versatility primarily concerned the teacher herself, while collegial community regarded the immediate collegial environment.(p.10) Secondly, the findings raise the issue of pedagogical agency in CLIL, since language use, autonomy, openness to change and teacher versatility were related to exercising agency at the classroom level. These themes resonate with a view of agency as involving conscious action and choice-making, according to what is educationally beneficial and in conjunction with the physical and interpersonal resources of the working environment (Eteläpelto et al. 2013; Moate and Ruohotie-Lyhty 2014; Toom, Pyhältö, and Rust 2015). (p.10) pedagogical agency appears to rest on CLIL teachers’ judgment and action, it is in fact also linked to the sociocultural environment, which delineates the area of possible agency by means of relationships, policies and material resources.(p.11) At the level of the CLIL classroom, joint action can strengthen individual agency through material and conceptual resources that make sense-making and object-oriented activities clearer (Edwards 2007). Facilitating and making time for teacher interactions would be fruitful for pedagogical practices and involvement in the work community, which supportive school leadership can greatly advance (Thoonen et al. 2011). (p.11) By supporting that agency, we can enhance teachers’ diverse learning, the pursuit of their professional orientations, their well-being and commitment (Hӧkkä and Vähäsantanen 2014). (p.11) Toom, A., Pyhältö, K., & Rust, F. O. C. (2015). Teachers’ professional agency in contradictory times. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 615-623. Teacher agency is suggested to be a key capability not only for facilitating student learning but also for continuing professional development, collaborative teacher learning and school development. In the recent literature, different conceptualisations and characteristics of teachers’
The iterational aspect of agency to be especially significant. It is evident that the two teachers (Gerald and Debbie) who espoused broad, educational aspirations in respect of their teaching shared similar past experiences both in terms of work and extra-career activities. Conversely, Donald, with his more traditional trajectory into teaching, exhibited different aspirations. While we clearly cannot generalise from such a small project, we are able to note the direct correspondence in the cases of Gerald and Debbie between their previous professional lives and their aspirations for their teaching. Put bluntly, these teachers were able to bring to bear their often-rich past experiences in tailoring rich and meaningful educational experiences for their students as their projections were not solely circumscribed by the cultural ecology of schooling in general and their particular school. (p.210) We conclude this analysis with three points, one specific to these cases, and two general. First, the analysis does not explain why one teacher with rich prior experience and strongly held views about education was able to translate this so strongly into her teaching, whereas the other was less successful. It is likely that the answer lies in the personal biographies of the teachers concerned. Perhaps Gerald’s putative protestant work ethic makes him less likely than Debbie to rock the educational boat. Perhaps the temporary nature of her contract made risk taking more viable. Or maybe the newness of her position in school meant that she was less enculturated by dominant school mores and cultural patterns than were her colleagues. Our data do not provide answers to these questions. (p.210) We have taken the view in this article that teacher agency is largely about repertoires for manoeuvre, or the possibilities for different forms of action available to teachers at particular points in time. These are dependent upon temporal aspects—the iterative and projective, as well as the practical evaluative possibilities afforded by the material and social configurations of the present context. In the case of our three teachers, we see varying potential for agency, framed by ontogeny (the iterative), the possibilities created from this for aspirations about education (the projective), and enacted within the complex and contingent possibilities of the present (the practical-evaluative). (p.211)