The Conceptual and Methodological Construction of a ‘Global’ Teacher Identity through TALIS
The present article investigates the construction of a ‘global’ teacher identity by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) since the introduction of the Teaching and Learning International 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 traditions 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 ideologically driven construction of a certain model of effective teachers, and refer to associated TALIS technical reports to examine validity issues 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.
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.
In order to ensure both the widest dissemination and protection of material published in CEPS Journal, we ask Authors to transfer to the Publisher (Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana) the rights of copyright in the Articles they contribute. This enables the Publisher to ensure protection against infringement.