The Conceptual and Methodological Construction of a ‘Global’ Teacher Identity through TALIS
Abstract
The present article investigates the construction of a ‘global’ teacher identity by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment (OECD) since the introduction of the Teaching and Learning In-ternational Survey (TALIS) in 2008. We critically examine TALIS-related conceptual frameworks, survey questionnaires and statistically driven scales of teachers’ professional attitudes internationally. A theoretical, education-based framing of didaktik and curriculum pedagogical tradi-tions is used to discuss conceptual bias in TALIS conceptual frameworks as well as the sociologically based idea of TALIS as a pedagogic device used as a technology to gain symbolic power for making the teachers of tomorrow. Methodologically relying on document analysis, we examine TALIS 2008, 2013 and 2018 background documents to highlight the ide-ologically driven construction of a certain model of effective teachers, and refer to associated TALIS technical reports to examine validity is-sues in scales that are methodologically and statistically driven in order to increase the robustness of the results. The article identifies biases in the OECD’s construction of a ‘global’ teacher identity that are reflected in TALIS conceptual frameworks and survey questions and statistically justified through associated scales.
Downloads
References
Ainley, J., & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 conceptual framework. OECD Education Working Papers No. 187, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/799337c2-en
Berkovich, I., & Benoliel, P. (2020a). Marketing teacher quality: Critical discourse analysis of OECD documents on effective teaching and TALIS. Critical Studies in Education, 61(4), 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2018.1521338
Berkovich, I., & Benoliel, P. (2020a). The educational aims of the OECD in its TALIS insight and lesson reports: Exploring societal orientations. Critical Studies in Education, 61(2), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1370428
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Rowman and Littlefield.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Paradigm Publishers.
Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., & Döhrmann, M. (2013). Assessing strengths and weaknesses of teacher knowledge in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Western countries: Differential item functioning in Teds-M. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 795–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9413-0
Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2011). Profiling teachers’ sense of professional identity. Educational Studies, 37(5), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.539857
Deng, Z., & Luke, A. (2008). Subject matter: Defining and theorizing school subjects. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 66–87). Sage.
Granjo, M., Castro Silva, J., & Peixoto, F. (2020). Teacher identity: Can ethical orientation be related to perceived competence, psychological needs satisfaction, commitment and global self-esteem? European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1748004
Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802412669
Gupta, A. (2019). Teacher-entrepreneurialism: A case of teacher identity formation in neoliberalizing education space in contemporary India. Critical Studies in Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2019.1708765
Halai, A., & Durrani, N. (2018). Teachers as agents of peace? Exploring teacher agency in social cohesion in Pakistan. Compare, 48(4), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1322491
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109–124.
Klafki, W. (2000). Didaktik analysis as the core preparation of instruction. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 139–159). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (n.d.). Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/talis/countries.asp
OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 technical report. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS_2018_Technical_Report.pdf
OECD. (2014a). TALIS 2013 technical report. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS-technical-report-2013.pdf
OECD. (2014b). A teachers’ guide to TALIS 2013. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALISTeachers-Guide.pdf
OECD. (2013). The TALIS 2013 conceptual framework. OECD.
OECD. (2010). TALIS 2008 technical report. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS-2008-Technical-Report.pdf
OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. OECD.
OECD. (2004). OECD Handbook for internationally comparative education statistics: Concepts, standards, definitions, and classifications. OECD.
OECD. (n.d.) TALIS 2013 teacher questionnaire. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/TALIS-2013-Teacher-questionnaire.pdf
Robertson, S. L., & Sorensen, T. (2018). Global transformations of the state, governance and teachers’ labour: Putting Bernstein’s conceptual grammar to work. European Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 470–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117724573
Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Sage.
Siljander, P., & Sutinen, A. (2012). Introduction. In P. Siljander, A. Kivelä, & A. Sutinen (Eds.), Theories of Bildung and growth: Connections and controversies between continental educational thinking and American pragmatism (pp. 1–18). Sense Publishers.
Singh, P. (2002). Pedagogising knowledge: Bernstein’s theory of the pedagogic device. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(4), 571–582.
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296.
Tahirsylaj, A. (2019). Revisiting ‘curriculum crisis’ dialogue: In search of an antidote. Nordic Journal of Studies in Education Policy, 5(3), 180–190.
Tahirsylaj, A., & Wahlström, N. (2019). Role of transnational and national education policies in realisation of critical thinking: the cases of Sweden and Kosovo. The Curriculum Journal, 30(4), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2019.1615523
Tahirsylaj, A. (2017). Curriculum field in the making: Influences that led to social efficiency as dominant curriculum ideology in progressive era in the U.S. European Journal of Curriculum Studies, 4(1), 618–628.
Tahirsylaj, A., Niebert, K., & Duschl, R. (2015). Curriculum and didaktik in 21st century: Still divergent or converging? European Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2(2), 262–281.
Tichnor-Wagner, A., Parkhouse, H., Glazier, J., & Cain, J. M. (2019). Becoming a globally competent teacher. ASCD.
Wermke, W., & Salokangas, M. (2021). The autonomy paradox. Teachers’ self-governance across Europe. Springer.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitted article, which will be published online in the Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal (for short: CEPS Journal) by University of Ljubljana Press (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). The Author’s/Authors’ name(s) will be evident in the article in the journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in the hands of the publisher.
- The Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit themselves to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
