Curriculum and Pedagogy: The Teacher as Agent

  • Carmel ConnEmail author


This chapter focuses on the agency of teachers and explores the ways in which teachers make decisions about what to teach in light of how their pupils respond. The complexity of what teachers do is described with reference to different sources of knowledge they draw on for their practice and the ways in which they orientate themselves to their pupils and to the curriculum. How teachers adopt different communicative approaches within pedagogy is described with reference to the concept of dialogic teaching. This is presented as the most effective approach to pedagogy, one that sees pupils as agentive and supports the idea of a good education. Case study examples of the learning experiences of autistic pupils in mainstream schools are used to illustrate the relevance of this approach to this group.


Teacher agency Pedagogy Knowledge sources 


  1. Alexander, R. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching (4th ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, J. (2011). Responsibly competent: Teaching, ethics and diversity. Policy Futures in Education, 9(1), 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvunger, D., Sundberg, D., & Wahlström, N. (2017). Teachers matter—But how? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbules, N. C., & Bruce, B. C. (2001). Theory and research on teaching as dialogue. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1102–1121). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class, codes & control (Vol. IV). London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biesta, G. J. J. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biesta, G. J. J., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). Talking about education: Exploring the significance of teachers’ talk for teacher agency. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crompton, C. (2019, June). Neurodiverse interaction: Understanding how autistic people interact with and learn from autistic and neurotypical people. University of Edinburgh Public Lecture.Google Scholar
  9. Curtin, A., & Hall, K. (2018). Research methods for pedagogy: Seeing the hidden and hard to know. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 41(4), 367–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickerson, P., Stribling, P., & Rae, J. P. (2007). How children with autistic spectrum disorders design and place tapping in relation to activities in progress. Gesture, 7(3), 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Florian, L. (2017). Teacher education for the changing demographics of schooling: Inclusive education for each and every learner. In L. Florian & N. Pantić (Eds.), Teacher education for the changing demographics of schooling: Issues for research and practice (pp. 9–20). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Florian, L., & Graham, A. (2014). Can an expanded interpretation of phronesis support teacher professional development for inclusion? Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guldberg, K., Parsons, S., Porayska-Pomsta, K., & Keay-Bright, W. (2017). Challenging the knowledge-transfer orthodoxy: Knowledge co-construction in technology-enhanced learning for children with autism. British Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 394–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harðarson, A. (2017). Aims of education: How to resist the temptation of technocratic models. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hart, S., & Drummond, M. J. (2013). Learning without limits: Constructing a pedagogy free from determinist beliefs about ability. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education (pp. 439–458). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Washington, DC: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, G. (2015). Autism: Enhancing whole school practice and the skills and understanding of the workforce. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(2), 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Korkiakangas, T. K., Rae, J. P., & Dickerson, P. (2012). The interactional work of repeated talk between a teacher and a child with autism. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 3(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lambert, D., & Biddulph, M. (2015). The dialogic space offered by curriculum-making in the process of learning to teach, and the creation of a progressive knowledge-led curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 210–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability and Society, 27(6), 883–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London and New York: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Qvortrup, A., & Qvortrup, L. (2018). Inclusion: Dimensions of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(7), 803–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts, J., & Simpson, K. (2016). A review of research into stakeholder perspectives on inclusion of students with autism in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(10), 1084–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
  28. Sterponi, L., & Fasulo, A. (2010). ‘How to go on’: Intersubjectivity and progressivity in the communication of a child with autism. Ethos, 38(1), 116–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stribling, P., Rae, J. P., & Dickerson, P. (2007). Two forms of spoken repetition in a girl with autism. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42(4), 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wegerif, R. (2017). A dialogic theory of teaching thinking. In L. Kerslake & R. Wegerif (Eds.), The theory of teaching thinking (pp. 89–104). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Winch, C., Oancea, A., & Orchard, J. (2015). The contribution of educational research to teachers’ professional learning: Philosophical understandings. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, Early Years and Social WorkUniversity of South WalesNewportUK

Personalised recommendations