1

2007

Margareta Sandström KjellinMälardalen University, Sweden

Pupils’ and Teachers’ understanding of the Nature of Classroom Dialogue in Sweden

2

2007

1. Political literacy

2. Attitudes and values

3. Active participation of pupils

Citizenship according to Eurydice (2005)

3

2007

A case study of the ’attitudes and values’ aspect

• Sandström Kjellin & Stier (2007) report five national case studies of performance of the ’attitudes and values’ aspect

• The classroom dialogue was horizontal only in Sweden

• The Commission of the European communities suggest that future Europeans will need certain ’key competences’ One suggested competence is ’interpersonal, intercultural, social and civic competence’

4

2007

The Swedish National curriculum

• Since 1994 each school is responsible for their own school’s development

• A set of ’fundamental values’ should be the basis for all work in schools

• The fundamental values include that pupils should be involved in making decisions of for example the character of the classroom dialogue

5

2007

Two goals for the school

• Goals to be attained = to master basic skills of for example reading and writing

• Goals to strive towards =to master more ’sophisticated’ skills, based on the fundmental values. The purpose is to educate citizens who can particpate in a public debate on problems of modern society (= ’citizenship’/sustainable development)

6

2007

Confusion about the goals

• The goals are being reconsidered: the fundamental values will still be emphasized;

• the National Curriculum will contain the overarching goals

• In the national syllabuses there will be only one type of goals; they will concern the subject knowledge

7

2007

The new goals

• The expression ’to have attained the goals’ will not be used any more

• Instead, the goals will describe ’in what direction’ the instruction goes

• There will be only one kind of goals, but they will not be equivalent to the previous Goals to attain

8

2007

To categorize values mediation

Colnerud (2004) suggests that you distinguish between:

• Moral instruction (when teachers tell pupils what is right and what is wrong)

• Moral conversation (when teachers and pupils consider moral problems)

• Moral interaction (when the teacher genuinely listens to the pupils and shows confidence)

9

2007

Aims of this paper • To report and discuss a study in which 15-year-old

pupils at a Swedish multi-cultural school describe how values are mediated in the classroom in comparison to how their teachers describe this. Did the pupils, and the teachers, describe the classroom dialogue as

1. moral instruction

2. moral conversation and/or

3. moral interaction?

10

2007

Theoretical inputs

• Bourdieu (1993): values are culture-specific

• Durkheim (1956): values are transmitted over generations in the socialisation and enculturation process

• Heath (1983): common social background favours teacher-pupil interaction

• Ogbu (1997): Belonging to the same ’speech community’ favours teacher-pupil

11

2007

Methodological approach

• A case study performed at one specific school, a diverse secondary school in mid-Sweden

• Participants were all 42 teachers and 76 (=50% of the ) 15-year-old pupils

• 19 focus group dialogues were used to collect data (5 groups of teachers, and 14 groups of pupils)

12

2007

Method …

• Teachers and pupils were not asked exactly the same questions, and they were not asked explicitly how the classroom dialogue was

• Colnerud’s distinction was used to categorize the retorts in the dialogues

• The participation in the dialogues was self-estimated

13

2007

Results: participation in the dialogues

• 83% of the teachers and 84% of the pupils ’had absolutely/to some extent brought forward their views

• The pupils made comments like”This was fun/good/nice” etc

• Some of the teachers made comments like ”this was good/profitable” etc., and some made comments like ”this was a waste of time/not natural/felt forced” etc.

14

2007

Result: Character of the classroom dialogue

• All groups mentioned ’moral instruction’

• 80% of the teacher groups mentioned ’moral conversation’, and 50% of the pupil groups did so

• 80% of the teacher groups mentioned ’moral interaction’ and 64% of the pupil groups did so

15

2007

Results: moral education

• Moral instruction was mentioned to 54% by the pupils and to 14% by the teachers

• Moral conversation was mentioned equally by pupils and teachers (9%/8%)

• Moral interaction was mentioned to 37% by the pupils and to 78% by the teachers

• The pupils tried to interact with the focus group moderators

16

2007

Categorization: moral instruction

• ”If you sort of step into the classroom with a box of sweets:’what have we said about the rules’?” (pupil)

• ”… make them understand that when someone is talking you should listen” (teacher)

17

2007

Categorization: moral conversation

• ”There are certain countries in Asia where people don’t have the same rights as we have in Sweden. We talk about why it is like that there but not here. It is different societies” (pupil)

• ”It’s when they start asking ’why do you say this’? Then they will say ’in my country it is like this’ and then I will encourage them to talk and we will compare” (teacher)

18

2007

Categorization: moral interaction

• [about teachers] ”Best friends – you can talk with many of the teachers about anything. They can talk to us also about almost anything” (pupil)

• ”When pupils have brought up a subject that they, that feels very important right then […] because then they will forget, I think, that you are a teacher and they see you more like an adult or just a partner in the conversation maybe” (teacher)

19

2007

Discussion • The participation was high for both groups; the pupils’

comments were more positive

• The pupils thought that ’moral instruction’ was delivered more than the teachers did

• The teachers thought that ’moral interaction’ occurred more than the pupils did

• The fact that the pupils tried to interact with the moderators is seen as a sign that they were used to being allowed to interact with adults

20

2007

Continuation of the project …

• The teachers were trained to guide each other at solving problems

• The result was that the problems they presented were A. on general level (3)

• B. group level (6)

• C. on individual level (3)

21

2007

• A. For the problems on general level, advice were given about moral instruction and structural measures

• B. For the problems on group level, advice were given about moral instruction/conversation/interaction and also structural measures

• C. For the problems on individual level, advice were given about moral instruction and conversation and also about structural measures

22

2007

Conclusions • There was a trusting relationship between the pupils and

the adults in this study; this is seen as a prerequisite for teenagers to take an interest in the adult world

• How can teachers combine this moral education with the changes planned as regards the focus on ’basic skills’? This is also seen as a sign that these pupils are encouraged to develop the key competence ’interpersonal, intercultural, social and civic competence’

• How can teachers combine this moral education with the changes planned as regards the focus on ’basic skills’?