12
Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–1006 Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy Geert Kelchtermans Center for Educational Policy and Innovation, University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium Abstract Based on narrative-biographical work with teachers, the author argues that teachers’ emotions have to be understood in relation to the vulnerability that constitutes a structural condition of the teaching job. Closely linked to this condition is the central role played by teachers’ ‘‘self-understanding’’—their dynamic sense of identity—in teachers’ actions and their dealing with, for example, the challenges posed by reform agendas. The (emotional) impact of those agendas is mediated by the professional context, that encompasses dimensions of time (age, generation, biography) and of space (the structural and cultural working conditions). Finally, it is argued that the professional and meaningful interactions of teachers with their professional context contains a fundamental political dimension. Emotions reflect the fact that deeply held beliefs on good education are part of teachers’ self-understanding. Reform agendas that impose different normative beliefs may not only trigger intense feelings, but also elicit micropolitical actions of resistance or proactive attempts to influence and change one’s working conditions. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Educational changes; Emotions in teaching; Teacher identity; Micropolitics in schools It’s more than a feeling y Boston 1. Introduction In her editorial introduction to a special issue on emotions in teaching of the Cambridge Journal of Education (1996), Nias argued that affectivity is of fundamental importance in teaching and to tea- chers. She gave three reasons for making that claim. Firstly, teachers do experience intense emotions in their teaching: ‘‘teachers feel—often passionately— about their pupils, about their professional skill, about their colleagues and the structures of school- ing, about their dealings with other significant adults such as parents and inspectors, about the actual or likely effect of educational policies upon their pupils and themselves’’ (Nias, 1996, p. 293). ARTICLE IN PRESS www.elsevier.com/locate/tate 0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.009 Tel.: +32 16 32 62 57; fax: +32 16 32 62 74. E-mail address: [email protected].

Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Tel.: +32 16

E-mail addre

Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–1006

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms:Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment

and micropolitical literacy

Geert Kelchtermans�

Center for Educational Policy and Innovation, University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

Abstract

Based on narrative-biographical work with teachers, the author argues that teachers’ emotions have to be understood

in relation to the vulnerability that constitutes a structural condition of the teaching job. Closely linked to this condition

is the central role played by teachers’ ‘‘self-understanding’’—their dynamic sense of identity—in teachers’ actions and

their dealing with, for example, the challenges posed by reform agendas. The (emotional) impact of those agendas is

mediated by the professional context, that encompasses dimensions of time (age, generation, biography) and of space

(the structural and cultural working conditions). Finally, it is argued that the professional and meaningful interactions

of teachers with their professional context contains a fundamental political dimension. Emotions reflect the fact that

deeply held beliefs on good education are part of teachers’ self-understanding. Reform agendas that impose different

normative beliefs may not only trigger intense feelings, but also elicit micropolitical actions of resistance or proactive

attempts to influence and change one’s working conditions.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Educational changes; Emotions in teaching; Teacher identity; Micropolitics in schools

It’s more than a feeling y

Boston

1. Introduction

In her editorial introduction to a special issue onemotions in teaching of the Cambridge Journal of

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserv

te.2005.06.009

32 62 57; fax: +32 16 32 62 74.

ss: [email protected].

Education (1996), Nias argued that affectivity is offundamental importance in teaching and to tea-chers. She gave three reasons for making that claim.Firstly, teachers do experience intense emotions intheir teaching: ‘‘teachers feel—often passionately—about their pupils, about their professional skill,about their colleagues and the structures of school-ing, about their dealings with other significantadults such as parents and inspectors, about theactual or likely effect of educational policies upontheir pupils and themselves’’ (Nias, 1996, p. 293).

ed.

Page 2: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–1006996

Feelings are just self-evidently part of the experi-ence of being a teacher. Secondly, ‘‘teachers’emotions are rooted in cognitions (y) one cannotseparate feeling from perception, affectivity fromjudgement’’ (Nias, 1996, p. 294). Teachers’ thought-ful actions reflect emotional involvement and moraljudgement. Finally, ‘‘neither cognition nor feelingcan be separated from the social and cultural forceswhich help to form them and which are in turnshaped by them. The emotional reactions ofindividual teachers to their work are intimatelyconnected to the view that they have of themselvesand others. (y) So, the unique sense of self whichevery teacher has is socially grounded’’ (Nias, 1996,p. 294). Emotion and cognition, self and context,ethical judgement and purposeful action: they areall intertwined in the complex reality of teaching. Intimes of educational reforms, aimed at changingteaching practices for the better, these complexitiesare brought to the light even more prominently.That becomes clear from all the contributions inthis special issue, appearing about a decade afterNias’ initiative.

Although the authors use very different con-ceptual and methodological approaches in theirendeavour, they all avoid the pitfall of looking atemotions as merely intrapersonal, psychologicalphenomena. Emotions are understood as experi-ences that result from teachers’ embeddedness inand interactions with their professional environ-ment. They are treated as meaningful experiences,revealing teachers’ sense making and showingwhat is at stake for them (as for example VanVeen, Sleegers & van de Ven rightly emphasize).This already indicates that emotions are notunimportant side-effects or marginal phenomena,but on the contrary, show that something is ‘‘atstake’’ that goes beyond the simple question ofchanging one set of practices for another. Assuch all the articles further document and ex-plicate the fundamental importance of feelings toteaching, thus contributing to more appropriatetheory building on teaching and educationalreform.

Van Veen et al. use Lazarus’ cognitive social-psychological framework to show how teachers’identity is affected in a context of reforms. Theirin-depth analysis of a single teacher’s coping with

the reform demands disentangles the interplay ofindividual values and norms on the one hand andthe reform context in the school (and beyond it) onthe other. The case shows that, although theteacher subscribes to the agenda of the reform(that reflects his personal beliefs and norms aboutgood teaching), the working conditions underwhich the reform has to be implemented elicitmore negative emotions and reluctance than onewould expect on the basis of the teachers’(cognitive) assent. As such the study nicelycomplements and extends the work Little hasdone on ‘‘disappointed reform enthusiasts’’ (Little,1996).

That teachers’ reactions (agency) to reform aremediated by the social and cultural context as wellas by the teachers’ identity and the way it isaffected by the demands for change, is also arguedfor by Lasky. More specifically she explores from asociocultural perspective, the experiences of fourteachers with ‘‘professional vulnerability’’. Draw-ing on a symbolic interactionist approach, Schmidtand Datnow also argue that emotions reflect themeaning reforms have for the teachers’ involved.Demands for change are interpreted by teachersthrough social processes of meaning construction.This sense-making determines teachers’ eventualreactions to the reform. The authors show that thesense-making is influenced by the complexity ofthe reform as well as the degree of impact it has onteachers’ classroom practices. Meaning-making,they conclude, is ‘‘emotionally laden as teacherssort through feelings of anxiety of the unknown,frustration of the ambiguous, joy and recognitionof shared ideologies (i.e. reform and self), and guiltin constructing modifications despite possibleprofessional repercussions’’.

In his study Andy Hargreaves contends thatteachers’ (emotional) reactions to educationalchange can also be understood by looking at age(generation) and career stage. More specifically, heshows that the perceptions teachers from differentgenerations have about the attitudes towardschange among their older or younger colleaguesmay complicate the ‘‘emotional understanding’’that is necessary between the members of schoolteams (differing in age and generation identity) toimplement educational changes.

Page 3: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–1006 997

From a Foucauldian perspective, Zembylasconceives of emotions as discursive practices, asperformances within the prevailing power relationsand rules, through which particular identities canappear and others cannot. ‘‘The place of emotionin teacher identity formation plays a central role inthe circuits of power that constitute some teacher-selves while denying others. The critical under-standing of these processes of discipline anddomination in teaching is crucial, if we are topromote the possibility of creating new forms ofteacher-selves’’. His post-structuralist approachquestions the concept of emotions as authenticreflections of individually felt experiences and ofidentity as a construction resulting from inter-personal processes of interpretation and sensemaking. It constitutes a strong and challengingperspective for researchers to become aware ofmore structural rules and processes that determinewhat can be thought and said about good teachingand being a (proper) teacher.

The special issue as such already presents aninteresting and international (American, Cana-dian, Dutch) sample card of conceptual andmethodological approaches to emotions and edu-cational reform. I will try to engage in a dialoguewith the authors, focussing on a number of whatseem to me crucial issues in understandingemotions and educational reform: vulnerability,‘identity’, context and (micro)politics. My argu-ment is informed and framed by my narrative-biographical work on teacher development, as wellas the micropolitical analysis of changes in schoolsand teaching in Flanders (Belgium). I will becritical and challenging at some points, supportiveand confirmative at others, but always with theintention of contributing to the methodologicalrigor and the conceptual clarity in our research-based understanding of teachers’ emotions in thecontext of educational reform.

2. Vulnerability as a structural condition in

education

I stumbled into the issue of ‘‘teacher vulner-ability’’ when I was analysing the professionalbiographies or career stories of experienced

primary school teachers in Flanders (Belgium) inthe early 1990s. Through repeated life historyinterviews, I collected extensive narrative accountson teachers’ career experiences (Kelchtermans,1993, 1994). The narratives revealed several criticalincidents (Measor, 1985) that showed how tea-chers often felt powerless, threatened, questionedby others (principal, parents) without being able toproperly defend themselves, etc. Yet, linked to itwere also accounts of not being in full control ofthe processes and tasks they felt responsible for asteachers. I referred to this dimension in teachers’job experience as ‘‘vulnerability’’, borrowing aconcept from Blase. Blase (1988, p. 127) hadexamined the ‘‘phenomenology of political vulner-ability’’ as experienced by teachers. He observedthat as this experienced vulnerability grew teachersdeveloped several protective coping strategies thatresulted in conservative micropolitical actionsaimed at preserving the status quo.

A secondary analysis of the career storiesbrought me to the conclusion that the ‘‘basicstructure in vulnerability is always one of feelingthat one’s professional identity and moral integ-rity, as part of being ‘a proper teacher’, arequestioned and that valued workplace conditionsare thereby threatened or lost. Coping with thisvulnerability therefore implies political actions,aimed at (re)gaining the social recognition of one’sprofessional self and restoring the necessary work-place conditions for good job performance’’(Kelchtermans, 1996, p. 319). The experience ofvulnerability resulted from the fact that teachersfelt not in control of what they considered to bevalued working conditions (infrastructure, con-tract, professional relationships). Policy measuresand imposed educational reforms that were notcongruent with the teachers’ deeply held beliefsabout good teaching, but from which teachers feltthey could not escape, clearly contributed to theexperience of vulnerability and emotional distur-bance (Nias, 1999, p. 226). So the experience ofvulnerability is mediated by the context (policyenvironment, social and cultural climate in school,etc.) and is directly linked to teachers’ identity.‘‘Mediated agency’’ is a relevant concept to makesense of this experience of vulnerability—here Iagree with Lasky—, yet I don’t think vulnerability

Page 4: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–1006998

is best conceived of as an emotion, as she argues.The actual epistemological status of her concept‘‘vulnerability’’ remains rather unclear. In herformal definition she talks about a ‘‘multidimen-sional, multifaceted emotional experience thatindividuals can feel in an array of contexts. It isa fluid state of being that can be influenced by theway people perceive their present situation as itinteracts with their identity, beliefs, values, andsense of competence. It is a fluctuating state ofbeing, with critical incidents acting as triggers tointensify or in other ways change a person’sexisting state of vulnerability’’. The experiencecan be positive, so people willingly open them-selves to the threat of being hurt. But vulnerabilitycan also develop from negative feelings, resultingin withdrawal and protective stances. Unfortu-nately, Lasky’s definition is stated as a claimwithout much argument, nor any positioning inrelation to other theoretical attempts to concep-tualize emotions or emotional experiences.1 Bul-lough (2005) argues (following Solomon) thatemotions imply judgements and that thereforevulnerability should be qualified as a mood, apassion which need not begin with a particularincident or object, and need not be about anythingin particular. The ‘‘mood’’ refers to the experi-ential character, but it can trigger differentreactions (as Lasky also contends): ‘‘Some tea-chers seek to make themselves invulnerable,immune to the possibility of failing, while othersseem to enjoy risking self. Additionally, differencesin the work context either heighten teachers’ senseof vulnerability or diminish it, and enable or limit

1The concept of vulnerability is discussed a.o. by Blase

(1988), Bullough (2005), Kelchtermans (1996), Nias (1999). The

unclarity on the conceptual (and epistemological) status is

further enhanced since Lasky has used the term ‘‘vulnerability’’

literally in her interview for data collection (‘‘when you think of

the term professional vulnerability, what comes to mind?’’). By

doing so, the common sense understandings of the word in her

data, have to be interpretatively linked to her formal definition,

thus blurring the status of vulnerability as either a ‘first’ or

‘second’-order concept and resulting in conceptual vagueness.

As such she proves Hargreaves right in his claim that direct

interrogation through named emotions is an unproductive

approach because of ‘‘cultural and professional taboos sur-

rounding some emotions, and because of the variations in the

language that people use’’.

their ability to realize their aims and to preservetheir senses of self’’ (Bullough, 2005, p. 23). It isclear that the degree to which teachers succeed intheir actions will determine the kind of specificemotions that are felt.

In order to further clarify the phenomenon ofvulnerability in teaching, I think one should go astep further and beyond the experiential aspect. Iwould argue that vulnerability is not an emotion,but the a structural condition teachers (or educa-tors in general) find themselves in. Teachingimplies an ethical relationship of responsibility inwhich one engages oneself as a person. Thiscommitment can not be properly conceptualizedas just an instrumental, intentional or technicalrelationship (see also Ball, 2003; Jeffrey, 2002).There is more to teaching and being a teacher thantechnically linking the means (teaching actions andmethods) that promise to be most effective to theends. Although, this instrumental concern in theteachers’ job is a legitimate dimension, there isalways more at stake. Since the relationship withstudents is an ethical one (Fenstermacher, 1990, p.132), the teacher never has full control over thesituation, nor over the outcomes of his/her actions.In spite of thoughtful planning and purposefulskilled action (however important they are!), the‘‘pedagogical’’ relationship can never be fullycontrolled, nor can one be sure that one’s actionswill convey the meaning they were intended tohave for the students. As such the educationalrelationship implies a dimension that radicallyescapes control and intervention. And as such itcontradicts the fundamental activist bias in theoryand intentional actions of teaching, with its takenfor granted association of doing something, bring-ing something abouty . This ‘‘entrepreneurial’’(Masschelein & Simons, 2002), interventionist rootmetaphor is so strong that it makes it almostimpossible to see and acknowledge the aspects of‘‘passivity’’, of ‘‘being exposed’’ to the other, of‘‘finding oneself in a situation’’ in which things‘‘can happen, can take place’’ (instead of ‘‘beingdone’’). These aspects are intrinsically also presentin the educational relationship. As such theentrepreneurial metaphor operates as a powerfuldiscursive pattern that limits the horizon of howone can think or speak about education, and thus

Page 5: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2Van den Berg (2002) would even speak about ‘‘existential

condition’’.

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–1006 999

it constitutes ‘‘some teacher-selves while denyingothers’’ (as Zembylas argued). In other words, inorder to understand vulnerability in teaching, itshould not be conceived primarily as an experi-ential category, but as a structural condition thatconstitutes the specific character of the educationalrelationship and therefore also constitutes the self-understanding of teachers (see below). The condi-tion of vulnerability can bring about both positiveand negative emotions, but it is not an emotion initself, nor an attitude, an agenda or a strategy.Taking this conceptual stance helps us to positionthe concept towards felt emotions, as well astoward actions and action agendas or copingstrategies. Since a teacher or educator, because ofthe fundamental ethical character of the relation-ship, can never fully prove the effectiveness of his/her actions; since there is no uncontested moralstronghold to justify one’s specific actions, etc.,being a teacher implies that one’s actions anddecisions can always be questioned. In an inter-national policy environment, where output mea-surement and accountability dominate thediscourse and the imposed reforms, it can hardlycome as a surprise that teachers often experienceuncertainty, guilt, shame (for failing the students).Van Manen argues that teachers tend to focus onthe ‘‘pedagogical’’, the complexity of relational,personal, moral, emotional, aspects of their every-day acting with children or young people theyteach, and he concludes that ‘‘pedagogy is thecondition for the instructional dimension ofteaching (y) pedagogy makes the practice ofteaching possible in the first place’’ (Van Manen,2002, p. 137). ‘‘Making a difference as a person inpupils’ lives’’ is the phrasing teachers often use toexplain what keeps them going in the job (see e.g.Nias, 1999, p. 226–227; Kelchtermans & Hamil-ton, 2004, p. 791). Elliott, Bridges, Ebbutt,Gibson, and Nias (1981) talk about ‘‘answerabil-ity’’ to emphasize the interpersonal nature ofteachers’ commitment. Hargreaves and Fullan(1998, p. 49) argued ‘‘it is time we had a new kindof accountability in education—one that gets backto the moral basics of caring, serving, empoweringand learning’’. As such it is no surprise thatSchmidt and Datnow, for example, observed moreand more intense emotions in teachers toward

reform policies that immediately affect the level oftheir classroom, because in doing so the reformstouch upon their relationship with their studentsand thus on the very heart of teaching.

Conceiving vulnerability this way as a structuralcondition of being a teacher,2 helps us to under-stand the wide range of different emotions that gowith it, in particular when dealing with calls forchange. The lack of control, the fact that account-ability procedures either neglect or instrumentalize(and thus reduce) the interpersonal dimension inteaching, the absence of an ultimate ground forjustifying one’s actions as a teacher—I wouldargue—, is a reality teachers have to endure: thereis no escape from it. ‘‘To teach is to be vulnerable(y) to be vulnerable is to be capable of being hurt’’(Bullough, 2005, p. 23). This explains why there areso many teachers—apart from the widespreadcriticisms that are mostly heard—who tend to berather positive in their evaluation of standards andstandardized testing. Standards and tests promisecertainty or a final proof of one’s ‘‘quality’’ as ateacher—even if it is a delusive certainty, thatdemands a very reductionist understanding (andexperiencing) of the educational relationship.

On the other hand, the condition of vulner-ability is at the same time that which constitutesthe very possibility for the ‘‘pedagogical’’ tohappen in the interpersonal relationship betweenteachers and pupils. The relationship of an ethicaland thus vulnerable commitment opens up thechance that education (literally) ‘‘takes place’’.Such encounter makes the teacher feel that he orshe is really ‘‘making a difference as a person’’ inthe student’s life. Joy, pride, existential personalfulfilment are the emotions that go with it. Sovulnerability is not only a condition to be endured,but also to be acknowledged, cherished, andembraced.

3. Identity versus self-understanding

This rather extensive discussion on ‘‘vulnerabil-ity’’ was necessary to lay the ground for a

Page 6: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

3Here an interesting and self-critical comment has to be made

on far-reaching side-effects of the hegemony of English as

‘lingua franca’ for international communication between

researchers. To refer to teachers’ self-understanding in Dutch

(my mothertongue) I chose the word ‘‘professioneel zelfver-

staan’’. This is both a noun and a verb, thus referring to both the

process of understanding oneself in a particular way (making

sense of one’s historically and biographically embedded

experiences) and to the (always tentative and preliminary)

result of that understanding at a particular point in one’s

lifetime. In my English writings this—fundamental-meaning

was lost as I started using ‘‘professional self’’ or even

‘‘professional identity’’, believing that those were the only

proper translations (Kelchtermans, 1999), thus contributing

myself to an essentialist (mis)interpretation of my work.

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–10061000

discussion of teachers’ sense of ‘‘identity’’ and howthis is linked to an adequate understanding of theiremotions when dealing with educational reforms.The central role of teachers’ sense of identity inunderstanding their actions has been acknowl-edged for a long time and by many authors: ‘‘theteacher as a person is held by many within theprofession and outside it to be at the centre of notonly the classroom but also the educationalprocess. By implication, therefore, it matters toteachers themselves, as well as to their pupils, whoand what they are. Their self-image is moreimportant to them as practitioners than is the casein occupations where the person can easily beseparated from the craft’’ (Nias, 1989, p. 202–203).Studying teachers’ professional lives, Ball andGoodson have argued that ‘‘the ways in whichteachers achieve, maintain, and develop theiridentity, their sense of self, in and through acareer, are of vital significance in understandingthe actions and commitments of teachers in theirwork’’ (Ball & Goodson, 1985, p. 18). Parallel tothese claims, however, post-modernism has radi-cally criticized an essentialist and monolithicunderstanding of self and identity (see alsoZembylas). Elsewhere (Kelchtermans, 1993, 1996,1999) I have argued for a conceptualization ofteachers’ sense of identity that tries to avoid theseflaws. Making careful analyses of teachers’ narra-tive accounts of their career experiences, I recon-structed their personal interpretative framework,the set of beliefs and representations that teachersdevelop over time and that operates as the lensthrough which they perceive their job situation,make sense of it and act in it. In this personalframework two main domains were distinguished.On the one hand there is the subjective educational

theory, the personal (‘subjective’) system (‘theory’)of knowledge and beliefs about education thatteachers use when performing their job (in otherwords: their professional ‘‘know how’’). On theother hand, but closely interwoven with thesubjective educational theory, is the teachers’ senseof self or sense of identity. I purposefully haveavoided the notion of ‘‘identity’’ because of itsassociation with a static essence, implicitly ignor-ing or denying its dynamic and biographicalnature (development over time). Instead I have

used the word ‘‘self-understanding’’, referring toboth the understanding one has of one’s ‘self’ at acertain moment in time (product), as well as to thefact that this product results from an ongoingprocess of making sense of one’s experiences andtheir impact on the ‘self ’.3 By stressing thenarrative nature the essentialist pitfall can beavoided. One’s self-understanding only appearsin the act of ‘telling’ (or in the act of explicit self-reflection and as such ‘telling oneself’). This waythe intersubjective nature of the self-understandingwas included in the concept itself, since the tellingthat reveals the self-understanding always presup-poses an audience of ‘listeners’. Nias has shownthat teachers, when talking about their profes-sional actions and activities, cannot but speakabout themselves. This reveals the paradox thatwhat teachers have in common is their individual-ity: ‘‘it was their persistent self-refentialism whichmade it possible to construct a generalized pictureof their experience. Aspects of the ‘self’ repeatedlyemerged as central to the experience of theseteachers, even though each ‘self’ was different’’(Nias, 1989, p. 5). The analysis of this ‘‘self-referentialism’’ in teachers’ accounts of careerexperiences, brought me to a more differentiatedconcept of self-understanding, distinguishingfive components in it (Kelchtermans, 1993). Theself-image is the descriptive component, theway teachers typify themselves as teachers. Thejob motivation (conative component) refers tothe motives or drives that make people chooseto become a teacher, to remain in or to leavethe profession. The self-understanding also

Page 7: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–1006 1001

encompasses the future perspective that reveals aperson’s expectations about the future (‘‘how do Isee myself as a teacher in the years to come andhow do I feel about it?’’). The evaluative compo-nent or the self-esteem is important for thediscussion here. This component refers to theteacher’s appreciation of his/her actual job perfor-mances (‘‘how well am I doing in my job as ateacher?’’). Finally, there is the normative compo-nent of the task perception. This encompasses theteacher’s idea of what constitutes his/her profes-sional programme, his/her tasks and duties inorder to do a good job (‘‘what must I do to be aproper teacher?’’). The task perception constitutesthe normative basis for teachers’ judgements anddecisions, all of which have moral consequencessince they affect the lives and needs of youngstersfor whom the teacher is and feels responsible(Hargreaves, 1995, p. 14). It reflects—in Green-field’s words—the moral orientation, being ‘‘a pointof view or reference point for action, influence, ordecision that is rooted in an understanding of and acommitment to what is in the best interests ofchildren from an educational and developmentalperspective’’ (Greenfield, 1991, p. 161). In thereality of classroom and school, however, teachershave no choice but to act: to decide on what to doand then do it (Loewenberg-Ball & Wilson, 1996, p.187), without having a solid basis to ground theirdecisions. There is no consensus on what is ‘‘in thebest interest of the students’’.

‘‘Attending to the moral dimensions of teachingusually involves distinguishing between better andworse courses of action, rather than right andwrong ones. There are no clear rules of thumb, nouseful universal principles for deciding what to do.(y) They ( ¼ the teachers-GK) must live theirmoral lives in the swamp, (y) especially whenmoral certainties grounded in tradition or scienceare collapsing and people must rely on their ownreflective resources as a basis for moral judgment’’(Hargreaves, 1995, p. 15). This lack of a firmground to justify one’s practice and the moraldecisions in it, are part of the vulnerability as thefundamental condition of the teaching job. Tea-chers’ decisions (and their moral consequences)can always be contested or disputed (see theexample of Catherine’s being attacked by a parent

in Zembylas’ article), and by doing that theteacher’s moral and professional integrity isquestioned (Kelchtermans, 1996; Kelchtermans &Hamilton, 2004). It goes without saying thatintense emotions will accompany this experience.Therefore teachers’ self-esteem reflects the balancebetween self-image (‘‘what I am doing?’’) and thetask perception (‘‘what ought I be doing?’’). Fromthis integrated concept of self-understanding itcomes as no surprise that—as Schmidt andDatnow observed—emotions were more diverseand intense as educational reforms demandeddifferent actions at the classroom level. If thedemanded changes require giving up ways of doingthat reflect deeply held beliefs and norms on goodteaching (task perception), the reforms implicitlyor explicitly question the teachers’ self-esteem andwill trigger intense emotions of doubt, anxiety,guilt, shamey Or as Catherine in Zembylas’articles says ‘‘I realized at some point I was forcedto use words and ideas that I didn’t really believeiny such as ‘teach to the test’, ‘you have to beneutral and objective’, etc. This marked a tremen-dous emotional struggle in my teaching. Either Iwas doing something wrong or they completelymisunderstood me’’. The opposite can be true aswell, as Van Veen et al. show with the case ofDavid to whom the reform goals provide anacknowledgement, legitimation and justification ofhis task perception. To paraphrase Zembylas:David’s emotions reflect the endorsement of hisself-understanding that is produced by the dis-cursive practices in the reform.

The struggles of the teachers in Lasky’s article toeither maintain the ‘‘synergy between an emphasison academics and a culture of caring (being) neededto promote optimal student learning’’ also illustratethe fundamental embeddedness of the task percep-tion in one’s self-understanding. Fundamentaleducational values and norms are not just ‘‘ex-ternal’’ issues of ‘‘knowledge’’, but as elements inthe teacher’s task perception they are a componentof the self-understanding and thus not emotionallyin-different. My point is that professional valuesand norms ought to be understood as—and thusconceptualized as—intrinsic parts of the ‘self ’, ifone wants to develop a proper understanding ofteacher emotions in times of reform.

Page 8: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–10061002

4. Contextualized understanding

All the articles stress and acknowledge the roleof the context in understanding teacher emotions.Emotional (re)actions are mediated by self-under-standing, but also by the contextual conditions.Though I am joining the authors in this, I wouldstill like to stress on the one hand the importanceof the temporal dimension in context, and on theother the relevance of the research on (organiza-tional) working conditions in understanding tea-cher emotions.

4.1. Time, age and generation as context

Teachers’ emotions need to be understood fromtheir embeddedness in particular contexts (schools,policy environment). However, context not onlyhas a ‘‘spatial dimension’’, but also a temporalone. Teaching is not only embedded in space, butalso in time. There is always both a ‘‘where’’ and a‘‘when’’. Teachers’ coping with reform agendas(and the emotions that go with it) always takesplace at a certain moment in time and thus at acertain point in their lives and careers. Hargreaves’article explicitly brings this important and oftenneglected temporal dimension to the front, lookingat the role of ‘‘age’’, ‘‘generation’’ and ‘‘careerstage’’ in teachers’ understanding of educationalchange. These aspects of time-context, he argues,can explain the difficulties to achieve the ‘‘emo-tional understanding’’ (Denzin) that is necessaryfor school teams (as mixed-age groups of profes-sionals) to implement innovations. The findingspresented in his article largely confirm earlier workon teachers’ lives and careers (Huberman, 1993;Sikes, Measor, & Woods, 1985) and furtherexemplify that properly contextualized thinkingabout teaching, schooling and reform needs toinclude the temporal dimension: ‘‘change andpeople’s experience of it has organizational andsociological dimensions as well as developmentaland psychological ones (y). In educational andorganizational change, it is not just personalityand personal development that matter. Age, careerstage and generational identity and attachmentmatter too’’, the author rightly concludes. Yet,both the design of the study and the presentation

of the findings may elicit an overly deterministicunderstanding of age and generation as explana-tory concepts in teachers’ dealing with change.Hargreaves presents data collected from 42 tea-chers in 15 schools, which he organizes in three‘‘generations’’ according to their career stages:young teachers (5 years or less), mid-careerteachers (6–19 years) and late career teachers(more then 20 years). The extensive research onbeginning teachers’ careers shows wide agreementthat the object of study concerns the first 5 years inteaching. It is, however, much less evident that onecan just as meaningfully divide and understand therest of the career in two other phases, eachcovering a time span of about 15 years. Even theattempts to develop age-related models of theteaching career—as for example Sikes et al. (1985)do—come up with a more differentiated typology(more and shorter phases). Furthermore, theimportance of, for example, Huberman’s study(1993; see also Huberman, Thompson, & Weiland,1997) on teachers’ careers partly stems from thefact that he disconnected career stages from strictage limits, but looked for a distinctive criterion interms of the dominant themes or agenda’s thatwere on teachers’ minds in each career phase.Hargreaves’ data draw on teachers’ recollectionsof changes in their dealing with reforms and ontheir perceptions of the ways older and youngercolleagues react to it (attribution). Althoughdifficult to judge on the basis of the article, theactual interview procedure may have induced therespondents to attribute more to age than theywould have done without being explicitly asked to.Van den Berg (2002) for example shows in a reviewthat teachers use a wide spectrum of sources toattribute meaning to their (and others’) experi-ences. By asking teachers to compare their ownreactions and how they differ from older oryounger colleagues, the respondents in Har-greaves’ study are already positioned as ‘‘differ-ent’’ from those other groups. As a consequencethe interview stimulates them to compare theirown situation (self-perception) with the others,who are defined in terms of age and generation(older/younger). This way age may be attributedmore explanatory power than for example theparticular working conditions in the school or the

Page 9: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

4In their review Richardson and Placier concluded that the

individual and organizational approaches on educational

change are still largely ‘‘living apart together’’: ‘‘one of the

most interesting findings from our work on this chapter is the

degree to which both the individual and organizational change

literatures stand on their own-almost entirely uninformed by

the other’’ (Richardson & Placier, 2001, pp. 937–938).

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–1006 1003

school history with educational changes. For thatreason I would have welcomed an interpretativecomparative analysis of the data from respondentsworking in the same school. Such a contextualizedcase-study approach could have revealed both theorganizational and psychological dimensions inteachers’ experiences with change, as well as theirinteraction. It might have shown to what extentthe cultural and structural working conditions inthe school interfere and actually determine tea-chers’ (emotional) dealing with reform demands. Itwould in any case have provided a more convin-cing basis for the claims on age and generation asdetermining factors for emotion than the articledoes now (implicitly overstating the generalizabil-ity of this exploratory study of a limited sample).

4.2. Mediating working conditions

Age and generation—both in themselves as wellas in terms of the meaning teachers attribute tothem—are important in disentangling the complexdifferences in teachers dealing with change. Yet,one needs to be cautious not to de-contextualizethe analysis again (this time overemphasizing timeand downplaying space as context dimensions).Goodson rightly argued that different segmentshave to be distinguished in educational changeprocesses: the internal, the external and thepersonal. At the same time they have to beunderstood in their interplay (combining forexample historical and ethnographical work).‘‘Internal change agents work within schoolsettings to initiate and promote change within anexternal framework of support and sponsorship;external change is mandated in top-down manner,(y); personal change refers to the personal beliefsand missions that individuals bring to the changeprocess’’ (Goodson, 2001, p. 45). Teachers’ careerstories and their self-understanding reflect andinclude former experiences with educationalchange. The same is true at the school level, wherestories about historical change experiences (thatare told and retold) constitute an importantcomponent of the school culture in which teacherswork and (emotionally) cope with reforms. Thefact that structural and cultural working condi-tions in schools play a key role in teachers’ sense

making of their job experiences and thus ofeducational reform agendas is demonstrated inthe findings of Schmidt & Datnow, Van Veen et al.and Zembylas. And as such they join a long list ofother authors (for example, Smylie, 1995; Little,1996; Van den Berg, 2002). Although there can beno doubt about the impact of school-externalpolicy measures and changing demands in societyon teachers’ sense making (see Lasky, but alsoHargreaves, 1994; Troman, 2000; Ballet & Kelch-termans, 2004), understanding the emotions inteachers’ dealing with reform would stronglybenefit from careful case studies at the level ofthe school. Without contradicting Lasky’s claimthat ‘‘political and social context along with earlyteacher development shaped teachers’ sense ofidentity and sense of purpose as a teacher’’ (thusmediating teachers’ agency), I want to argue thatthe working conditions at the school level play acrucial role as mediating factors, interfering in theprocesses of teachers’ sensemaking of changes inpolicy and society and the emotions that go withit.4 Staessens (1993), for example, identified threetypes of school cultures mediating the teachers’response to a school restructuring reform. Coburn(2001) describes how teachers co-construct theirunderstanding of policy messages on readinginstruction, decide on the way they will translatethem into classroom actions (or decide not to) andnegotiate the conditions for that implementation.The social networks and interpretation processesin schools mediate between implementation of thereform and the policy measures (Coburn, 2001).The work of Achinstein (2002) on conflict and ofAvila de Lima (2001) on friendship exemplifieshow (emotionally laden) relationships amongschool staff interfere with teachers’ interpretationof and reactions to changes (see also Clement &Vandenberghe, 2000). Contextualizing processesof (emotional) sense-making in the structural and

Page 10: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–10061004

cultural working conditions strongly adds to ourunderstanding of emotions in teaching.

4.3. Mediating micropolitics

Just like teachers’ self-understanding, also thecultural and structural working conditions inschools are neither static, nor eternally given.They develop and change, both influenced by thecircumstances and by interventions of (groups of)teachers. Teachers have a more or less clear, moreor less shared idea of what are to them valuableand necessary working conditions to do a properjob in that particular school, with that particularpopulation and community. Doing a good job onthe one hand means being effective as a teacher,while on the other experiencing satisfaction andfulfilment. Those valuable or necessary workingconditions—I have argued (Kelchtermans & Van-denberghe, 1998; Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002a,b)—constitute professional interests and teacherswill engage in micropolitical action to establish,safe-guard or restore them when they are absent,threatened or destroyed. The professional interestsconcern material and organizational conditions,the quality of interpersonal relationships (social–professional interests), the prevailing definitions ofgood teaching (cultural–ideological interests) andone’s self-understanding. Reform policies thatthreaten those valued working conditions willelicit (positive or negative) emotions and micro-political actions (for example forms of resistance).Or as Zembylas contends from his post-structur-alist perspective: ‘‘emotion is interwoven withissues of power, identity and resistance in teach-ing’’. As a dimension of their professional devel-opment (Hargreaves,1995), teachers develop whatwe have called ‘‘micropolitical literacy’’ (Kelchter-mans & Ballet, 2002b), the competence to under-stand the issues of power and interests in schools.This literacy encompasses a knowledge aspect, anoperational and an experiential aspect. The knowl-

edge aspect concerns the ability to recognize,interpret and understand (‘‘read’’) the micropoli-tical character of a particular situation. Therepertoire of micropolitical strategies and tacticsteachers manage to skilfully and effectively applyin order to influence the situation (resist and

protect, or proactively change it) constitutes theoperational or instrumental aspect. But this knowl-edge and skill inevitably goes hand in hand withthe experiential aspect, referring to how one feelsabout one’s micropolitical understanding andactions. This understanding and the implied needfor action often trigger intense emotions, bothpositive (joy, pride, increased self-esteem, fulfil-ment, etc.) and negative (powerlessness, frustra-tion, anger, grief, etc.). The case of David in VanVeen et al. illustrates how teachers, when con-fronted with reform agendas react micropoliti-cally: David accepts and subscribes to the changeagenda, since it fits with his own idea of goodteaching (task perception), yet when the specificconditions in which he is supposed to implementthe reform no longer match his ideas, he engages inintentional political action to change things. Theseattempts go with intense emotions of anger andfrustration. Similar processes can be observed inZembylas’ case study of Catherine and the changesin her self-understanding over time in changingworking conditions. His analysis shows how the‘‘emotional labour’’ reflects different actions andstrategies in negotiating the emotional rules as wellas the social and structural working conditions, inwhich she finds herself. For example, she managesto preserve her own pedagogy by showing that itgoes with positive results on the state-mandatedaccountability test. Emotions, Zembylas rightlyargues, are social and political in character. Acareful analysis of the interplay between teachers’emotions and micropolitical actions on the onehand and the working conditions in the school onthe other can deepen our understanding of howthis interplay mediates the (emotionally laden)meaning of reform policies. Research on theintensification of teaching, for example, showshow the local working conditions buffer, modify,and mediate the policy demands and thus theirimpact on teachers’ actions and job experiences(see e.g. Ballet & Kelchtermans, 2004).

5. Drawing the strings together

Understanding the place and role of teachers’emotions in meaningfully dealing with their daily

Page 11: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–1006 1005

job situation in general, and the calls for reform bypolicy and society, constitutes an importantagenda for researchers. It demands the conceptualand empirical disentanglement of teachers’ self-understanding on the one hand and the culturaland structural working conditions on the other.This analysis cannot limit itself to questions oftechnical efficacy and instrumentalism (increasingefficiency and effectiveness), but has to include themore messy issues of emotional commitment as aperson, the ethical normativity in the idea of‘good’ teaching and the (micro)political action toinfluence the working conditions, considerednecessary for proper action. The technical, moral,political and emotional dimensions in teaching,teacher development (Hargreaves, 1995) and thusself-understanding as a teacher constitute thedynamic and complex reality in which teachershave to live their professional lives. That profes-sional life demands from them value choices andengagement of one’s person, with the unavoidablerisk that those choices and commitments may bequestioned or disputed. This condition of vulner-ability makes teaching fundamentally ‘‘emotion-ally non-indifferent’’. I am using a double negationhere to make a strong assertion.

Yet, on the other hand it is this inescapablevulnerability that ultimately constitutes the verypossibility for teachers to ‘educate’ and to teach ina way that really makes a difference in students’lives. Policy makers—as well as the technocraticeducationalists who eagerly assist them—wouldbenefit from acknowledging these fundamentalcomplexities in teaching and being a teacher. Itwould help them to moderate their ambitions tosteer and change education and schooling. Tea-chers’ ongoing emotional struggles with demandsfor change, as well as their thoughtful professionalhesitations about these demands (resistance) mayconstitute a more ‘‘effective’’ warranty for ‘‘goodeducation’’ than their compliance to the policyagendas and the accompanying professional ‘‘self-understanding’’ they demand. In the end it is theteachers, the women and men in the classroom,who determine whether good schooling actually‘‘happens’’. Their professionality as well as theircommitment are crucial in this. Teachers’ emo-tional practices therefore deserver further critical,

conceptually sound and methodologically rigorousattention from researchers. Because its about‘‘more than a feelingy’’ and in the end it is aboutgood education and school improvement.

References

Achinstein, B. (2002). Community, diversity, and conflict among

schoolteachers. The ties that blind. New York, London:

Teachers College Press.

Avila de Lima, J. (2001). Forgetting about friendship: Using

conflict in teacher communities as a catalyst for school

change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 97–122.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of

performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.

Ball, S., & Goodson, I. (Eds.). (1985). Teachers’ lives and

careers. London, Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Ballet, K., & Kelchtermans, G. (2004). De ervaring van

geıntensifieerde werkcondities. Het verhaal van een vernieu-

wingsgezinde school. [The experience of intensified working

conditions. The story of a highly innovative school.].

Pedagogische Studien, 81(6), 457–472.

Blase, J. (1988). The everyday political perspectives of teachers:

Vulnerability and conservatism. Qualitative Studies in

Education, 1, 125–142.

Bullough, R. V., Jr. (2005). Teacher vulnerability and teach-

ability: A case study of a mentor and two interns. Teacher

Education Quarterly, 32(2), 23–40.

Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ profes-

sional development: A solitary or a collegial (ad)venture?

Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 81–101.

Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading:

How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional

communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

23(2), 145–170.

Elliott, J., Bridges, D., Ebbutt, D., Gibson, R., & Nias, J.

(1981). School accountability. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fenstermacher, G. (1990). Some moral considerations on

teaching as a profession. In J. Goodlad, R. Soder, & K.

Sirotnik (Eds.), The moral dimensions of teaching (pp.

130–151). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Goodson, I. (2001). Social histories of educational change.

Journal of Educational Change, 2, 45–63.

Greenfield, W. D. (1991). The micropolitics of leadership in an

urban elementary school. In J. J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of

life in schools (pp. 161–184). Newbury Park: Sage.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times.

Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London:

Cassell.

Hargreaves, A. (1995). Development and desire. A postmodern

perspective. In T. R. Guskey, & M. Huberman (Eds.),

Professional development in education. New paradigms &

perspectives (pp. 9–34). New York: Teachers College Press.

Page 12: Teachers’ emotions in educational reforms: Self-understanding, vulnerable commitment and micropolitical literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESS

G. Kelchtermans / Teaching and Teacher Education 21 (2005) 995–10061006

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for

in education?. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University

Press-Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation.

Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teachers. London, New

York: Cassell and Teachers College Press.

Huberman, M., Thompson, C., & Weiland, S. (1997).

Perspectives on the teaching career. In B. J. Biddle, et al.

(Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp.

11–77). Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Jeffrey, B. (2002). Performativity and primary teacher relations.

Journal of Education Policy, 17(5), 531–546.

Kelchtermans, G. (1993). Getting the story, understanding the

lives. From career stories to teachers’ professional develop-

ment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 443–456.

Kelchtermans, G. (1994). Biographical methods in the study of

teachers’ professional development. In I. Carlgren, G.

Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teacher thinking and action in

varied contexts. Research on teachers’ thinking and practice

(pp. 93–108). London: Falmer Press.

Kelchtermans, G. (1996). Teacher vulnerability: Understanding

its moral and political roots. Cambridge Journal of

Education, 26(3), 307–323.

Kelchtermans, G. (1999). The teaching career: between burnout

and fading away? Reflections from a narrative and

biographical perspective. In R. Vandenberghe, & M.

Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher

burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice

(pp. 176–191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002a). The micropolitics of

teacher induction: A narrative-biographical study on

teacher socialisation. Teaching and Teacher Education,

18(1), 105–120.

Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002b). Micropolitical literacy:

Reconstructing a neglected dimension in teacher develop-

ment. International Journal of Educational Research, 37,

755–767.

Kelchtermans, G., & Hamilton, M. L. (2004). The dialects of

passion and theory: Exploring the relation between self-

study and emotion. In J. Loughran, M. L. Hamilton, V.

Kubler LaBoskey, & T. Russell (Eds.), International hand-

book of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices

(pp. 785–810). Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Aca-

demic Publishers.

Kelchtermans, G., & Vandenberghe, R. (1998). Internal use of

external control and support for quality improvement. The

response to a national policy by primary schools. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa-

tional Research Association, San Diego (ERIC-Document

ED425 495/EA 029271).

Little, J. W. (1996). The emotional contours and career

trajectories of (disappointed) reform enthusiasts. Cambridge

Journal of Education, 26(3), 345–359.

Loewenberg-Ball, D., & Wilson, S. M. (1996). Integrity in

teaching: Recognizing the fusion of the moral and the

intellectual. American Educational Research Journal, 33,

155–192.

Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2002). An adequate education

for the globalized world? A note on the immunization of

being-together. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(4),

565–584.

Measor, L. (1985). Critical incidents in the classroom.

Identities, choices and careers. In S. Ball, & I. Goodson

(Eds.), Teachers’ lives and careers (pp. 61–77). London:

Falmer Press.

Nias, J. (1989). Primary teachers talking: A study of teaching as

work. London: Routledge.

Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: The emotions in

teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 293–306.

Nias, J. (1999). Teachers’ moral purposes: Stress, vulnerability,

and strength. In R. Vandenberghe, & M. Huberman (Eds.),

Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook

of international research and practice (pp. 223–237). Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V.

Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp.

905–947). Washington: AERA.

Sikes, P., Measor, L., & Woods, P. (1985). Teacher careers:

Crises and continuities. London, Philadelphia: Falmer.

Smylie, M. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace. Implica-

tions for school reform. In T. Guskey, & M. Huberman

(Eds.), Professional development in education: New para-

digms and practices (pp. 92–113). London: Teachers College

Press.

Staessens, K. (1993). Identification and description of profes-

sional culture in innovating schools. International Journal

for Qualitative Studies in Education, 6, 111–128.

Troman, G. (2000). Teacher stress in the low-trust society.

British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(3), 331–353.

Van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding

educational practice. Review of Educational Research,

72(4), 577–625.