Quizzing

(Image by Mona Tynkkinen, 2022)

                               
0.7734 was the result of experimentation. 0.7734 made impossible math assignments bearable. 0.7734 became a subtle act of resistance made in plain sight, an act contagiously moving between us pupils, bequeathed to ensuing generations. 0.7734 became a way of keeping at bay the threat of feeling like a failure when not understanding an instruction, it enabled making alternative connections, sometimes with new acquaintances. But extracted from its assemblage and transposed into Calibri, Times New Roman, Garamond – inserted into a document – its expression loses its meaning. It changes.

I offer the above scene and the usage of the apparatus in the image as an example of a refrain. It was a repeated act my peers and I performed during math class in the early nineties to impose a sense of order to prevent (math-) chaos from overtaking. As all refrains, it also held the capacity to ruin, to have math class go amok. But the above refrain is now dated, its materiality precarious. 0.7734 is on the move, losing its meaning, becoming undone.

Perhaps you have already figured out what the above scene is all about; if not, just stay with the unease of not quite knowing – or make a refrain of your own to handle the chaos. The point of the detour is to explain how we perform familiar acts, refrains, when chaos threatens. Sometimes a sense of order is created through the repetition of 0.7734 during fractions, on other occasions it might be the repetition of quiz questions during a Swedish lesson. Because refrains have a threefold function: they create a sense of stability to keep chaos at bay, form a circle of homeliness with available materials in unknown turfs, and draw from what is with the capacity to create something new – or obliviate what we once knew.

But we must begin at the end to find our beginning, let us move into the classroom. 

Epilogue

Two children have been asked to stay behind the finished Swedish lesson, and becoming-teacher wants a word with the duo:

There is a lot of noise, you’re seated at the back, and I understand that you want to be heard. If you’re quiet, everybody can be heard and everybody can hear when it’s your turn to talk, becoming-teacher says, squatting in front of the children’s desks.

They exchange a few more words before the children are excused. Becoming-teacher is moving towards the whiteboard, while the classroom assistant moves towards the door and the children, when one of the children turns to the other and asks: Why are they saying baboon? Is it because you are dark? Black cow, white cow, black cow, white cow. Baboon. (B, p. 5)

This mosaic is an inquiry into the quizzing that builds up to the above exchange. It is an exploration into an activity where relations become destructive under the guise of quizzing. What begins as a friendly game in one lesson, in a subsequent lesson with a different group mutates into frenzy and verbal abuse as quiz rules morph to compensate for the teacher shortage. Unequal gaming conditions, legitimized through presumed time shortage, have becoming-teacher’s resourceful rescue of unsupervised lesson plans turn into a project of taming children. What could be at stake in quizzing, one might ask. Well, nothing less than the fundamental values and tasks of education.   

This inquiry asks: ‘how do encounters unfold and with what effects?’ We begin in the classroom, this time by rewinding to 7.41 which is when becoming-teacher enters the shared study. This is twenty-nine minutes before the first class of the day begins.

Let the Game Begin

Becoming-teacher has prepared a quiz for upcoming Swedish lessons. But instead of discussing and doing the quiz with the colleague, today’s classes unexpectedly turn into solo projects as becoming-teacher is informed that the co-worker has called in sick (more about the circumstances of time and staff shortage, see mosaics Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock and Poppins Schedule). With two consecutive Swedish lessons with a total of fifty-nine children to take care of, no time in between classes, and no one to get advice from, becoming-teacher simply solves the situation. The first thing to do is to enter the classroom.

Round One

Swedish lesson one begins with attendance checking. Becoming-teacher invites the children to help since a too short cord forces becoming-teacher to either have their back against the class or not see the list of names. The group assists and they finish attendance so that becoming-teacher can move on to explain quiz rules. Becoming-teacher takes a marker and draws a picture on the whiteboard of how the alternatives will be displayed in the upcoming quiz, and then instructs the children that they are to work in pairs. But quizzing is exciting, and the children begin talking; “Too loud, we’ll wait. I’m going to read the questions out loud. It’s important that everybody listens”, becoming-teacher sayscalmly (B, p. 3). 

When the first question appears on the screen, the room goes silent. Child-eyes are drawn to the quiz. Only becoming-teacher-voice can be heard. On becoming-teacher’s signal, children begin discussing alternatives:

Has everybody answered? becoming-teacher asks.

Everybody who thinks it is ‘A’, raise your hands. Becoming-teacher waits to see how many hands go up.  

Everybody who thinks it’s ‘B’, raise your hands. Becoming-teacher waits again and scans the room for hands.  

Everybody who thinks it’s ‘C’, raise your hand, becoming-teacher waits to see hands go up and then concludes; Most thought ‘C’ was the correct answer. Becoming-teacher confirms that ‘C’ was correct verbally, before displaying the correct answer on the quiz. (B, p. 3)

Polling takes time. Scanning hands to see what alternative is most popular, takes time. Becoming-teacher listens to answers and affirms what has been said with a simple “Interesting” (B, p. 3) that signals that it is time to move on to the next question.

Already in the second round of questions, transitions between question and answer slow down. Children listen to friends making associations, everybody wants to share their insights, and becoming-teacher listens patiently before announcing it is time to read the next question.  

But gaming mode soon intensifies as children want to explore the vistas offered through questions.  Even though topics move in the periphery of what might be expected from a quiz in the subject of Swedish, they capture children’s interest. They work with questions like ‘what is the Moderate party’s stance on liquor store opening hours’, something about ‘hand grenades’, ‘who was the winner of the talent show’, ‘what was the name of the Swedish foreign minister’, and ‘matching sports equipment with the right sport’. In this first part of Swedish lesson one, and thus round one of quizzing, becoming-teacher remains calm and lets the quiz and the children decide the pace of quizzing. What children have to say is at the fore of activities and when becoming-teacher decides it is time to continue to the next question, focus immediately redirects as becoming-teacher reads the ensuing question.  

Before moving on to the moment when quizzing changes, a brief look at becoming-teacher’s version of quizzing.   

The Rules of the Game  

Becoming-teacher’s version of quizzing involves an elaborated version of the conventional question-and-answer format:

• Becoming-teacher reads a question
• Children discuss with partner and decide on an option
• Public poll
• Presenting the correct answer on the screen
• One child answers and explains why they have chosen said answer  
• Others are invited to contribute

The rules of the game assign becoming-teacher as quizmaster and thus the one in charge of events, and children as quizzers that are to follow the instructions of the quizmaster; a handy division of labor for a classroom, one might argue. The rigid structure of quizzing, meanwhile, can both facilitate and confine classroom interaction, as we will see. Holding on to the structure might become increasingly difficult if the intensity of competing consolidates with wanting to know the correct answer, and children wanting to share their knowing publicly. Still, quizzing is also a smart move since becoming-teacher as the acclaimed ‘quizmaster’ entails having the right to make decisions regarding process and ruling over participating ‘quizzers’.

But the rules of the game also grant quizmaster the role of deciding on more implicit decisions. The quizmaster dictates a) what questions to ask, b) what truths to choose between, c) what is true, d) how much time to spend on quiz steps e) how, when, and who gets to answer. Thus, the list seems eerily akin to the rulings of a despot. 

But there is one last thing worth deliberating on before initiating a quiz in an educational setting, and that is the question of ‘what is the quiz supposed to do’. Does it seek to explore a new subject content area? Does it test something? Does it offer variation in activities? Does it support collaboration, or perhaps spur competition? Or does it simply offer teachers and children something to do?

Peripeteia

Peripeteia, the moment of change: Becoming-teacher has just asked a question about ‘the Moderate party’s stance on liquor store opening hours’. Question-affect rams bodies, materializes as a murmur that builds to eager discussion. Children consult their partner. Polling begins and ends, and it becomes time to enter the most intense step of quizzing, that is, try to become the one chosen to answer. The quest begins with a raised hand that soon becomes two raised hands. Becomes wiggling hands. Becomes accompanied by grunting. But still not enough to break through twenty-nine other classmates doing the same. And with no more limbs to extend – children begin growing chair-tall. Soon after, hand-wiggling-grunting-chair-bodies turn into a roaring field of child-corals on the stormy classroom-sea floor. Noise makes deafness, and becoming-teacher moves closer to hear the child chosen to answer. But suddenly things halt! “Good, you came” (B, p. 3) speaks the transformation.

A New Player

‘Good, you came’ is the greeting that announces the arrival of the first of two classroom assistants mid-through Swedish lesson one. With an assistant (A1) in place, becoming-teacher glances at the clock on the wall to look at the time, fifteen minutes of class left:

8.35, becoming-teacher turns to the class: Do you remember last week when we did a digital quiz, that was a test, and this is also a test whether this [quizzing] can be done in this group. Regrettably, it is not possible in this group yet. (B, p. 3)

Not enough time to finish the quiz is just enough time to communicate that the class is failing now that there is another adult present that can help becoming-teacher get through the lesson. But children are not discouraged by the rebuke; the desire to quizzing supersedes the sadness of disciplining.     

The rules of the game have reached the step where it promises the opportunity for another child to add to the conversation:

Children are talking about opening hours with their partner. The classroom assistant is standing in the doorway, still in an outdoor jacket and a neon yellow safety vest. The assistant motions to the nearest pair and hushes at them.   

Becoming-teacher reads the next question. Asks the child nearest to answer. Other children are talking: the assistant follows sound and goes to stand behind the couple.  

Becoming-teacher reads from the projected screen, leans against the whiteboard with hands behind the back. The assistant walks around the room and adjusts how children are seated, shoves legs into straight positions under tables. Children discuss the question at hand with their partner. (B, p. 3)                       

The promise to have other voices contribute to the joint discussion is cancelled in exchange for the corporeal disciplining from an assistant. Quizzing rhythm skips a beat as ‘the invitation to contribute’ is glossed over in exchange for a ‘new question’. The structure of quizzing modifies with the assistant present and not even the instruction ‘discuss with your partner’ secures quizzers from being shushed at.    

The assistant still in outdoor clothing seems to have come straight from other assignments into classroom activities. With no opportunity for becoming-teacher to explain the format, it is no surprise that the assistant assumes the commonly used ‘no talking’-rule. Becoming-teacher, meanwhile, momentarily alleviated from single handedly being in charge of thirty children, seems content with only having to care for what Jackson proposed was the “fourth responsibility of the teacher”, which is, “that of serving as an official timekeeper. It is he who sees to it that things begin and end on time” (1990, p. 12). Becoming-teacher rests against the whiteboard, letting classroom managing be taken over by the new player to handle, the arrived assistant. The assistant performs varying themes on hush-and-sit-straight, a form of corporeal managing.

In this new distribution of labor where there seems to be no time for communication between becoming-teacher and assistant, children are caught in the middle. Following the instructions of quizzing now renders hush-and-sit-straight. But the side effect of hush-and-sit-straight is that disciplining accelerates the tempo of quizzing.  

Round Two  

An unfinished Swedish quiz and a corridor sprint later, becoming-teacher is all set for Swedish lesson two and the second round of quizzing. In a new classroom, with a new group (more about running, see mosaic Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock), becoming-teacher eight minutes in – with almost a fourth of the lesson gone – manages to re-arrange necessary equipment. “Everybody needs to quiet now so that I can hear that everybody is here” (B, p. 4) are the words that greet class two.

A call-and-response like attendance checking is made away with so that the main act can begin. The group is new, and the children are as thrilled as the first group when they learn there is going to be a quiz. With twice as many questions worked through in almost ten minutes less, the tempo of lesson two becomes critical. Quiz-affect is harsh. Children too slow to notice when activities shift from answering to listening come to know they are off beat, “I’m reading, I asked you to be quiet’ (B, p. 4). Children’s attempts to do the steps ‘discuss with partner’ and ‘one child answers’, become volatile projects since all speaking collides with the hush-and-sit-straight imposed by the assistant and utilized by becoming-teacher to make good time.  

At the end of this second lesson, relations and misunderstandings in classroom interaction accumulate as time-loss-motored adults have objectives turned to time-efficiency through disciplining. Knowing that there is no other teacher colleague to get help from during the ensuing class either, makes hush-and-sit-straight a welcomed time accelerator. The class, meanwhile, enthusiastically takes on each quiz step indicated through a structure that becoming-teacher at this point freely interprets in accordance with the efficacy logics of timekeeping. Jackson’s (1990) ‘hidden curriculum’[1], and becoming-teacher as ‘timekeeper’ actualized through quizzing, and secured by hush-and-sit-straight, thereby illustrate what is discuss as the ‘hidden temporal curriculum’ of education (Bastian & Facer, 2023; cf. Johansen & Solli, 2022[2]).

Before returning to the critical last minutes of Swedish lesson two and what leads up to the infraction in the Epilogue, I turn to Deleuzoguattarian concepts to make sense of quizzing.  

Quiz-Refrains

The refrain[3] together with the related concepts milieu, rhythm, territory and de-/re-/territorialization help explore what is going on during quizzing. I begin with what a refrain does.

“The refrain is an ontological force of territorialization and deterritorialization” ([emphasis added], Jackson, 2016, p. 183). Where chaos threatens, the repetition of a little refrain such as the quiz question, can help keep havoc at bay by bringing order into chaos (Deleuze & Guattari, [1980]1987). “Tra la la”, a refrain like the ‘quiz question’, marks a territory by ‘drawing a circle’ “to organize a limited space” (Deleuze & Guattari, [1980]1987, pp. 299, 311). Your quiz-circle creates an ambulant home in (classroom) life.

But what is a circle if not a closed line. And the line’s imperceptible ends will always remain penetrable by outside forces, such as entering classroom assistants and teacher – forces always ready to move away our makeshift (quizzing-) home through “lines of drift” (Deleuze & Guattari, [1980]1987, pp. 311-2). Sometimes a de-territorialization gives rise to a creative becoming, a re-territorialization where quizzing by drawing on neighboring milieus can create something (educationally) innovative. On other occasions lines of flight have the territory obliterated, reverted to the terrestrial forces where quizzing implodes.

The above processes of the refrain are not descriptions of a linear sequence but what Deleuze and Guattari describe as ‘confronting and converging forces’, always coexisting, or mixed up (‘chaos’, ‘earth[4]’, and ‘cosmos’) (Deleuze & Guattari, ([1980]1987). The forces of the refrain are in other words “directional (with a steadying center), dimensional (space-making), and passageways (lines of flight, opening to the outside)” (Jackson, 2016, p. 185).

Now to concepts connected to refrains and how they help thinking about what is happening during quizzing.   

Milieu, Rhythm, and Territorialization

Milieus and rhythms are born from chaos, Deleuze and Guattari write [1980]1987). Milieus are coded blocks of space-time, like a Swedish Lesson milieu. The Swedish lesson milieu is “defined by periodic repetition” ([emphasis added] Deleuze & Guattari, [1980]1987, p. 313); it repeats each Thursday morning at 8.10, gathering specific adults and children under the labels ‘teacher’ and ‘pupil’ to do ‘Swedish’ in ‘a classroom’ on the second floor.

Milieus are in other words heterogenous blocks of space-time that have gone through processes of coding – they have attained meaning (Deleuze & Guattari, [1980]1987) – and therefore become blocks conceived of as ‘a Swedish lesson’, ‘a corridor’, or ‘a study’. Swedish lesson as milieu “introduces a degree of sameness” by harboring a ”semi-stable selection” that returns rhythmically (Kleinherebrink[5], 2015, p. 212).

‘Swedish lesson one’ milieu also encompasses interior milieus[6], that extend the lesson in disparate directions(Deleuze & Guattari, [1980]1987), such as the ‘becoming-teacher’-milieu, the ‘class’-milieu, and ‘Swedish’-milieu. Amid the numerous milieus involved, the ones here discussed concern ‘an adult milieu’ (becoming-teacher), ‘a child milieu’ (the class), ‘a school subject milieu’ (Swedish). Exterior milieus, meanwhile, are milieus that form neighboring space-times, such as the ‘classroomassistant’-milieu.

“[M]ilieus concern what happens where, [whereas] rhythms are about how and when things within and between milieus happen” ([italics in original] Kleinherenbrink, 2015, p. 215). Each milieu exists through its ‘periodic repetition’, but this repetition is not uniform, it repeats as a difference by affirming disturbances that becoming-teacher stands against in the chaos of being left all alone to do two subsequent Swedish lessons when a colleague has called in sick, with limited time to do preparations, no supervisor with time to look at the prepared activity (the quiz), no time in between lesson one and two. Becoming-teacher-milieu by responding to chaos is creating what Deleuze and Guattari speak of as rhythm ([1980]1987).

Consequently, for the world to be able to change, milieus must respond to changed circumstances and approaching chaos by transcoding passages. There must be what is articulated as ”a communication of milieus”(Deleuze & Guattari, [1980]1987, p. 313). 

Quizzing is thus the act that “brings the territory into being by power of its performance”, where quiz-refrains territorialize a territory; “[i]t is the composition of one’s own world” (Buchanan, 2021, p. 98). How then do quiz-refrains bring a quizzing territory into being, and what happens to the forces of the refrain in the course of the two Swedish lessons?

Lines of Flight – Corporeal Managers, Timekeeper, and Disciplined

Quiz-refrains impose a sense of order into the chaos of Swedish when becoming-teacher, a few minutes before class, learns that the planned co-teaching turns into solo work. The rigid structure of quizzing has the activity itself become the guide on what to do next; when chaos threatens, ask the class a new question, ask them to discuss in pairs, answer a question, do polling, and then repeat the process.    

A lone adult, becoming-teacher as quizmaster keeps track of both (quiz-)content and (quiz-)form. The quizmaster moves into rhythm with the child-milieu coded as quizzers. Quizmaster and quizzers live on and off each other. Quizzing territorializesand draws from milieus, ‘quizmaster’ and ‘quizzers’ transcode through quiz-refrains, suturing a space-time where one articulates a question the other answers; quizzing becomes a form of “world-making” (Buchanan, 2021, p. 98).

In the world formed by quizzing, Swedish subject core content expands as quiz-refrains territorialize liquor store opening hours, hand grenades, talent show participants, foreign ministers, and sports equipment. Quizzing legitimizes flexible conceptualization of Swedish subject core content. The new vistas are creative, random if you will.  Following quiz questions show how it is the past week’s newspapers that contribute to what becomes ‘Swedish’.  Without a supervisor or colleague available to discuss quizzing as an actualization of Swedish, the kitchen counter and what subscriptions one happens to have become substitute resources in the absence of material that could connect with subject core content.

Same Game, New Rules

Quizzing is multiple and changing. Still, repeating the same refrains disguises the fact that round one of quizzing is not the same game as round two of quizzing[7]; to be precise, the first lesson changes already mid through upon the entry of the assistant. Because assistants constitute an external milieu with its own codes, this entry radically shocks quiz rhythms. So, quiz-refrains are now territorializing heterogenous blocks and drawing from assistant-milieu to quizzing territory.

However, assistants keep marching to assistant-code, corporeally managing the encountered milieu through hush-and-sit-straight. Meter collides with rhythm:    

It is well known that rhythm is not meter or cadence, even irregular meter or cadence: there is nothing less rhythmic than a military march. The tom-tom is not 1 -2, the waltz is not 1, 2, 3, music is not binary or ternary, but rather forty-seven basic meters, as in Turkish music. Meter, whether regular or not, assumes a coded form whose unit of measure may vary, but in a noncommunicating milieu (Deleuze & Guattari, [1980]1987), p. 313)

There is something perplexing happening here. Meter enters as “a blind regularity that operates on the world”, as Kleinherenbrink puts it (2015, p. 214). Whilst child-milieu interprets quiz-refrain as a request where ‘new question’ is to transfer into ‘discuss with partner’, assistant-milieu, meanwhile, interprets the same transfer as a request for silence, something that demands hush-and-sit-straight. Quiz-refrains have child-milieu rammed by hush-and-sit-straight through conflicting objectives.

What is the effect of conflicting objectives? That the territorial assemblage begins segmenting. Asking quizzers to discuss whilst simultaneously watching hush-and-sit-straight silence the instructed conversation, sanctions what is going on as a valid interpretation. This modifies quizzing at the core. The collision draws ‘a line of flight’ where the quizmaster’s objective with quizzing changes: from quizzing with the objective that children learn a content through quizzing as form, to quizzing with the objective to have efficient execution through form, making content mere distraction. In the latter version, children become spanners in the works. Classroom assistants now manage form (‘a corporeal manager’), whilequizmaster manages time as content(‘a timekeeper’). As a consequence,children need to re-calibrate their trajectories – from quizzing to corporeal self-disciplining.   

Quizzing changing is not an intentional act; rather, it is the forces that hide in repeated difference that change quizzing. “[R]efrains that express lines of flight contribute to an ontology of resistance and freedom that avoids liberatory and humanist models of intentionality or a stable set of goals and underpinning values”, Jackson proposes ([italics in original] 2016, p. 191). The ontology of the refrain shows how quizzing moves from being an attempt to do Swedish through an activity that helps keep the forces of chaos in check – teacher shortage, large groups of children, limited experience of teaching Swedish – to an activity that serves to keep bodies effectively busy whilst making sure to remain on schedule.

Post-Epilogue

We now return to the scene in the introductory Epilogue. Intensities have accumulated in Swedish lesson two and come to a climax when the lesson is about to end. An eager quizzer, seated at the back of the classroom, wants to share an insight with the class. Expressing one’s knowledge, a historically well-rehearsed and premiered classroom refrain, has limited value when efficiency has become the main objective. Seated at the back, farthest from becoming-teacher, makes being seen difficult through the sea of wiggling hands:

Becoming-teacher turns to the quizzer closest, Do you know the answer? Yes, the child replies. I will only listen to those raising their hands, becoming-teacher continues. A child at the back is talking out loud into the room, But I know the right answer, it is… (B, p. 5)

Selection is based on hand raising and matters of proximity since vicinity simply makes conversation easier. This disqualifies the child seated at the back who is struggling to be seen. But the child takes matters into their own hands and talks out loud to make sure becoming-teacher knows that the child knows the answer to the quiz question. Hush-and-sit-straight interrupts theattempt; “Listen up!” the assistant now shouts into the room (B, p. 5). “Shush!” the assistant repeats (B, p. 5). The child at the back’s attempt to be heard becomes silenced.

A minute later a second opportunity arises, and the child makes another attempt but with the same zero result. As becoming-teacher announces the correct answer, several interrelated circumstances coalesce:

Becoming-teacher informs that ‘B’ is the correct answer. The child at the back appears frustrated and shouts into the room, But I said ‘A’, why, it’s correct! The assistant responds to the child’s outburst and exclaims, Be quiet! Becoming-teacher hurriedly corrects the prior answer, That was wrong [‘A’ was correct]. (B, p. 5)

Becoming-teacher in trying to get through as many questions as possible before class ends, selects only children nearby to accelerate the question-and-answer segment. The child at the back is in this chain of events first ignored, then hushed, just to be wrongfully corrected whilst being quieted. The child was right all along, it was ‘A’ not ‘B’, and is visibly agitated. The classroom is at this point fuming; children fervently invest in quizzing, becoming-teacher combines logics of speed and proximity to increase quiz-tempo, and the assistant works to maintain order and silence through shouting. Frustration seeks an outlet. The child at the back creates one when becoming-teacher decides to have the duo struggling to participate in quizzing, stay behind. So how is the problem solved?  

… Black cow, white cow, black cow, white cow. Baboon.

The assistant shoos the two children out from the classroom, gives becoming-teacher a meaningful glance. Becoming-teacher looks at me, they both sigh, becoming-teacher shakes their ^[8] head.

Becoming-teacher turns off the projector, takes the cart, locks the door. 9.31, Becoming-teacher leaves the classroom. (B, p. 6).

The child’s derogatory slur is demeaning and hurtful. According to the Education Act (SFS 2010:800[9]) and school routines, the situation demands immediate follow up. With nine minutes until next class begins, in another classroom, with different materials, and thirty-two new children, becoming-teacher and classroom assistant do nothing[10]. Education is actualized as a future project but forgotten as an affective embodied present. And in this demented time, education itself becomes de-territorialized.

In ‘earwitnessing’ (in)equity in schools, Wargo urges “[t]aking seriously that sound is not merely vibrations passing through matter at particular frequencies, but a tool that depicts social relations” (2018, p. 382). The sound of the baboon-exchange performs inequity by not being heard. Yet “the solution was as good as it could have been, given the way in which the problem [here: of education] was stated, and the means that the living being had at its disposal to solve it” (Deleuze, [1966]1988, p. 103). Yet, the ‘problem’ of the exchange is not actualized as a question about education or ethics, or “the ways in which sound signals both the politics of a space […] as well as the complicity in silence” (Wargo, 2018, p. 392), but as a problem about timekeeping and efficiency. And these problems are to be dealt with in the same future where the illusion of efficiency pays off, it seems.

Consequently, encounters with ‘teacher shortage’ and ‘no time’ between classes, affect teacher becoming. An effect is that the unfolding present is forgotten as the actualization of education. The teleology of objectives (timekeeping and efficiency), accordingly, creates “a supposedly smooth and reliable projection of the past and present into the future” (Williams, 2011, p. 18) where the wounds of the present become negligible under the rule of the time of chronos[11] communicated through a schedule and actualized through the ‘hidden temporal curriculum’ (Bastian & Facer, 2023; Johansen & Solli, 2022). So, what is the time of education?

What about 0.7734, you ask. Try looking at the calculator upside-down, why don’t you.  

References

Bastian, M., & Facer, K. (2023). Introduction: Teaching time. Time & Society, 32(3), 239-246.

Buchanan, I. (2021). Assemblage theory and method: An introduction and guide. Bloomsbury Academic.

Deleuze, G. ([1962]1983). Nietzsche and philosophy. Athlone Press.

Deleuze, G. ([1968]2014). Difference and repetition. Bloomsbury Academic.

Jackson, A. Y. (2016). An ontology of a backflip. Cultural Studies? Critical Methodologies, 16(2), 183-192.

Jackson, P.W. (1990). Life in classrooms. Teachers College Press.

Johansen, G., & Solli, K. (2022). The hidden curriculum of temporal organization: an empirical comparison of classroom and workshop practices. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(6), 792-808.

Kleinherenbrink, A. (2015). Territory and ritornello: Deleuze and Guattari on thinking living beings. Deleuze Studies, 9, 208-230.

Massumi, B. (1992). A user's guide to capitalism and schizophrenia: deviations from Deleuze and Guattari. (Swerve ed.) MIT Press.

SFS (Svensk författningssamling) [Swedish Code of Statutes] 2010:800. Skollag. [The Education Act]. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.

Wargo, J. M. (2018). Earwitnessing (in) equity: Tracing the intra-active encounters of ‘being-in-resonance-with’ sound and the social contexts of education. Educational Studies, 54(4), 382-395.

Williams, J. (2011). Gilles Deleuze's philosophy of time: a critical introduction and guide. Edinburgh University Press.