**5. Conclusion**

The public sphere and development of trust will require an acknowledgement of different professional habitus and frames of practice. Supporting teachers to share their perspectives on teaching and learning will lead to richer reflective discussions uncovering the unintended consequences of practice, with an expansion of knowledgeability and frames of practice. This deeper understanding of teaching leads to more complex frames of practice that strengthens ontological security. The strength comes from teachers being able to manage anxiety, as anxiety is linked to the unknown outcome of choice [9]. Where there is a choice there is always the risk of choosing a course of action that will not result in the desired outcome. With more complex frames of practice, teachers are more able to see the range of possible outcomes, with

Even with a more sophisticated understanding of teaching practice and awareness of possible outcomes, change will only occur when teachers take action. This may seem obvious, but routinization, a desire to maintain ontological security and the influence of professional habitus supporting personal identity can be significant barriers to change. As discussed, the rules and norms of social structures although created by people also influence people's actions. In schools, as with all social structures, norms and rules exist because teachers have maintained the practices over time. This duality is the both a strength of social structures and a weakness. It is strong through providing a sense of security and weak when ineffective practices are perpetuated.

Because of the duality within social structures it is difficult for the action of one person to have an effect on the institution's structures or practices. Social structures develop through people reproducing the practice over time, leading to routinization. If the actions of many people are required to reproduce the practices the action of one person can be easily absorbed without a

This is seen in schools where ontologically secure teachers may transform the learning of the students in their classrooms, but other classrooms remain unaffected. For ontological secure teachers to have an effect on the structure of schools, they must assemble the social and cultural capital required for other teachers to view their actions as legitimate. If the actions are seen as legitimate, there is a greater likelihood of widespread change, but this will not occur without teachers involved in the process developing the levels of ontological security required

*No, personally I thought people wouldn't be game enough to make the change, it doesn't sound like a big change, but for a secondary school it was… (*Trevor, classroom teacher and program coordinator*). Mind you, the way we were operating at one stage here, on this campus; you probably wouldn't have wanted your kid to come to the school…Things have changed that much…if the kids have a disagreement, you can sort things out as people rather than just power. (*Ken, Year 8 classroom teacher*).*

*To change every classroom, every teacher had to accept it; it was no good if one person didn't, every classroom had to teach in that way. We knew that it meant a change in pedagogy… I really thought people would say, "no, this is too big", some said that, others were nervous but we went ahead anyway,* 

an associated confidence in choosing a positive course of action.

154 New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

change to structures or practices.

to take creative risks for change.

*and it's the best thing we ever did.*

*Case snippet*

Teachers make a difference to student learning when they choose pedagogies that meet the needs of the students they teach. Indications that these choices have been effective will be seen in the students' level of engagement with the learning activities, development of the students understanding of the concepts taught and their ability to apply these concepts to settings beyond the classroom. However, too often teachers become reliant on routine and are drawn into a reproduction of teaching practice rather than an evolution of their teaching practice that is responsive to the students being taught [9].

To support teachers in making pedagogic decisions that are appropriate for their students, a number of conditions need to be met. First, space and time are required. Space refers to a cognitive environment different to the norms of their practice. Gathering together people from across teaching disciplines provides such an environment, as teachers from different subject areas bring a range of perspectives to evaluate pedagogies being used.

Time is needed for the development of trust which results in deeper reflective discussions. In the trust environment of the public sphere, all opinions are given equal merit and the critique of practice is focused on achieving a more complex understanding of student learning. For many groups of teachers this will take time and will require teachers to meet regularly in multi-discipline groups to discuss teaching practice and their pedagogical choices. As trust develops teachers will be able to openly acknowledge their professional habitus, with collaborative discussions leading to the identification of unintended consequences of their current practices leading to an expansion of their knowledgeability.

**References**

New York: Routledge; 2009

London: Routledge; 1984

Education. 2014;**12940**:356-367

Press; 1957

Routledge; 1960

**103**(2):137-148

Psychology. 1978;**8**(2):203-217

for Existential Analysis. 2004;**15**(1):73-86

phrenic experience? Existential Analysis. 2005;**16**(2):284-299

Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1984. p. xxiii

California: Stanford University Press; 1992. p. 84

Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1984

Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1984. p. 60

tion learning. Organisation Science. 2009;**20**(5):835-845

[1] Hattie J.Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analysis Relating to Achievement.

Teacher Pedagogical Choice

157

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73201

[2] Bourdieu P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (R. Nice. Trans.).

[4] Giddens A. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.

[5] Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of Structuration Theory. Berkeley and

[6] Arends J. The role of rationality in transformative education. Journal of Transformative

[7] Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of Structuration Theory. Berkeley and

[8] Lampel J, Shamsie J, Shapira Z. Experiencing the improbable: Rare events and organisa-

[9] Sachs J. The Activitist Teaching Profession. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2003

[10] Festinger LA. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

[11] Laing RD. The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. New York:

[12] Spitzer SP. Ontological insecurity and reflective processes. Journal of Phenomenological

[13] Kirby S. Dimensions and meanings of anxiety. Existential Analysis: Journal of the Society

[14] Prince G, Is RD. Laing's concept of ontological insecurity applicable beyond schizo-

[15] Giddens A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of Structuration Theory. Berkeley and

[16] Macintyre Latta MM, Kim JH. Narrative inquiry invites professional development: Educators claim the creative space of praxis. Journal of Educational Research. 2009;

[3] Bourduie P. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory. 1989;**7**(1):20

With an expansion of knowledgeability comes an increase in teachers frames of practice and more complex understanding of the school community, students and their learning. This deeper understanding of the school context and students learning can identify changes that need to be made to pedagogy. Determining the need for change is only the beginning. Taking action requires teachers to have levels of ontological security that enables them to overcome routinization to enact the change. Teachers who are ontologically secure are more able to manage anxiety enabling them to move out of the social field of professional habitus and the established routines of practices and to take purposeful action to modify or discard teaching practices identified as not supporting student learning, demonstrating reflexivity.

It appears that professional habitus and ontological security are very strong influences on pedagogical choice, with both elements supported by the established routines of secondary school structures. With Giddens' theory of structuration highlighting the duality of structure and Bourdieu's theories of social and cultural practices emphasising the importance and influence of social identity, changes to pedagogy will not involve a simple intervention from education departments or direction from school principals. To sustain pedagogical change within secondary school classrooms, the issue of teacher ontological security and the influence of professional habitus must be addressed. This requires a change to the power relationships within schools to enable teachers to participate in interdisciplinary reflectively discursive inquiries, where the school principal and administration support the deliberations. This requirement is in contrast to the current neo-liberal approach to government and the economy which has driven the commodification and marketization of education. Education departments and school principals must move away from developing a culture of performativity which privileges academic test scores to a culture which promotes teacher collaboration through the goal of nurturing and developing young people to become engaged members of society.
