\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nI skolsystem runt om i v\u00e4rlden f\u00f6rs intensiva diskussioner om hur elevers studieresultat och skolors kvalitet kan f\u00f6rb\u00e4ttras. Omfattande strukturella och l\u00e4roplansrelaterade reformer i kombination med olika s\u00e4tt att m\u00e4ta elevers kunskapsniv\u00e5er har genomf\u00f6rts, ofta med parallella krav p\u00e5 ett lokalt skolf\u00f6rb\u00e4ttringsarbete som utg\u00e5r fr\u00e5n kontextuella f\u00f6rh\u00e5llanden och behov.<\/p>\n
Allt sedan b\u00f6rjan p\u00e5 1990-talet k\u00e4nnetecknas det svenska skolsystemet av en l\u00e5ngtg\u00e5ende decentralisering d\u00e4r kommunala och frist\u00e5ende skolhuvudm\u00e4n har m\u00f6jlighet att ut\u00f6va ett stort inflytande \u00f6ver skolorna samtidigt som de f\u00f6rv\u00e4ntas ha ett omfattande kvalitetsansvar. Med sjunkande elevresultat och en \u00f6kande bristande likv\u00e4rdighet mellan skolor kom dock den svenska skolan och dess l\u00e5ngtg\u00e5ende decentralisering att h\u00e5rt kritiseras under 2000-talets f\u00f6rsta tv\u00e5 decennier. I linje med flera internationella policytrender, inte minst uppbackat av OECD, har detta resulterat i \u00e5tskilliga skolreformer samt en utveckling mot en \u201dre-centralisering\u201d av det svenska skolsystemet i termer av en \u00f6kad statligt reglerad styrning (Wahlstr\u00f6m & Sundberg, 2017a; Adolfsson, 2013) vilket har f\u00e5tt konsekvenser f\u00f6r den lokala styrningen av skolan. Mot bakgrund av att skollagen (SFS 2010:800) fortfarande betonar att huvudmannen besitter ett \u00f6vergripande ansvar f\u00f6r skolornas m\u00e5luppfyllelse och likv\u00e4rdighet aktualiseras fr\u00e5gan om hur skolhuvudmannen ska styra, f\u00f6lja upp samt st\u00f6dja skolornas arbete, som ett s\u00e4tt att tillm\u00f6tesg\u00e5 skollagens krav.\u00a0 I detta sammanhang har utvecklandet och implementeringen av olika kvalitetssystem blivit allt betydelsefullare f\u00f6r skolhuvudm\u00e4n (Wahlstr\u00f6m & Sundberg, 2017a; Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2019).\u00a0 I ett p\u00e5g\u00e5ende tre\u00e5rigt forskningsprojekt studeras denna s\u00e5 kallade kvalitetsstyrning i en st\u00f6rre kommun i Sverige. Ett \u00f6vergripande intresse f\u00f6r\u00a0 studien \u00e4r s\u00e5ledes den lokala styrningen av skolan och d\u00e4r relationen mellan skolhuvudman och skola st\u00e5r i fokus, en relation som m\u00e5nga g\u00e5nger \u00e4r att betrakta som f\u00f6rbisedd inom l\u00e4roplansteoretisk forskning (Rorrer, Skrla&Scheurich, 2008).<\/p>\n
Syftet med studien \u00e4r att studera skolhuvudmannens uppbyggnad och implementering av ett nytt kvalitetssystem samt dess konsekvenser.\u00a0 I detta paper kommer delar av resultaten fr\u00e5n denna studie att presenteras. Mer specifikt \u00e4mnas f\u00f6ljande fr\u00e5gor att diskuteras:<\/p>\n
– Hur och vilka centrala delar av skolornas kvalitetssystem vill skolhuvudmannen f\u00f6rs\u00f6ka reglera och p\u00e5verka genom implementeringen av ett nytt kvalitetssystem?<\/p>\n
– Hur tas detta kvalitetssystem emot p\u00e5 skolorna och med vilka konsekvenser?<\/p>\n
Studien h\u00e4mtar teoretisk inspiration fr\u00e5n ny-institutionell teoribildning (Scott, 2014; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991) d\u00e4r olika aspekter eller dimensioner av styrning\/ kontroll men ocks\u00e5 legitimitet uppm\u00e4rksammas (den regulativa, den normativa\u00a0 och den kognitiva och kulturella dimensionen). F\u00f6r denna studies vidkommande blir denna teoribildning v\u00e4sentligt i analysen av att studera karakt\u00e4ren p\u00e5 den styrning som skolhuvudmannen i den aktuella kommunen vidtar f\u00f6r att p\u00e5verkar och st\u00f6tta skolorna i en viss \u00f6nskv\u00e4rd riktning.\u00a0\u00a0 Studien anv\u00e4nder sig av flera metoder\u00a0 i form av dokumentanalys av centrala policydokument p\u00e5 huvudmanna- respektive skolniv\u00e5; observationer av m\u00f6ten mellan representanter fr\u00e5n utbildningsf\u00f6rvaltning och rektorer (n=12); intervjuer med personer fr\u00e5n utbildningsf\u00f6rvaltningen, rektorer samt l\u00e4rare (n=30).<\/p>\n
Resultaten pekar bland annat p\u00e5 att huvudmannens kvalitetsstyrning inneh\u00e5ller flera normativa och tillika sociala element. Huvudmannens kontroll och det st\u00f6djande arbetet sker framf\u00f6rallt genom att f\u00f6rs\u00f6ka att standardisera och formalisera olika processer kopplade till skolornas kvalitetsarbete. I synnerhet kommer detta till uttryck i form av en standardisering av vilka fr\u00e5gor som skolorna ska utg\u00e5 ifr\u00e5n vid sina resultatanalyser, vilka underlag (data) som skolorna ska analysera samt hur deras analyser ska genomf\u00f6ras. Huvudmannens kontroll och uppf\u00f6ljning av skolorna sker \u00e4ven genom en rad olika formaliserade aktiviteter s\u00e5som exempelvis gemensamma utbildningsinsatser f\u00f6r rektorerna i systematiskt kvalitetsarbete men ocks\u00e5 i form av kontinuerliga kvalitetsdialoger, skolbes\u00f6k och kvalitetsseminarier. Resultaten pekar p\u00e5 att huvudmannens implementerade kvalitetssystem verkar ha f\u00e5tt st\u00f6rst genomslag och tillika effekt p\u00e5 skolor med redan v\u00e4lutvecklade kvalitetssystem.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Ann-Sofie Smeds-Nylund, \u00c5bo Akademi <\/em><\/p>\nKommunalt utbildningsledarskap- att mediera mellan politik och medborgaropinion<\/p>\n
I presentationen unders\u00f6ks hur offentligt utbildningsledarskap i kommunal kontext i Finland blir synligt i en offentlig debatt i lokala och sociala medier. Syftet \u00e4r att bidra till f\u00f6rst\u00e5else av offentliga beslutsprocesser i bildningsfr\u00e5gor i ett komplext samh\u00e4lle med motstridiga f\u00f6rv\u00e4ntningar, medvetna v\u00e5rdnadshavare, begr\u00e4nsade resurser och nya sociala medier.<\/p>\n
I demokratiskt fungerande utbildningsadministrationer inneb\u00e4r ett icke-affirmativt ledarskap att pedagogiska ledare, f\u00f6rtroendevalda, l\u00e4rare och medborgare till\u00e5ts och f\u00f6ruts\u00e4tts medverka till de gemensamma beslut som ber\u00f6r ett lands, en kommuns eller en skolas utbildningsverksamhet (Uljens &Rajakaltio, 2015). Diskursiv institutionalismen (Schmidt, 2002) erbjuder\u00a0 ett ramverk f\u00f6r tolkning av politiska id\u00e9ers transformering i diskurser.<\/p>\n
Forskningsfr\u00e5gorna formuleras som 1) Vad pr\u00e4glar de diskurser som uppst\u00e5r vid skolreformer? 2) Vilka slag av institutionella f\u00f6r\u00e4ndringar leder diskurserna till?<\/p>\n
Det empiriska unders\u00f6kningsobjektet best\u00e5r av en skoln\u00e4tsf\u00f6r\u00e4ndring i Helsingfors \u00e5r 2012. Det empiriska materialet utg\u00f6rs av tidningsledare, nyhets- och debattartiklar i dagspressen samt inl\u00e4gg i sociala medier. Det empiriska materialet unders\u00f6ks med kritisk diskursanalys (Fairclough, 1994; Gee, 2011).<\/p>\n
Resultaten visar att diskurserna pr\u00e4glas av medborgarnas ifr\u00e5gas\u00e4ttande av beslutsprocesser kring kommunala utbildningsarrangemang. Traditions- och identitetsproblematik g\u00e4llande den finlandssvenska populationen i Finland samt rationalitet och ekonomi inom statens och kommunens ramar blir synliga. Diskursernas inverkan p\u00e5 de aktuella institutionerna var sm\u00e5. De visade p\u00e5 betydelsen av ett medierande pedagogiskt ledarskap mellan politik och pedagogisk verklighet. Diskurserna tydliggjorde den samarbetsresurs som v\u00e5rdnadshavarinstitutionen inneb\u00e4r inom utbildningen. Den finl\u00e4ndska skolan p\u00e5 svenska i Finland visade sig vara beroende av ett erk\u00e4nnande fr\u00e5n majoritetsbefolkningens f\u00f6rtroendevalda av minoritetens kulturautonomi.<\/p>\n
Av unders\u00f6kningen kan man dra slutsatsen att i utbildningspolitiska fr\u00e5gor skulle kommunalt beslutsfattande och kommunal verksamhet vinna i legitimitet genom ett icke-affirmativt pedagogiskt ledarskap, ett medierande utbildningsledarskap samt kommunikativa diskurser i ett st\u00e4ndigt p\u00e5g\u00e5ende upplyst samtal \u00e4ven om ett koordinativt f\u00f6rfaringss\u00e4tt formellt \u00e4r korrekt och lagenligt.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/h4>\n
Session 1 \u2013 Professionell kompetens och reflektion<\/strong><\/p>\nTobias Werler & Christian Huseby, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (HVL), Bergen<\/em><\/p>\nIs pedagogikk<\/em> powerful knowledge for teacher education? Approaches to starting a curriculum analysis<\/p>\nToday, it is expected from professional teachers not only to teach school subjects. They shall also recognize the full dignity of every human being in the classroom, they shall act for social transformation and to reduce injustice. It is also expected to make sound, knowledgeable, thoughtful, imaginative professional judgements in order to expand pupils\u2019 comprehensive capabilities. Such professionalism, serving both, pupils capability development (Nussbaum 2010) and the access to the public good `school education\u00b4 can be outlined as public good professionalism (Walker & McLean 2013).<\/p>\n
However, student teachers will \u2013 as soon as they enter the profession<\/em> \u2013 teach generic school subjects such as mother tongue, English, mathematics or music. For good reasons, training in these subjects as well as their specific didactics are a crucial part of teacher education. In teacher education programs they encounter with the academic knowledge corpus of a discipline. Such knowledge is oriented towards the production or discovery of new knowledge. Beyond that, student teachers learn to transform such knowledge into teachable knowledge in schools. However, the character of school knowledge is different. Teaching of school subjects is in teacher education oriented towards the transmission of knowledge or the reproduction of knowledge for coming generations. In short, student teachers can be sure that there is a practical future for \u201ctheir\u201d school subject(s). Hence, teachers teaching of school subjects is at the core of schooling.<\/p>\nBesides that, teachers work is characterized by many other actions: disciplining, supporting, praising, assessing, testing, as well as telling about, pointing, reporting back and fostering. In contrast to the afore mentioned tasks, those are guided by certain values and norms. Those tasks are intended to allow for pupils learning in many ways so that they achieve fully human lives. Such pedagogic action is a form of professional social action, i.e. related to the actions of other people\u2019s children. Therefore, professional pedagogical competence is not primarily based on the rules of a ”pedagogical technology”, but on the quality of the respective pedagogical relationship.<\/p>\n
So, the question arises if it is possible to achieve the aim by means of teacher professionalisation. Historically, the solution to the problem was seen in teaching of pedagogy (pedagogikk) to student teachers. The central approach is that learning of various aspects of pedagogical theory helps future teachers to become aware of their practice. In other words, pedagogical theory is seen as a tool for determining teachers\u2019 action and reflecting about teacher practice.<\/p>\n
Several authors have pointed out that pedagogikk is the conceptual core of Norwegian teacher education (Dahl 1958, Hagemann 1992, Skagen 2007). Here, pedagogikk<\/em> is different from other academic fields represented in teacher education programs. It finds itself as part of the humanist research tradition (Kvam 2014, S\u00e6verot 2015). Following Haugen and Hestbeck (2012) one can define pedagogikk<\/em> as a collection of knowledge (related to phenomenon of upbringing and schooling). Such knowledge is focused on practitioners, i.e. a practical science developing praxis theories. Here, research is related to epistemic, social and communicative structures of reality. Research as well as teaching of pedagogikk<\/em> in teacher education make use of mainly hermeneutical procedures to render the interpretation of conditions of practice. This tradition is linked to the idea that such research will help teachers to decide on educational issues. Nevertheless, pedagogikk<\/em> is also disciplinary science investigating educational phenomena and creating theories on upbringing, teaching and schooling. This part of pedagogikk<\/em> findings itself in the tradition of German Erziehungswissenschaft (L\u00f8vlie 2003, Jarning 2012) and has its focus on finding answers for theoretical and empirical problems. Content originating from this tradition was used in teacher education to build up teacher students\u2019 disciplinary skills as well as their understanding of wider concepts regarding education.<\/p>\nDespite the decade long development of pedagogikk in teacher education programs it is still unclear what kind of particular knowledge of pedagogikk is included in the teacher education subject \u201cpedagogikk\u201d. Further, it is unclear whether this knowledge is powerful enough to lead to a more just and fair society<\/p>\n
The aim of this \u2013 explorative – paper is to determine to what extent the methods of content-related curriculum analysis is applicable to the subject \u201cpedagogikk\u201d on the level of teacher education. In order to achieve this objective, the research question: Is it feasible to understand \u201cpedagogikk\u201d as it is canonized in various documents regulating teacher education programs in Norway as powerful knowledge (as it was developed by Wheelahan (2007), Young (2009,2013), Young and Muller (2013) Young and Lambert (2014), young& muller 2019)?<\/p>\n
Based on explorative, epistemological reasoning the paper will discuss in how far it is possible and useful to adopt the toolbox of curriculum analysis (Goodlad, Pinar, Young) to teacher education. The paper builds upon the assumption that teacher education curricula can be analyzed by the same means as school curricula. Although one must keep in mind that teacher education curricula are a representation of an academic discipline as well as they are a subject to be taught to student teachers. The outcomes of the analysis will allow statements regarding the question: what is a teacher education curriculum and what can it do?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Lea Lund, University college, Lilleb\u00e6ltDenmark<\/em><\/p>\nLead & Learn: Educational Leadership. The voices of educational leadership. Investigations of the pedagogical thinking of school leaders in higher education<\/p>\n
The aim of this paper (or poster) presentation is to present how to investigate educational leaders’ perceptions of educational and pedagogical themes. I hereby wish to contribute to the scientific development of this field of research and aim at comprehend the processes underlying educational leadership. The study reported in this paper explores 1. the school leaders\u00b4 perceptions of educational themes and 2.how their pedagogical perceptions reflects their actions as leaders of teachers and their organization. My aim is to both explore how to investigate this field in a pedagogical manner and to reveal insights to the Danish school leaders\u00b4 perspectives. My aim is not to prescribe or to give recommendations, but to reveal insights in the role of the educational leaders who has a significant part in the DNA of our education system.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\nM\u00e4kiharju Alex, \u00c5bo Akademi<\/em><\/p>\n\u00c4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete utmanar den grundl\u00e4ggande utbildningens struktur- En fenomenografisk unders\u00f6kning<\/p>\n
\u00c5r 2016 togs en ny l\u00e4roplan i bruk som g\u00f6r \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete obligatoriskt och m\u00f6jligheten till \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete b\u00f6r ges \u00e5t varje elev minst en g\u00e5ng per l\u00e4s\u00e5r. Det blir rektorers uppgift att leda implementeringen av \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete i skolan, samtidigt som rektorer blir ledda av den nya l\u00e4roplanen. Denna utveckling i l\u00e4roplanen inneb\u00e4r att den traditionella individuella l\u00e4rarkulturen i \u00e5rskurserna 7\u20139 beh\u00f6ver utvecklas mot en mer kollegial l\u00e4rarkultur. Denna m\u00e5ngvetenskapliga undervisning ska skapa helheter d\u00e4r m\u00e5nga olika l\u00e4ro\u00e4mnen samarbetar genom att skapa temadagar, tillst\u00e4llningar, studiebes\u00f6k och att \u00e4mnen som h\u00f6r till samma tema f\u00f6ljer p\u00e5 varandra i schemat till l\u00e4sordningen. Detta inneb\u00e4r att \u00e4mnesl\u00e4rare m\u00e5ste samarbeta f\u00f6r att kunna arrangera den m\u00e5ngvetenskapliga undervisningen.<\/p>\n
Syftet med avhandlingen \u00e4r att unders\u00f6ka hur rektorer f\u00f6r den grundl\u00e4ggande utbildningens \u00e5rskurs 7\u20139 uppfattar p\u00e5budet av \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete. Avhandlingens syfte \u00e4r att f\u00f6rs\u00f6ka svara p\u00e5 f\u00f6ljande forskningsfr\u00e5gor:<\/p>\n
1) Hur uppfattar rektorer Utbildningsstyrelsens val att g\u00f6ra \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete obligatoriskt f\u00f6r \u00e4mnesl\u00e4rare?
\n2) Hur uppfattar rektorer sin roll som ledare f\u00f6r implementeringen av \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete?
\n3) Hur uppfattar rektorer att \u00e4mnesl\u00e4rare uppfattar kravet p\u00e5 \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete?
\n4) Vilka utmaningar upplever rektorer kan uppst\u00e5 i samband med implementeringen av \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete?<\/p>\n
Unders\u00f6kningen har en fenomenografisk ansats och \u00e4r kvalitativ. Datainsamlingen skedde genom halvstrukturerade intervjuer med sex rektorer. Materialet analyserades och kategoriserades och resulterade i kategorier som fungerar som grund f\u00f6r unders\u00f6kningens resultat. Resultaten visade att rektorer huvudsakligen uppfattar p\u00e5budet om \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete som positivt, d\u00e5 det \u00e4r n\u00e5got som speglar samh\u00e4llet idag. Som ledare \u00f6ver implementeringen beskrev rektorerna sitt ledarskap med ord som vision\u00e4r, ett professionellt st\u00f6d och tidskr\u00e4vande. P\u00e5 den tredje fr\u00e5gan uppfattade rektorer att helhetsskapande undervisning st\u00e5r i konflikt med \u00e4mnesl\u00e4rares l\u00e4raridentitet och att \u00e4mnesl\u00e4rare inte \u00e4r utbildade f\u00f6r en \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande undervisning. Rektorerna tycker att skolans struktur och \u00e4mnesl\u00e4rares arbetsavtal som inte st\u00f6der den helhetsskapande undervisningen \u00e4r utmanande.<\/p>\n
Intervjuerna gav upphov till f\u00f6ljande resultat: rektorer \u00e4r n\u00f6jda med l\u00e4roplansf\u00f6r\u00e4ndringen men betonar t\u00e5lamod i utvecklingen av \u00e4mnes\u00f6verskridande samarbete. Rektorerna betonar ocks\u00e5 att \u00e4mnesl\u00e4rares arbetsavtal \u00e4r n\u00e5got som borde omstruktureras f\u00f6r att b\u00e4ttre motsvara den nya l\u00e4roplanen. Detta eftersom det kan uppfattas som utmanande att hitta tider f\u00f6r \u00e4mnesl\u00e4rare att samarbeta. M\u00e5nga av rektorerna f\u00f6reslog helhetsbaserat arbete ist\u00e4llet f\u00f6r arbete som baserar sig p\u00e5 undervisningsskyldighet.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Session 1 \u2013 H\u00f6gre utbildning<\/strong><\/h4>\nLeo Berglund, Uppsala universitet <\/em><\/p>\nCan the Mass University be a Place for Critique? University Ideology and the Educational Logics of Humboldt and Newman<\/p>\n
The possibility of criticality as an outcome of education is explored by a psychoanalytically informed examination of the university ideas of Humboldt and Newman, with respect to their religious origins and logics of teaching.<\/p>\n
It is argued that while Newman\u00b4s idea anticipates critique in the form of an outcome of ritualized appropriation of established knowledge, Humboldt\u00b4s idea is to make use of the of the subjects resistance against knowledge represented to it, a \u201cneurotic\u201d suspicion of the desire of the Other. This logic is however repressed in the contemporary, Newman-inspired university ideology in which the assertion of the principle of plurality justifies \u201cperverse\u201d forms of critique; the subject\u00b4s critical discourse is determined by external, pre-established structures. Translated into contemporary university discourse, critique according to Humboldt\u00b4s educational logic could today be possible as an ambitions kind of \u201ccritical thinking\u201d that does not stop at ordinary tests for validity, but also demands other forms of justification for knowledge claims and identities.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nJanne Elo, \u00c5boAkademi<\/em><\/p>\nChallenges in Theorizing Multilevel Higher Education Leadership<\/p>\n
When looking at educational leadership as a field of research it is mostly developed within the field of compulsory education. Leadership research is an developing field within higher education research, nevertheless unclear in its profile. Although both schools and universities are educational institutions typically financed, governed and directed by political decision-making, there are crucial differences between the two fields from a leadership perspective. Among these, the absence of national core curricula within higher education is one; universities are largely autonomous in creating their curricula. Another key difference is the role of research. Higher education leadership not only leads teaching, it also leads research. As university teachers are simultaneously researchers, professional development has largely been focused on developing as a researcher. In contrast, professional development within compulsory education has mainly focused on developing teacherhood. However, the issue of professional development of teacherhood has in recent years increased in importance in a HE context as well. To this extent the role of educational leadership in the compulsory and HE context is similar.<\/p>\n
In our opinion, providing a conceptual structure for understanding higher education leadership requires a multilevel perspective. Leadership in higher education can be seen as occurring at least on six levels: the teacher level, the program level, the faculty level, the university level, the national level and the supranational level. The challenge is to develop a position by which it is possible to handle this multilevel phenomenon in a coherent way. Instructional theory and didactic theory is valid at the level teaching-studying-learning, while policy and governance research are valid at the highest levels. As previously mentioned, there does exist leadership research, but mainly focused on compulsory education. While the different existing areas of research are valid within their own field, they are not capable of handling the phenomena of higher education leadership as a holistic, multilevel phenomena. The question is thus what kind of language could be adequate to handle these different levels and research perspectives in a coherent way.<\/p>\n
This conceptual paper presents non-affirmative theory of education as the foundation for a new research program in higher education leadership. Bildung oriented non-affirmative education theory\u00a0 argues that understanding educational leadership requires a multi-level approach in addition to theorizing leadership and teaching as cultural-historical and critical-hermeneutic praxis.\u00a0 While both critical or transformative and conservative, socialization and reproduction oriented approaches in education typically result in instrumental notions of curriculum reform, leadership and teaching, non-affirmative education theory, instead views leadership and teaching as relational and hermeneutic, drawing on ontological core concepts of modern education: recognition; summoning to self-activity and Bildsamkeit. This position assumes a non-hierarchicalrelation between societal forms of practice like education and politics as well as between education and economy. The principle of non-hierarchical relations between societal forms of practices means that education is both sub- and super-ordinate in relation to these other practices. Educational leadership is thus considered mediatingactivity between different epistemic practices (research, teaching, learning, theory, administrative routines, cultural practices, architecture, IT) and value dimensions (ethics and politics). In this mediation, actors position themselves differently depending on their personal preferences and values, professional competencies and responsibilities as well as their position, tradition, and existing norms. Non-affirmative educational leadership is then about callingattention to, questioning or problematizing contemporary practices, values or interests, or, to do the same with ideals or political policies for the future. Non-affirmative influence acknowledges the open and aporetic character of discourses. Differently expressed, an interruption is an intervention in the Other\u2019s relation to him- or herself, other persons, and the world. The educational discourse as invitation to self-activityand self-formation creates spaces within and between institutionalized levels.<\/p>\n
SESSION 2<\/strong><\/h1>\nSession 2 \u2013 \u00c4mnesdidaktik<\/strong><\/h4>\nElisabet Backlund-K\u00e4rjenm\u00e4ki, \u00c5bo Akademi, Vasa \u00f6vningsskola <\/em><\/p>\nHelhetsskapande undervisning och m\u00e5ngvetenskapliga l\u00e4romr\u00e5den som utvecklingsprojekt – Utmaningar och m\u00f6jligheter i \u00e5rskurserna 7-9<\/p>\n
Helhetsskapande undervisning och m\u00e5ngvetenskapliga l\u00e4romr\u00e5den, med m\u00e5l att integrera olika l\u00e4ro\u00e4mnen har i varierande form beskrivits i de senaste l\u00e4roplanerna f\u00f6r den finl\u00e4ndska allm\u00e4nbildande skolan. Den i kraftvarande l\u00e4roplanen, Grunderna f\u00f6r den grundl\u00e4ggande utbildningen 2014 (Utbildningsstyrelsen 2014) \u00e4r normativ g\u00e4llande synen p\u00e5 den helhetsskapande undervisningen. Varje elev ska garanteras deltagande i minst ett helhetsskapande l\u00e4romr\u00e5de per l\u00e4s\u00e5r. Inom l\u00e4romr\u00e5dena betonas den m\u00e5ngsidiga kompetensen och vikten av att l\u00e4ra sig generiska f\u00e4rdigheter genom att studera l\u00e4ro\u00e4mnes\u00f6vergripande. Man efterstr\u00e4var en utveckling av skolans verksamhetskultur som inneb\u00e4r bland annat en f\u00f6r\u00e4ndring i l\u00e4rar- och elevrollerna och mera autentiska arbetss\u00e4tt. Erfarenheterna har visat att det \u00e4r utmanande att genomf\u00f6ra l\u00e4ngre sekvenser helhetsskapande undervisning i \u00e5rskurserna 7-9 d\u00e4r \u00e4mnesl\u00e4rare kollaborerar \u00f6ver l\u00e4ro\u00e4mnesgr\u00e4nserna. Orsakerna till detta \u00e4r m\u00e5nga.<\/p>\n
Under fyra l\u00e4s\u00e5r och fyra omg\u00e5ngar har ett l\u00e4ngre omfattande tema inom den helhetsskapande undervisningen planerats och genomf\u00f6rts i \u00e5rskurserna 7-9 vid Vasa \u00f6vningsskola i enlighet med intentionerna i l\u00e4roplanen. De tre f\u00f6rsta \u00e5ren bildade skolans parallellklasser en stor klass som d\u00e4refter delades i mindre grupper utg\u00e5ende fr\u00e5n elevernas val av tema. Grupperna handleddes av l\u00e4rarteam d\u00e5 de utforskade fenomen inom ett f\u00f6r \u00e5rskursen givet st\u00f6rre tema, tex Wasa Energy f\u00f6r \u00e5k 9. Inf\u00f6r det fj\u00e4rde \u00e5ret reviderades koncepetet och de tre \u00e5rskurserna 7, 8 och 9 bildade en stor klass som indelades i mindre \u00e5rskursintegrerade grupper utifr\u00e5n elevernas teman. Varje omg\u00e5ng utv\u00e4rderades och konceptet har analyserats och reviderats. Under hela processen fr\u00e5n planering till avslutning har man efterstr\u00e4vat en \u00f6kad elevdelaktighet med olika framg\u00e5ng.<\/p>\n
Att arrangera, planera, genomf\u00f6r, bed\u00f6ma och utv\u00e4rdera helhetsskapande undervisning enligt nya koncept inneb\u00e4r m\u00e4rkbara f\u00f6r\u00e4ndringar i skolans verksamhetskultur. Inf\u00f6r starten 2015 presenterades Staffan Selanders teori om didaktisk design och l\u00e4rarna bekantade sig med grupparbetsmetoder. Att utveckla och klarg\u00f6ra skolans verksamhetskultur inneb\u00e4r utmaningar av olika slag. Utvecklingsarbete inneb\u00e4r ocks\u00e5 att man st\u00f6ter p\u00e5 hinder s\u00e5 kallade \u201dsm\u00e4rtpunkter\u201d som beh\u00f6ver l\u00f6sas i samf\u00f6rst\u00e5nd.\u00a0 Det p\u00e5g\u00e5ende utvecklingsarbetet kan beskrivas som expansivt, det inneb\u00e4r att l\u00e4rare och rektor tillsammans uppt\u00e4ckt ny kunskap som m\u00f6jliggjort utvecklandet av verksamhetsmodellen f\u00f6r den helhetsskapande undervisningen. I presentationen beskrivs utvecklingsarbetet med hj\u00e4lp av Yrj\u00f6 Engestr\u00f6ms cykliska modell \u00f6ver expansivt l\u00e4rande.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mikhaylova Tatiana, Uppsala universitet & H\u00f6gskolan i G\u00e4vle<\/em><\/p>\nExploring shadow education with curriculum theory: A conceptual framework<\/p>\n
Private supplementary tutoring, widely known as shadow education, has become a global enterprise, challenging the traditional boundaries of the educational landscape. The concept of shadow education refers to educational activities, which are related to school subjects and are provided by private tutors outside school hours, usually in exchange for a fee (Bray, 1999). The last decades saw the research on shadow education gaining in popularity; however, due to methodological challenges shadow education is still understudied and remains largely undertheorized. Recently, several studies have explored the nature and the demands for shadow education by deploying the concepts of curriculum theory (Bray, Kobakhidze, Zhang, & Liu, 2018; Forsberg et al, 2019; Joki, 2013; Kim, 2016; Kim & Jung, 2019; Sriprakash, Proctor, & Hu, 2016). The present paper joins this line of research. Drawing on findings from previous research and the ongoing PhD project, it provides a conceptual framework for analyzing and understanding the relationship between public education and private tutoring.\u00a0
\n<\/strong>From the perspective of curriculum theory, hiring a tutor can be seen as a strategic response\u00a0 arising from an individual\u00b4s experiences or encounters with public education and from a mismatch between one\u00b4s own educational needs, aspirations and desires, and the preordained curriculum.
\n<\/strong>The present paper exemplifies how the variety of manifestations and functions of private tutoring can be explained in terms of the (perceived) gaps between planned and enacted curriculum on the one hand, or between enacted and attained curricula on the other. However, since curriculum theory traditionally has been most concerned with public education, the explanatory capacity of the established terms (i.e. planned, enacted and attained curriculum) is limited; in particular, they tend to overlook the capability of the targeted subjects of education to refuse, contest, challenge and go beyond the prescribed set of knowledge. With this in mind, I endeavor to introduce a new concept – a desired curriculum – for exploring the tensions between structure and agency in education in general and for theorizing shadow education in particular. Together, these conceptual and analytical tools seem well suited for exploring how school curriculum is both reproduced and resisted in shadow education.
\n
\nReferences
\n<\/strong>Bray, M. (1999). The Shadow Education System: Private Tutoring and its Implications for Planners<\/em>. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).
\n
\n<\/strong>Bray, M., Kobakhidze, M. N., Zhang, W., & Liu, J. (2018). The hidden curriculum<\/em> in a hidden marketplace: Relationships and values in Cambodia\u00b4s shadow education system. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(4), 1-21.
\n
\n<\/strong>Forsberg, E., Mikhaylova, T., Halls\u00e9n, S., &Melander Bowden, H. (2019). Supplementary tutoring in Sweden and Russia: A safety net woven with numbers.<\/em> In C. EldeM\u00f8lstad& D. Pettersson (Eds.), New Practices of Comparison, Quantification and Expertise in Education: Conducting Empirically Based Research (pp. 207-229). London & New York: Routledge.
\n
\n<\/strong>Joki, B. (Ed.). (2013). Emerging from the shadow: A Comparative Qualitative Exploration of Private Tutoring in Eurasia.<\/em> Zagreb: Network of Education Policy Centers.
\n
\n<\/strong>Kim, Y. (2016). Shadow education and the curriculum and culture of schooling in South Korea<\/em>. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
\n
\n<\/strong>Kim, Y. C., & Jung, J.-H. (2019). Conceptualizing shadow curriculum: Definition, features and the changing landscapes of learning cultures.<\/em> Journal of Curriculum Studies, (Journal Article), 1-21.\u00a0 Sriprakash, A., Proctor, H., & Hu, B. (2016). Visible pedagogic work: Parenting, private tutoring and educational advantage in Australia. <\/em>Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(3), 426-441.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
M\u00f6llenborgEvelina, Linn\u00e9universitetet<\/em><\/p>\nSamh\u00e4llskunskap som akademiskt analys\u00e4mne, medborgarfostran eller praktiskt handlings\u00e4mne? – \u00c4mnet samh\u00e4llskunskap ur ett elevperspektiv<\/p>\n
Presentationen \u00e4r en del av mitt avhandlingsprojekt Diskurser och dilemman i gymnasieskolans samh\u00e4llskunskapsundervisning. I avhandlingsprojektet unders\u00f6ks hur samh\u00e4llskunskaps\u00e4mnet tar form i den svenska gymnasieskolan och vilken betydelse l\u00e4roplanen LGY11 f\u00e5r f\u00f6r samh\u00e4llskunskapsundervisning i gymnasieskolans olika program.\u00a0
\n<\/strong>Mot bakgrund av den gymnasiereform som genomf\u00f6rdes 2011 och de f\u00f6r\u00e4ndrade f\u00f6ruts\u00e4ttningar som den har medf\u00f6rt, kr\u00e4vs f\u00f6rdjupad kunskap om hur samh\u00e4llskunskaps\u00e4mnet idag tar form. Genom att studera gymnasieskolans samh\u00e4llskunskapsundervisning ur flera perspektiv \u00e4mnar avhandlingsstudien teckna en nyanserad bild av samh\u00e4llskunskaps\u00e4mnets utformning, betoningar och dilemman. Blir \u00e4mnet exempelvis ett vetenskapligt analys\u00e4mne, ett medborgarfostrans\u00e4mne eller ett individuellt r\u00e4ttighets\u00e4mne (Englund, 2005; Lindmark, 2013; Sandahl, 2014; Wahlstr\u00f6m, 2014)?\u00a0 Betonas samh\u00e4llskunskapens yttre eller inre dimensioner (Husbands, Kitson, &Pendry, 2003; Olsson, 2016; Roberts, 2007; Strandler, 2017)? \u00a0Syftet med presentationen \u00e4r att diskutera resultat fr\u00e5n studien som belyser samh\u00e4llskunskapsundervisning ur ett elevperspektiv.\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/strong>Teoretiskt ramverk och metod\u00a0
\n<\/strong>Teoretiskt h\u00e4mtas inspiration fr\u00e5n l\u00e4roplansteori och diskursiv psykologi (Wetherell& Potter, 1992). L\u00e4roplansteorin bidrar med ett intresse f\u00f6r vad som r\u00e4knas som kunskap i samh\u00e4llskunskap (Deng & Luke, 2008; Englund, 2005) medan diskursiv psykologi erbjuder strategier f\u00f6r att analysera kvalitativa data inom det l\u00e4roplansteoretiska f\u00e4ltet (Lester, White &Lochmiller, 2017) med fokus p\u00e5 retorik, diskurser (Wetherell&Edley, 1999) och ideologiska dilemman (Billig et al., 1988).
\n<\/strong>Avhandlingens empiri best\u00e5r av intervjuer med samh\u00e4llskunskapsl\u00e4rare, rektorer och elever. I konferenspresentationen fokuseras fr\u00e4mst elevintervjuer.\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/strong>F\u00f6rv\u00e4ntade slutsatser\u00a0\u00a0
\n<\/strong>Prelimin\u00e4ra analyser av intervjuer med elever fr\u00e5n olika gymnasieprogram visar att samh\u00e4llskunskap kan f\u00f6rst\u00e5s som \u00e5 ena sidan ett allm\u00e4nbildnings\u00e4mne och \u00e5 andra sidan ett samh\u00e4llsvetenskapligt \u00e4mne. Elever beskriver samh\u00e4llskunskap som ett anv\u00e4ndbart \u00e4mne och samh\u00e4llskunskapsstudierna legitimeras d\u00e4rmed genom en nyttoretorik. Samh\u00e4llskunskap kr\u00e4vs, enligt eleverna, f\u00f6r att klara sig i vuxenlivet. Elever beskriver ocks\u00e5 samh\u00e4llskunskap som akademiskt analys\u00e4mne med fokus p\u00e5 samh\u00e4llsvetenskapliga analyser. I relation till demokratiska normer och v\u00e4rden uppst\u00e5r dilemman i undervisningen, exempelvis d\u00e5 elevers antidemokratiska id\u00e9er inte ligger i linje med de normer och v\u00e4rden som l\u00e4rare \u00e4r \u00e5lagda att f\u00f6rmedla i samh\u00e4llskunskapsundervisningen<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Session 2 \u2013 Icke-affirmativ l\u00e4roplansteori<\/strong><\/h4>\nSilvia Morelli, UniversidadNacional de Rosario<\/em><\/p>\nCurriculum and Democracy Education<\/p>\n
This paper intends to reflect how Bildung<\/em>, as a modern concept related with subject self-formation and culture, could be rethought through postcritical curriculum perspectives. Relating to non-affirmative theory of education, this reflection consider narrative knowledge as a way of dealing with subject education in contemporary democracies. Non-affirmative theory of education contributes to this challenge by helping to identify autonomy, the particularities of the self and the relationships between democracy and education, in a similar kind of way as does Ranci\u00e8re by his notion of momentspolitiques<\/em>. Thus, autonomy, self and solidarity are seen as events<\/em> that place democratic education as one of the most important issues to deal with in the present.<\/p>\nNordin, Andreas, Linnaeus University<\/em><\/p>\nOn the normativity of data-driven curriculum work – a discursive and non-affirmative approach
\n
\n<\/em>This paper raises a critical argument on the normativity of data-driven curriculum shaping and reshaping curriculum work at all levels along an evaluative rationale. The critique evolves in two steps, the first step is deconstructive in character and draws on the work of Porter (1995) and research on data-driven curriculum work. The second step is reconstructive in character making use of the non-affirmative theory in education (Uljens &Ylimaki, 2015, 2017; Uljens, 2016, 2018) to elaborate on a more reflexive position.
\n<\/strong>The critical examination shows how competitiveness, objectivity and distance operate as educational ideals within the discourse of data-driven curriculum work, narrowing the educational imagination to what can be expressed in league tables and ranking lists and promoting easy answers to complex questions of what works. These ideals are challenged by non-affirmative theory proposing a more reflexive approach to curriculum work emphasising process rather than outcome, and questions rather than answers as drivers of these processes.<\/p>\nSession 2 \u2013 L\u00e4rares pedagogiska t\u00e4nkande<\/strong><\/h4>\nTomas Englund, \u00d6rebro universitet<\/em><\/p>\nAn attempt to develop curriculum theory and analysis in a historical and societal perspective \u2013 a starting point<\/p>\n
The aim of my presentation is to make use of my own earlier\u00a0 research, especially my dissertation from 1986, Curriculum as a Political Problem,<\/em> concerning some central concepts as the civic curriculum code and three conceptions of education within that code in an attempt to further develop a curriculum theory-approach on the latest decades of Swedish educational history and especially the curricula from 1980 (the latest curriculum within a democratic conception of education) and the current curriculum from 2011 (within a scientific-rational conception of education), linking these conceptions to different kinds of teacher professionalism. The curriculum theory perspective is also making use of a historical reference starting 100 years ago with the so called Undervisningsplan<\/em> 1919\u00a0 (Teaching plan 1919) as an expression of a civic curriculum code with principles for education in a time of democracy and parliamentarism ending up with the question if the civic curriculum code is still valid today?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Charlotta Hilli, \u00c5boAkademi University & Christa Tigerstedt, Arcada University of Applied Sciences, Finland<\/em><\/p>\nCollective processes of Bildung in Virtual Learning Environments<\/p>\n
Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) are generally considered collaborative digital environments synonymous with e-learning (Annetta, Klesath&Folta, 2010; Bates, 2005). Processes of Bildung are rarely linked to VLE:s. Therefore, this study asks, in what ways can Virtual Learning Environments support or hinder transformative processes of Bildung through students\u00b4 collective actions?\u00a0\u00a0 The concept of Bildung is a German concept often translated to self-cultivation in English (e.g. bildning in Swedish, dannelse in Danish and Norwegian). It is a fluid concept changing with time and it is found around the world under different names (Horlacher, 2016). Bildung is a never ending personal process – open, reflective, intellectual, and moral – interlinked with culture, other people, and efforts for a better world (Uljens, 2003).<\/p>\n
A posthumanistBildung offers analytic tools to understand being, knowing and doing, as it sees \u201ceducative practices as materially co-constitutive doings and actions\u201d (Taylor, 2017, p. 428). Reflective interactions with the material world are needed to make the world a better place. In a digital space, transformations of the self can be found in interfaces, the spaces for transformations (L\u00f8vlie, 2006, p. 6). VLEs can offer communicative spaces where the selves transform as students read digital texts or communicate with other people. Immediate and delayed forms of online communication can make the reflective process diverse and inclusive within a group of students. It implies theoretical, practical, and ethical knowledge for students to read, understand, and act in the digital space (Hilli, 2018).<\/p>\n
The context of this qualitative study is an online course in Professional leadership in Finland (June-July 2018). 90 participants (out of 241) agreed to take part in the study. The data are three written, individual reflections on the collective assignments in the VLE (itslearning); in the beginning, midways, and at the end of the course resulting in 270 reflections. A thematic analysis initially identified overall themes related to the complexity of collective processes in a virtual course (Creswell, 2013). The second part of the analysis meant a diffractive reading (Bozalek&Zembylas, 2017; Lenz Taguchi, 2012) to identify differences between the reflections and the effects they had on the collective processes in the VLE. The diffractive analysis meant accepting that the space for collective learning, the VLE, and the actions undertaken in that space were co-constituted in the knowledge processes during the course. Through the analysis patterns emerged and showed the entanglements of the online space and actions (Haraway, 1997). The theoretical lens of posthuman perspectives on Bildung (Taylor, 2017) was used to guide the analysis and manage the extensive data. The analysis presented during the conference is ongoing and initial.\u00a0 The patterns identified a reluctance to take part in online collaboration, some participants were not familiar with the method or the online space that limited their communication to only writing, the time for collaboration was perceived as slower and more challenging than in real time collaboration in on-campus courses. There was also excitement about the possibility to take part in online collaboration because participants perceived it as flexible and relevant to their future careers, for them the content and the method supported them to learn more about leadership, to become better communicators, group members and leaders.\u00a0\u00a0 The course challenged and supported transformations among the participants. The VLE offered spaces for reflections and spaces for disconnections; reflections were supported by access to information and structured through online assignments; actions were hindered by information overload, unclear responsibilities, time-management issues and online communication with people never meeting face to face. Actions were related to previous and new theoretical knowledge, personality traits and expectations on the group members. These are some ways to explain the co-constitutiveness and entanglements of students’ being, knowing and doing in the interfaces of a Virtual Learning Environment.<\/p>\n
References<\/strong><\/p>\nAnnetta, L. A., Folta, E. &Klesath, M. (2010). V-Learning. Distance Education in the 21st Century Through 3D Virtual Learning Environments.<\/em> New York: Springer.<\/p>\nBates, T. A. W. (2005). Technology, E-learning and Distance Education<\/em>. Second edition. Oxon: Routledge.<\/p>\nBozalek, V. &Zembylas, M. (2017). Diffraction or reflection? Sketching the contours of two methodologies in educational research. <\/em>International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(2): 111-127. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1080\/09518398.2016.1201166<\/p>\nCreswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design. Choosing Among Five Approaches. <\/em>Third Edition. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, USA.<\/p>\nHaraway, D. J. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse<\/em>. New York: Routledge.<\/p>\nHilli, C. (2018). Rethinking communication in virtual learning environments through the concept of Bildung.\u00a0 <\/em>Seminar.net. International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning, 14 (2), 109-119. Horlacher, R. (2016). The Educated Subject and the German Concept of Bildung. A Comparative Cultural History.<\/em> Oxon: Routledge.<\/p>\nLenz Taguchi, H. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data<\/em>. Feminist Theory, 13, 265-281.<\/p>\nL\u00f8vlie, L. (2006). Technocultural Education. <\/em>Seminar.net. International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning, 2(1), 1-19.<\/p>\nTaylor, C. A. (2017). Is a posthumanistBildung possible? Reclaiming the promise of Bildung for contemporary higher education<\/em>. Higher Education, 74 (3), 419-435. Doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10734-016-9994-y<\/p>\nUljens, M. (2003). The Idea of a Universal Theory of Education – and Impossible but Necessary Project?<\/em> In L. L\u00f8vlie, K. P. Mortensen and S.E. Nordenbo (Eds.), Educating Humanity. Bildung in Postmodernity(pp. 37-59). Blackwell Publishing: Malden, USA.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Martina Wyszynska Johansson, G\u00f6teborgs universitet<\/em><\/p>\nTracing the Moving \u201cTarget\u201d in Didaktik of Vocational Classroom Instruction<\/p>\n
The article explores knowledge practices of vocational instruction from a Didaktikperspective, that is, centred on teacher intentionality in qualifications-based curriculum design.
\n<\/strong>Two research questions are addressed:\u00a0 How is vocational knowing repurposed during the instruction in a qualifications-based curriculum of a vocational subject in upper secondary school? What educational goals as expressions of intentionality are emergent during classroom instruction in a qualifications-based curriculum of a vocational subject in upper secondary school? For the study of how knowledge is transposed, built up and transformed to become teachable content of vocational instruction, the Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), which draws among others on Bernstein\u00b4s model of knowledge structures, is employed. LCT is a theoretical framework for researching and changing practice with the help of a multi-dimensional methodology. The Autonomy dimension used enables studies of knowledge practices according to their internal and external degree of autonomy in relation to other social practices, e.g., work life. Networking theories of didactics and Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) methodologies helps further exploration of the concept of target in LCT.\u00a0 A secondary analysis of the data produced through participant observation is used to enable autonomy codes analysis (Maton& Howard, 2018).\u00a0 The occupation specific knowing is repurposed with the aid of emergent but soon ritualised operations involving a set of artifacts. Two targets were identified. The tangible and performative task of Devising a safety and security plan was recast into the more intangible task of social collaboration in school group work during the instruction. Thus, intentionality as a base of identifying target appeared distributed between students and the two teachers. The target hence recast tended to produce short-term proceduralised knowledge practices. Targetising collaboration appeared quite circumscribed regarding integrative knowledge-building opportunities.\u00a0 A question is raised whether qualifications-based courses, e.g., a Diploma project, framed within learning outcomes-based vocational programmes, offer too little structure for the teachers to plan their instruction according to the students\u00b4 pooling on their existing knowledge.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Session 2 \u2013 L\u00e4rarprofessionalitet<\/strong><\/h4>\n\u00a0<\/strong>Jessica Aspfors, \u00c5bo Akademi\/Nord universitet & Gunilla Eklund, \u00c5bo Akademi\/OsloMed<\/em><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/em>Teacher educators\u00b4 perceptions on scientifically designed teacher education in a Finnish and Norwegian context
\n
\n<\/em>Jessica Aspfors, Gunilla Eklund, Sven-Erik Hans\u00e9n, Tove Anita Fiskum, Anna M. Holand, KirstiJegstad, Ann-Karin Orset, Katarina Pajchel, Anne Marit Valle\u00a0 Nord University, OsloMet-Oslo Metropolitan University, \u00c5boAkademi University<\/p>\nThe aim of this study is to investigate teacher educators\u00b4 perceptions of scientifically designed teacher education and poses the following research question: – How do teacher educators perceive scientifically designed teacher education regarding the dimensions research-led, research-tutored, research-based and research-oriented?<\/p>\n
Finnish teacher education has been research-based for decades and is characterized by conventional ideas, forms and stability (Tirri, 2014). The teacher education has inspired educational reforms in other countries, such as the latest Norwegian reform in 2017 (cf. Hans\u00e9n, Sj\u00f6berg, &Eilertsen, 2014). According to the latest national curriculum plan student teachers should be prepared for continuing professional development, based on their knowledge of scientific theories and methods, and their research and development (R&D) skills (Ministry of Education and Research, 2016a, 2016b). Consequently, Finnish and Norwegian teacher education are both research-based yet differ in their reform pace, design and focus of the research-based approach. However, little is written about teacher educators\u00b4 perceptions of a scientifically designed teacher education.<\/p>\n
The study is part of a larger comparative research project in Finland and Norway focusing on scientifically designed teacher education. The study has a mixed methods approach and the empirical data is collected through a questionnaire survey and interviews with teacher educators at the departments of primary school teacher education at \u00c5boAkademi University, Oslo Metropolitan University and Nord University.<\/p>\n
The survey was conducted in December 2018-February 2019 and was completed with interviews with a selection of teacher educators in spring 2019. Statistical analyses are performed using both descriptive and inferential statistics, including both non-parametric and parametric methods. In the presentation, we will give an overview of the results from the statistical analyses.<\/p>\n
The findings will be discussed and related to previous research as well as to studies conducted within the overall project. In Finland, the results from previous studies with student teachers and newly qualified teachers (NQTs) (Aspfors & Eklund, 2017; Eklund, 2018) show that mainly the explicit parts of teacher education are emphasized in terms of writing scientific theses, reading previous research and using scientific literature, while the implicit parts in terms of personal and professional development are not so obvious. The results further highlight that both groups have difficulties relating research-based education to the profession. In Norway, previous studies indicate that NQTs show an ambivalence between R&D-based knowledge and the possibilities to draw on these in their future work (Jakhelln, Eklund, Aspfors, Bj\u00f8rndal&St\u00f8len, in review). The paradigm shift in Norwegian teacher education thus challenges the field of practice and how to understand the teacher profession. Similar tendencies are expected amongst the teacher educators and will be further discussed in the presentation.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nAndreas Bergh, <\/em>\u00d6rebro universitet<\/em>&Matilda Wiklund, Stockholms universitet<\/em><\/p>\nTeachers\u2019 experiences of conditions for anti-racist action<\/p>\n
This study takes its departure from two teachers?descriptions of challenges and possibilities that they have experienced as conditioning their professional anti-racist actions. The two descriptions are excerpts from qualitative interviews, conducted within a larger research project about teachers?work to counteract racism, of which this study is a part. The aim of this part study is to contribute with insights about what teachers experience as conditioning their anti-racist actions. This knowledge is of importance for teachers?didactic choices in their anti-racist work, as well as for school leadership facilitating such work. In the study, racism and anti-racism are understood as enacted practices. Agency, as something achieved and situated, constitutes a central theoretical lens. Therefore, ecological teacher agency conceptions are put to work in the analysis. Tentative findings are presented in the form of teachers?experiences of conditions for anti-racist action in terms of: 1. Personal experiences over time, 2. Professional experiences over time, 3. National contextual issues, and 4. Localcontextissues.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Ana Lucia Lennert da Silva, H\u00f8gskoleniInnlandet& Christina EldeM\u00f8lstad, H\u00f8gskoleniInnlandet<\/em><\/p>\nProfessional autonomy and agency in between teachers and national policy: a comparative study in Brazilian and Norwegian lower-secondary schools<\/p>\n
This paper addresses how professional autonomy and agency are constructed in-between teachers and curriculum policy in Brazil and Norway. We investigated discourses about teachers and teaching made by teachers themselves and other policy actors in these two countries. Moreover, we combined the concepts of teacher autonomy and teacher agency to discuss teacher professionalism and teachers\u00b4 relationships with policy discourses. The focus is on the dimension of teacher autonomy and teacher agency that corresponds to self-directedness and freedom from control (Erss, 2018; Mausethagen&M\u00f8lstad, 2015; Priestley et al., 2015). This dimension is similar to the concept of practice of freedom (Foucault, 1997, 1997a). We conducted semi-structured interviews (Kvale&Brinkmann, 2015) with 20 teachers with different backgrounds in lower-secondary public schools (11 in Brazil and 9 in Norway) to gain a sense of the multifaceted complexity of teachers\u00b4 relationships with policy. One finding is that, in Brazil and Norway, teachers described themselves as models of good teachers and teaching, and usually provided examples of colleagues that they considered bad teachers or situations of bad teaching, as in the use of discursive practices in education (Ball &Olmedo, 2013; Stickney, 2012). Furthermore, teachers have different approaches to policy. Some of them believed that is part of being a professional to adopt entirely the national curriculum. Some of the teachers saw policy as a mere formality, not influencing their practice. Others questioned the goals and content of policies, since they did not match with the reality of the school. We still have to elaborate on the nuances and differences among the countries. However, we can say that teacher autonomy and teacher agency depends not only on contextual factors, but also on personal factors, and that both can be achieved despite a working environment of increased accountability.<\/p>\n
Keywords<\/em>: Comparative study; teachers\u00b4 perceptions; teacher autonomy; teacher agency; curriculum<\/p>\n