Abstract
Teacher agency is enacted when teachers attempt to control or influence curriculum in an effort to achieve their desired outcomes. This article presents the results of a longitudinal qualitative case study which explored teacher agency using the Triadic Reciprocity Framework Core Agency Concepts (TRFCAC) model. The current study identified teacher agency manifested in three ways—proactively, reactively and passively, as influenced by the many contextual factors (determinants) which affected teachers. Teacher effectiveness in implementing curriculum change was shown to be heavily dependent on school leadership, teacher relationships with leaders and colleagues, and school operational practices and school culture, as well as personal motivation. Collegiality and perceptions of trust increased the likelihood of proactive agency, whereas job intensity and constant curriculum change led to increased occurrences of reactive agency. Passive agency resulted from poor relationships with school leaders, personal reluctance to change curriculum or lack of knowledge of school procedures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology,30(1), 109–137.
Bandura, A. (1991). Human agency: The rhetoric and the reality. American Psychologist,46(2), 157–162.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An Agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,2, 21–41.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of Human Agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science,9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review Psychology.,52, 1–26.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of Human Agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science,1(2), 164–180.
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching,21(6), 624–640.
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2006). How is agency possible? Towards an ecological Understanding of agency-as-achievement. Working paper 5. Exeter, UK: The Learning Lives Project.
Brooker, R. (2002). Teachers’ curriculum discourses in the implementation of a key learning area syllabus. School of Education. Brisbane, The University of Queensland. Retrieved from UQ espace (Phd: No. 327).
Campbell, E. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum contexts. Curriculum Inquiry,42(2), 183–190.
Cranston, N. (2006). Leading from the middle or locked in the middle? Exploring the world of the middle-level non-state school leader. Leading and Managing,12(1), 91–105.
Cranston, N., & Ehrich, L. (2005). Ethical dilemmas: The ‘Bread and Butter’ of educational leaders’ lives. Journal of Educational Administration,44(2), 106–121.
Dinham, S. (2007). How schools get moving and keep improving: Leadership for teacher learning, student success and school renewal. Australian Journal of Education,51(3), 263–275.
Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2002). Pressure Points: School executive and educational change. Journal of Educational Enquiry,3(2), 35–52.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. London: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Knight, J. (2009). What do we do about teacher resistance? Phi Delta Kappan,90(7), 508–513.
Larson, R. (1992). Changing Schools from the Inside Out. USA: Technomic Publishing Company.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teacher and Teacher Education,21(8), 899–916.
Leite, C., Fernandes, P., & Figueiredo, C. (2018). Challenges of curricular contextualisation: teachers’ perspectives. Australian Educational Researcher,45, 435–453.
Luke, A., Weir, K., & Woods, A. (2008). Development of a set of principles to guide a P-12 syllabus framework. Queensland. Queensland Studies Authority. http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/.qsa_p-12_principles_dev_ppr.pdf. Accessed 21 May 21 2012.
Marsh, C. (2004). Key Concepts for Understanding Curriculum. London: Routledge Falmer.
Measor, L., & Sikes, P. (1992). Gender and Schools. London: Cassell.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Nias, J. (1989). Primary Teachers Talking. London: Routledge Press.
Oliveira, A. (2012). Teacher agency in the performance of inquiry-oriented science curriculum reform. Cultural Studies of Science Education,7, 569–577.
Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., Linor, L., Smith, K., Helleve, I., & Ulvik, M. (2017). Teachers’ perceived professional space and their agency. Teaching and Teacher Education,62, 37–46.
Poole, W. (2008). Intersections of organizational justice and identity under the new policy direction: Important understandings for educational leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice,11(1), 23–42.
Priestley, M. (2011). Schools, teachers, and curriculum change: A balancing act? Journal of Educational Change,12, 1–23.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2016). Chapter 10: Teacher Agency What is it and why does it matter? In J. Evers & R. Kneyber (Eds.), Flip the System Changing Education from the Ground Up. NY: Routledge.
Pyhalto, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency and learning—from adaption to active modification in the teacher community. Teachers and teaching,21(7), 811–830.
QSA. (2007). Essential Learnings—Information Statement. Brisbane, Queensland, Queensland Studies Authority. www.qsa.qld.edu.au/…/learning/qcar_is_essential_learnings.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2009.
QSA. (2009). Queensland Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting (QCAR). https://www.slideserve.com/xuan/qcar-queensland-curriculum-assessment-and-reporting-framework. Accessed 23 June 23 2018.
Queensland Government. (2014). A new era for senior school education. Media Statement. https://www.goodschools.com.au/insights/education-updates/introducing-year-7-into-queenslands-secondary-schools. Accessed 25 June 25 2018.
Rogers, S., Barblett, L., & Robinson, K. (2016). Investigating the impact of NAPLAN on student, parent and teacher emotional distress in independent schools. Australian Educational Researcher,43(3), 327–343.
Rosenfeld, P. (2008). The Changing Nature and the Role of Heads of Department in Queensland Public Schools. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/17574/1/Peter_Rosenfeld_Thesis.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2018.
Simons, H. (2009). Case Study Research in Practice. London: Sage.
Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related task performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin.,124, 240–261.
Suter, W. (2010). Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking Approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Sutherland, I., & Yoshida, R. (2015). Communication competence and trust in leaders. Journal of School Leadership,25, 1039–1063.
Swain, K., Pendergast, D., & Cumming, J. (2018). Student experiences of NAPLAN: sharing insights from two school sites. Australian Educational Researcher,45(3), 315–345.
Vahasantanen, K. (2015). Professional agency in the stream of change: Understanding educational change and teachers’ professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education,47, 1–12.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jenkins, G. Teacher agency: the effects of active and passive responses to curriculum change. Aust. Educ. Res. 47, 167–181 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00334-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00334-2