational aspirations in respect of their teaching shared similar past experiences both in terms of work and extra-career activities. Conversely, Donald, with his more traditional trajectory into teaching, exhibited different aspirations. While we clearly cannot generalise from such a small project, we are able to note the direct correspondence in the cases of Gerald and Debbie between their previous professional lives and their aspirations for their teaching. Put bluntly, these teachers were able to bring to bear their often-rich past experiences in tailoring rich and meaningful educational experiences for their students as their projections were not solely circumscribed by the cultural ecology of schooling in general and their particular school. (p.210) We conclude this analysis with three points, one specific to these cases, and two general. First, the analysis does not explain why one teacher with rich prior experience and strongly held views about education was able to translate this so strongly into her teaching, whereas the other was less successful. It is likely that the answer lies in the personal biographies of the teachers concerned. Perhaps Gerald’s putative protestant work ethic makes him less likely than Debbie to rock the educational boat. Perhaps the temporary nature of her contract made risk taking more viable. Or maybe the newness of her position in school meant that she was less enculturated by dominant school mores and cultural patterns than were her colleagues. Our data do not provide answers to these questions. (p.210) We have taken the view in this article that teacher agency is largely about repertoires for manoeuvre, or the possibilities for different forms of action available to teachers at particular points in time. These are dependent upon temporal aspects—the iterative and projective, as well as the practical evaluative possibilities afforded by the material and social configurations of the present context. In the case of our three teachers, we see varying potential for agency, framed by ontogeny (the iterative), the possibilities created from this for aspirations about education (the projective), and enacted within the complex and contingent possibilities of the present (the practical-evaluative). (p.211)
The iterational aspect of agency to be especially significant. It is evident that the two teachers (Gerald and Debbie) who espoused broad, educational aspirations in respect of their teaching shared similar past experiences both in terms of work and extra-career activities. Conversely, Donald, with his more traditional trajectory into teaching, exhibited different aspirations. While we clearly cannot generalise from such a small project, we are able to note the direct correspondence in the cases of Gerald and Debbie between their previous professional lives and their aspirations for their teaching. Put bluntly, these teachers were able to bring to bear their often-rich past experiences in tailoring rich and meaningful educational experiences for their students as their projections were not solely circumscribed by the cultural ecology of schooling in general and their particular school. (p.210) We conclude this analysis with three points, one specific to these cases, and two general. First, the analysis does not explain why one teacher with rich prior experience and strongly held views about education was able to translate this so strongly into her teaching, whereas the other was less successful. It is likely that the answer lies in the personal biographies of the teachers concerned. Perhaps Gerald’s putative protestant work ethic makes him less likely than Debbie to rock the educational boat. Perhaps the temporary nature of her contract made risk taking more viable. Or maybe the newness of her position in school meant that she was less enculturated by dominant school mores and cultural patterns than were her colleagues. Our data do not provide answers to these questions. (p.210) We have taken the view in this article that teacher agency is largely about repertoires for manoeuvre, or the possibilities for different forms of action available to teachers at particular points in time. These are dependent upon temporal aspects—the iterative and projective, as well as the practical evaluative possibilities afforded by the material and social configurations of the present context. In the case of our three teachers, we see varying potential for agency, framed by ontogeny (the iterative), the possibilities created from this for aspirations about education (the projective), and enacted within the complex and contingent possibilities of the present (the practical-evaluative). (p.211)
teacher_agency_lit_card_1.docx