Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorBakken, Anja Synnøve
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-03T08:58:39Z
dc.date.available2019-12-03T08:58:39Z
dc.date.created2019-04-10T20:31:12Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationEducational Research. 2019, 61 (1), 105-122.nb_NO
dc.identifier.issn0013-1881
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2631379
dc.description.abstractBackground: Recent educational legislation has redefined and extended teachers’ space for exercising professional autonomy. For instance, Norwegian English teachers enjoy substantial freedom in choosing texts for classroom use, provided they meet the competence aims of the national subject curriculum. Teachers are expected to use their professional judgement when choosing the means and modes of teaching to meet local needs. At the same time, current educational legislation requires that teachers exercise their autonomy as participants in ‘professional communities’ to ensure common standards for teaching and to assume shared responsibility for the pupils’ learning. Purpose and method: The research question is whether the redefined space for professional autonomy corresponds to teachers’ understanding of such autonomy. In this article, I address this question through an analysis of lower secondary teachers’ discourses underlying the selection of texts for their learners of English as a Foreign Language. A total of 18 teachers were interviewed and a critical discourse analysis approach was used for data analysis. Findings: Findings suggest that the teachers’ reasoning about text choice and teacher autonomy are negotiated between two potentially competing discourse positions. The first promotes individual freedom of choice, and the second is the view that the textbook represents an authoritative interpretation of syllabi aims, as well as a premise for the teachers’ common planning. Although the teachers speak in favour of choosing texts freely, few say they exploit this freedom beyond choosing between texts in the textbook. In addition, decisions to deviate from the textbook appear to be viewed as hinging primarily on the individual teacher’s discretion. Conclusion: Thus, possibilities for change rely mainly on individual teachers and are placed outside the sphere of collective planning. I argue that the teachers’ discursive practices may limit rather than extend their space for exercising professional autonomy regarding this area and that the textbook plays an important role in this.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherTaylor & Francisnb_NO
dc.titleQuestions of autonomy in English teachers' discursive practicesnb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionnb_NO
dc.source.pagenumber105-122nb_NO
dc.source.volume61nb_NO
dc.source.journalEducational Researchnb_NO
dc.source.issue1nb_NO
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/00131881.2018.1561202
dc.identifier.cristin1691475
dc.description.localcodeLocked until 29.07.2020 due to copyright restrictions. This is an [Accepted Manuscript] of an article published by Taylor & Francis in [Educational Research on 29.01.2019, available at http://wwww.tandfonline.com/[Article DOI: 10.1080/00131881.2018.1561202].nb_NO
cristin.unitcode194,67,80,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for lærerutdanning
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode2


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel