From performative to professional accountability: re-imagining ‘the field of judgment’ through teacher professional development

IF 2.8 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Education Policy Pub Date : 2022-06-03 DOI:10.1080/02680939.2022.2080274
J. Gore, B. Rickards, Leanne Fray
{"title":"From performative to professional accountability: re-imagining ‘the field of judgment’ through teacher professional development","authors":"J. Gore, B. Rickards, Leanne Fray","doi":"10.1080/02680939.2022.2080274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The rise of performative culture in education and intensifying forms of test-based accountability have subjected teachers to a ubiquitous ‘field of judgment’ through which they are held to account. Within this context, professional development is consistently deployed as a key solution to stagnant or declining student outcomes. In this paper, we examine how accountability might be reimagined through one approach to professional development known as Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR). We draw on Foucault’s notion of panopticism and Ball’s influential writings on performativity to analyse interviews with 21 educators from 14 schools in New South Wales, Australia, conducted during a 2014–2015 randomised controlled trial. Participants highlighted the pervasiveness of testing and test results in shaping their experience of teaching in a system of perpetual surveillance where numbers bite deep into practice. By contrast, participation in QTR afforded teachers rare spaces of freedom within the structure of performativity to collaboratively focus on pedagogy. We argue meaningful professional development can alter the field of judgment and enable teachers to reclaim accountability on their own terms, while maintaining a clear focus on student outcomes.","PeriodicalId":51404,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Education Policy","volume":"38 1","pages":"452 - 473"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Education Policy","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2022.2080274","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

ABSTRACT The rise of performative culture in education and intensifying forms of test-based accountability have subjected teachers to a ubiquitous ‘field of judgment’ through which they are held to account. Within this context, professional development is consistently deployed as a key solution to stagnant or declining student outcomes. In this paper, we examine how accountability might be reimagined through one approach to professional development known as Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR). We draw on Foucault’s notion of panopticism and Ball’s influential writings on performativity to analyse interviews with 21 educators from 14 schools in New South Wales, Australia, conducted during a 2014–2015 randomised controlled trial. Participants highlighted the pervasiveness of testing and test results in shaping their experience of teaching in a system of perpetual surveillance where numbers bite deep into practice. By contrast, participation in QTR afforded teachers rare spaces of freedom within the structure of performativity to collaboratively focus on pedagogy. We argue meaningful professional development can alter the field of judgment and enable teachers to reclaim accountability on their own terms, while maintaining a clear focus on student outcomes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从表演到专业问责:通过教师专业发展重新想象“判断领域”
教育中表现文化的兴起和基于考试的问责制的强化形式使教师受到无处不在的“判断领域”的影响,通过这种判断,他们被要求承担责任。在这种背景下,专业发展一直是解决学生成绩停滞或下降的关键方案。在本文中,我们研究了如何通过一种被称为质量教学轮次(QTR)的专业发展方法来重新设想问责制。在2014-2015年的随机对照试验中,我们利用福柯的全景观概念和鲍尔关于表演的有影响力的著作来分析对来自澳大利亚新南威尔士州14所学校的21名教育工作者的采访。与会者强调,在一个数字深入实践的永久监控系统中,测试和测试结果在塑造他们的教学经验方面无处不在。相比之下,QTR的参与为教师在表演结构内提供了难得的自由空间,以协同关注教学。我们认为,有意义的专业发展可以改变判断领域,使教师能够根据自己的条件重新承担责任,同时保持对学生成绩的明确关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Education Policy
Journal of Education Policy EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Journal of Education Policy publishes original, critically and theoretically informed research that discusses, analyses and debates policymaking, policy implementation and the impact of policy at all levels and in all facets of formal and informal education. The journal is interested in analysis and theorisation of policy that is transposable, that has generic interest and relevance - national policy case studies would need to be conceptually and/or methodologically generalisable. The journal also publishes work that presents new methods of research and research studies that are experimental and innovative. The journal offers a forum for theoretical debate, as well as historical, philosophical and comparative studies, across different countries, contexts and levels of education. A valuable resource for academics, researchers, educators and policy makers, Journal of Education Policy provides rigorous and original insights into educational policy development, implications and global impact.
期刊最新文献
The ‘performative’ university: theoretical and personal reflections ‘Embers, and fragments’: social haunting in youth work, impact measurement and policy networks Disentangling the binomial change/inertia to the Chilean educational policy in the post-dictatorship era (1990–2022). A normative policy instrument perspective Resisting regulation: revealing orders of worth behind the debate over private education regulation in Peru Comparing two transfer spaces over time and against a global script: the case of school-autonomy-with-accountability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1