1.30018!PupilsVoices

8/2/2019 1.30018!PupilsVoices

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/130018pupilsvoices 1/19

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandström]

On: 24 March 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 920282265]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713421837

Pupils' voices about citizenship education: comparative case studies in

Finland, Sweden and EnglandMargareta Sandström Kjellin a; Jonas Stier a; Tanja Einarson a; Trevor Davies b;Tuula Asunta c

a Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden b University of Reading, Institute of Education, Reading, UKc Jyväskylä University, Department of Teacher Education, Jyväskylä, Finland

Online publication date: 24 March 2010

To cite this Article Sandström Kjellin, Margareta , Stier, Jonas , Einarson, Tanja , Davies, Trevor andAsunta, Tuula(2010)'Pupils' voices about citizenship education: comparative case studies in Finland, Sweden and England', European Journalof Teacher Education, 33: 2, 201 — 218

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02619761003631823

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619761003631823

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly

or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713421837

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619761003631823

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619761003631823

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713421837



European Journal of Teacher Education

Vol. 33, No. 2, May 2010, 201–218

ISSN 0261-9768 print/ISSN 1469-5928 online© 2010 Association for Teacher Education in EuropeDOI: 10.1080/02619761003631823http://www.informaworld.com

Pupils’ voices about citizenship education: comparative case studies

in Finland, Sweden and EnglandMargareta Sandström Kjellina*, Jonas Stier a, Tanja Einarsona, Trevor Davies b andTuula Asuntac

a Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden; bUniversity of Reading, Institute of Education, Reading, UK; c Jyväskylä University, Department of Teacher Education, Jyväskylä, Finland

Taylorand FrancisLtdCETE_A_463691.sgm10.1080/02619761003631823EuropeanJournalof TeacherEducation0261-9768(print)/1469-5928(online)OriginalArticle2010Taylor& Francis332000000May2010DrMargaretaSandströ[email protected]

The aim of the article is to present and discuss a study in which Finnish, Englishand Swedish pupils’ understanding of citizenship education with regard to: (a)

political literacy; and (b) attitudes and values was explored. The study was a cross-national, multiple case study and data were collected through 18 focus group

dialogues with 15-year-old pupils. Results showed that English pupils were muchmore well-informed about rights and responsibilities than their Nordiccounterparts and also more skilled rhetorically, but appeared less accustomed toopen and confident relationships with adults than the Swedish pupils. Finnish

pupils did not seem to be encouraged to talk; instead they kept their thoughts andfeelings to themselves. One conclusion, among others, was that the studyilluminates conditions for the development of a so-called key competence – i.e.,‘interpersonal, intercultural, social and civic competence’.

Keywords: attitudes and values; citizenship education; cross-national case study; political literacy; pupils’ voices

Introduction

The term ‘citizenship’ evokes different interpretations and meanings in differentEuropean countries. In some countries a judicial relationship between the state and itscitizens is emphasised whereas the social role of ‘coexisting in society’ is emphasisedin others. In both instances, Marshall’s article ‘Citizenship and social class’ (1949/1950) has exerted much influence on contemporary notions of citizenship. Also, in

both instances, individuals must possess certain competencies to exercise their citizen-ship. In the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme, the European Commis-sion singles out so called key competencies (for example, ‘interpersonal, intercultural,social and civic competencies’) that future Europeans need. Given this judgement,citizenship education plays a significant role that in turn highlights the need for moreresearch in this field.

Eurydice (2005) distinguishes between citizenship education aiming at develop-ing: (i) political literacy; (ii) attitudes and values; and (iii) active pupil participation(see also Sandström Kjellin and Stier 2006). The ‘political literacy’ and ‘attitudes andvalues’ aspects of citizenship education serve to educate, enable and motivateEuropean citizens to engage themselves in democratic dialogues on sustainable devel-opment and the future of society – issues entangled with interpretations of individualmoral and collective ethics to consider. This article focuses on the first two aspects of citizenship education, and in particular on the ‘attitudes and values’ aspect. We

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]



202 M. Sandström Kjellin et al.

consider it vital for future Europeans to be given the opportunity to participate indemocratic dialogues that begin in school classrooms. Traditionally, values aremediated in school, whereas postmodern ethics demand that they are negotiated . The

potential conflict between modern and postmodern ethics has been discussed byBaumann (1996), Nussbaum (1995) and Hedin (2001).

In Sweden there is a body of research on ‘fundamental values’ in school, attempt-ing to link theory to practice (see Colnerud 2004; Orlenius 2001; Tornberg 2004). InEngland, the link between educational theory and practice has been driven more byeconomic theory than educational theory mediated by government. There is a dualfocus on the needs of the individual learner and the efficiency of schools andeducational systems (Crick 2007; Frazer 2007; Department for Children, Schools andFamilies [DCSF] 2006; Woodhead 2002; Haydon 1997; Mace 2001; Myers 2000;Kerr 2005). The Crick report (Crick 1998) lies at the heart of modern approaches tocitizenship education in England. It emphasizes that citizenship education shouldfoster respect for law, justice and democracy.

Whilst in England it has been more common for citizenship education to beviewed in terms of structured curriculum components, traditional teaching methodsand structured assessment, ideas of pupil voice have been rarely mentioned (Irelandet al. 2006). Research on pupils’ voice was a result of the 1989 United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child. Ruddock and Flutter (2000) argue that pupils’voice is essential in citizenship education; the challenge is not the knowledge about citizenship that is the issue, but the ‘experience of the principles of citizenship’ (79).This argumentation resembles that in Sweden, by, for example, Colnerud (2004),Orlenius (2001) and Tornberg (2004). However, these researchers connect their argumentation to the realization of the ‘fundamental values’ stressed by the National

Curriculum (Utbildningsdepartementet 1994), as democracy in the meaning of horizontal teacher–pupil communication, whereas Ruddock and Flutter (2000), evenif they mention democracy, connect their argumentation to the importance of listeningto the pupils’ voice to school improvement. This may be a difference depending onthe countries’ unique curricula. Below Eriksson’s (2007) categorisation of English,Finnish and Swedish curricula will be presented.

Suutarinen (2002) as well as Brunell and Törmäkangas (2002) have explored inter-national citizenship education from a Finnish perspective. They found that Finnish

pupils have more positive attitudes towards their own nation than Swedish or English pupils. On the other hand, compared to their Swedish or English peers, they believethere are limited possibilities to exert influence in school. Suutarinen’s study (2002)also showed that Finnish boys have much less positive attitudes towards immigrantsthan Swedish or English boys. Moreover, Torney-Purta et al. (2001), Colnerud andThornberg (2003), Schweisfurth, Davies and Harber (2002) and Wilde (2005) offer international outlooks on citizenship education. Apart from these studies, we have notfound any recent studies on the ‘attitudes and values’ aspect of citizenship education,with respect to reflecting upon the nature of pupils’ classroom dialogue, and with

comparisons of the situation in different countries.Against this background, this text is to be a contribution to the research field on

citizenship education. It focuses on how ‘pupil voice’ in citizenship education is dealtwith in classrooms in Finland, Sweden and England. More specifically, from a

comparative angle and using Colnerud’s (2004) typology of moral education, the aimis to explore Finnish, English and Swedish pupils’ understanding of citizenship



European Journal of Teacher Education 203

education with regard to: (i) political literacy; and (ii) attitudes and values. Researchquestions are: How does pupils’ talk contribute towards ‘political literacy’ and subse-quent performance? How do they talk about the ‘development of critical thinking andcertain attitudes and values with regard to citizenship issues’? Can their citizenshipeducation be described as ‘moral instruction’, ‘moral conversation’, or ‘moral interac-

tion’? Finally, what is the tone of the pupils’ ‘voices’ in the three countries when theydiscuss issues associated with citizenship education?

Finnish, Swedish and English schools

The attainment values systems associated with Finnish, Swedish and English schoolsdiffer. By the same token, Eriksson (2007) suggests that the three countries’ curriculadiffer in the degree of openness to the ‘attitudes and values’ aspect of citizenshipeducation. She sees Kelly’s (2005) curriculum theory models (i.e., ‘the content-focused’, ‘the result-focused’ and ‘the process and development-focused curriculum’)

as appropriate for comparative analyses, although she does not consider Kelly’sdistinctions to be fully compatible with Nordic curriculum theory tradition. Thereason for this, according to Eriksson (2007), is that Kelly (2005) does not account for educational political matters to the same extent as the Nordic researchers.

With roots in the late 1800s, ‘content-focused curricula’ typically stipulate the body of knowledge schools should deliver to their pupils (Eriksson 2007). By doingso, they ensure cultural reproduction. Knowledge is seen as an external entity, locatedoutside the pupil, obtained through memorising. Influenced by the predominant ‘testtradition’ evolved from the 1930s, ‘result-focused curricula’ proclaim overall educa-tional goals can be divided into subordinate goals, which relate to the individual

achievements of the pupils. Once again, curricular knowledge is seen as an externalentity to be transmitted to pupils. Finally, ‘process and development-focused curric-ula’ take embedded societal values into consideration (e.g., democracy, freedom andequality) (Eriksson 2007). These curricula stand in stark contrast with both thecontent-focused and the result-focused curricula. Instead, the development and poten-tial of the individual child is stressed. Goals in such curricula concern, for example,aspects of democracy or sustainable development.

Drawing from Eriksson (2007), the English curriculum is highly detailed and predominantly result-oriented, where goals reached can be ticked off. There is an in- built assumption that the achievements of pupils differ (and that some of them will not

go very far). In addition, the English curriculum contains elements of content-focus.Domains are divided into sections that in turn are divided into subsections. Eachsubsection is precisely described and the development of technical skills prioritised.In comparison, the Finnish curriculum is contradictory (Eriksson 2007). Given itsmeta-cognitive passages (e.g., goals stipulating that pupils should be able to evaluatetheir own learning process), it can be described as process and development-focused.Yet, with much attention given to knowledge components, it is also ‘content-focused’.Stipulating minimum levels for the pupils’ knowledge development, it can be said to

be result-focused.The reason for Kelly’s curriculum theory not being applicable to the Swedish

curriculum (Eriksson 2007) is that it is not content-focused and only partly result-focused (since classroom instruction is not organized on the basis of ‘basic skills’achievement). Nor does the Swedish curriculum focus on processes and child




development. With this being said, a different model, accounting for goals stipulatingdirection but which are not necessarily hierarchical or quantitatively operationalised,is needed to describe the Swedish curriculum since it constructs knowledge as ‘prac-tice-bound’ and competence-focused. She concludes that whereas Finnish and Englishcurricula consider knowledge to be hierarchic, decomposable and transferable, the

Swedish curriculum sees knowledge as a content to be developed that possesses acommunicative and reciprocal character.

The Swedish National Curriculum strongly emphasises ‘fundamental values’(Utbildningsdepartementet 1994). For schools and teachers the educational task is tofacilitate young people’s acquisition of these values, so they eventually become activecitizens involved in the public debate on late modern society, sustainable development,democracy, etc. Thus, such ‘fundamental values’ correspond to the ‘attitudes andvalues’ aspect of the European idea of ‘citizenship’ and pertain to the pupils’ moraleducation. Whereas citizenship constitutes an independent subject in English schools,‘fundamental values’ must permeate instruction in every subject in Swedish schools.

Values and moral education

Cultural values influence human attitudes and actions, consciously or subconsciously(Ödman 1998). Values are reproduced over generations via socialisation and encultur-ation processes (Durkheim 1956; Berger and Luckmann 1966), and are culture-specific (Bourdieu 1993). Additionally, a culture’s value system and moral system areintricately interconnected. This means that values make up the basis for people’s

personal morality. From this it follows that, as important socialisation agents, school-teachers’ attitudes and actions are key vehicles in ‘moral education’. In the classroom,

teachers constantly pass on ‘desirable’ values, explicitly and implicitly.With respect to the level of verticality/horizontality1 in teacher–pupil interaction patterns, Colnerud’s (2004) singles out three types of moral education – i.e., ‘moralinstruction’, ‘moral conversation’ and ‘moral interaction’. Moral instruction meansinstructing pupils’ value-based ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’. It has to do with actions; suchinstruction is necessary for instance, when pupils harm themselves or each other.Moral instruction becomes problematic when instructions take the shape of languageof force, scolding or violation, which typically lead to temporary adaptation. Another

problem is that moral instruction can cause ‘timely obedience’. Moral conversation refers to joint teacher–pupil explorations of moral problems

originating in the classroom or in society as such. Colnerud sees moral conversationsas essential for pupils’ ability to develop and formulate both their own and other people’s moral standpoints and perspectives. A problem with moral conversationstems from the asymmetrical teacher–pupil relationship. Teachers must find a produc-tive balance between a classroom situation where values are ‘passed on’ to the pupils(and where they may not reflect upon them) and one where the pupils themselves areresponsible for scrutinising and arguing for adoption of their values. Colnerud (1995)has found that Swedish teachers find it difficult to know the degree to which differentopinions should be allowed in moral conversations. Therefore, she says, teachers must

be able to articulate their personal standpoints on value issues as well as open up for investigations of different standpoints.

Finally, moral interaction refers to teacher–pupil interplay where the teacher treats pupils respectfully, and pupils feel that they are listened to and the teacher has




confidence in their abilities. More than in the other forms of moral education, non-verbal behaviour (e.g., mimics, body posture, proxemics) or prosodic cues (e.g.,intonation, strength of voice, irony) come into play in moral interaction. However,since much of the implicit moral message is culturally embedded in ‘respectfultreatment’, as it is experienced by the pupils, it is both hard to reflect upon and diffi-

cult to understand if there is not a common cultural frame of reference. Typically, inmulticultural classes, embedded meanings in social interactions are taken-for-granted

by some pupils, whereas they are incomprehensible to others. Other research showsthat a shared class or ethnic background is favourable to teacher–pupil interaction

patterns, whereas differences in ethnocultural belonging complicate them (Heath1983). Belonging to the same ‘speech community’ provides a joint theory of speakingand cultural rules for speaking (Ogbu 1997).

Method

This is a cross-national, multiple case study. Comparative research sheds light uponour way of living and provides useful examples from other countries. It is recognisedthat analytical interpretations may be obscured by ethnocentrism and insufficientfamiliarity with conditions and culture of other countries, whereas ‘homeblindness’related to deep-rooted values and assumptions may obscure those of the home coun-try. To compensate for this, a manual was constructed in advance and used when

performing the focus group dialogues; results were analysed in collaboration withcolleagues from the countries under investigation in the pre-analysis phase.

In total, 92 15-year-old pupils served as study participants: 29 from Finland (17 boys and 12 girls), 34 from England (24 boys and 10 girls) and 32 from Sweden (19

boys and 13 girls). Informed consent was collected from study participants. They wereinformed that they could choose not to participate at all or to terminate their participation at any time in the study, and that confidentiality would be observed whenreporting the study. Since the teenagers were 15 years old, written consent was notcollected. The pupils and their parents were also informed about the study’s purpose,method, etc.

In each country, six focus group dialogues were conducted. Each group was madeup of four–six pupils. Using the manual, study participants were asked if in class theytalked about: (1) rights and responsibilities, (2) how to be and act in the classroom, (3)things that were important for them, and (4) how they behaved towards others at

school (teachers, staff, visitors, fellow pupils). With the exception of providingclarifications and using probes, the researcher remained passive during the dialogue,thus allowing pupils to steer the conversation and speak as freely as possible.

Variation in ethnocultural composition in schools in the three countries wasaccounted for, and study participants were sampled similarly in Sweden and England,selecting ‘multicultural schools’. Given the monoculturality of Finnish society (withthe Helsinki-area as an exception), it was only possible to find a school with very few

pupils of non-Finnish descent. Six focus groups from two classes were selected – bothconsidered as medium-performing (according to their teachers). In Sweden, two ‘low-

performing’, two ‘medium’ and two ‘well-performing’ classes were selected.2 InEngland, form tutor groups with ethnic diversity were selected. All three schools havea reputation of being well run and successful, and the focus groups were randomlyselected, the consent to participate being one important criterion.




The focus groups allowed for data collection by group interaction through aninvestigation of participants’ ideas and values (Wibeck 2000). One disadvantage of the method is that existing relationships between people may limit the validity.Participants were asked to validate their participation by completing a written evalu-ation following the dialogues, where they were asked to state the extent

(‘completely’/‘to some extent’/‘not so much’/‘not at all’) to which they had statedtheir opinions in the conversation. Evaluations were then summarised quantitatively.In the summaries, for the sake of simplicity, the first two and the second two state-ments were joined. The focus group dialogues were conducted over a three-month

period. Using the same manual, five researchers were responsible for data-collection(two in England and Sweden and one in Finland).3 The focus group dialogues lasted20–60 minutes, were tape-recorded, transcribed and translated. For the purposes of analysis, the focus of the transcriptions was the content of the pupils’ statements.Less detailed transcriptions therefore sufficed, since it was the rendering of thecontents of the informants’ statements that was important, not a ‘micro-level’ analy-

sis (Wibeck 2000). However, the researchers documented their impressions of thedialogue sessions, accounting for prosodic cues, silence, apparent contradictions instatements, etc, in the conversations.

The focus group dialogues were analysed qualitatively. The Swedish researchgroup made a preliminary categorisation of data from all three countries usingColnerud’s distinction of three types of moral education. Thereafter, the researchersfrom England and Finland were given the opportunity to add comments and suggestchanges. A final analysis was then completed by the authors.

ResultsThe pupils’ evaluations of their participation in the focus group dialogues were firstsummarised quantitatively, followed by an account of how familiar they were with the‘political literacy’ aspect of citizenship education.4 The extent to which pupils depictdifferent types of value mediation (i.e., moral instruction, moral conversation andmoral interaction) is thereafter described in addition to whether they initiated interac-tion with the focus group researchers in the dialogues or not. This is followed byexamples of how the pupils’ retorts in the dialogues were categorised. Finally,summaries are made of how the ‘tone’ of the group sounded when the teenagers weredescribing classroom communication in the dialogues. Taken together, the result is

considered to constitute the ‘pupils’ voices’.

Self-estimation of focus group dialogue participation

Table 1 below shows that the self-estimated participation in the focus group dialogueswas relatively high in the three national groups.

Twenty-one per cent of English pupils claimed they did not state all their personalviews because of a ‘fear of embarrassing someone’, whereas 8% of them said this wasdue to ‘a feeling of group pressure’. Comments like ‘this was a good idea’, ‘interest-ing’, ‘enjoyable’ and ‘helpful’ were made in the group. A few wrote that they wereunhappy with the ways in which teachers were ‘disrespectful’ or labelled pupils as

‘bad’. Amongst Finnish pupils, 3%, did not share all their views out of ‘fear of embarrassing someone’ – for 3% ‘a feeling of group pressure’ was the reason for not




doing so. A few said they were either unfamiliar with this or did not like it, whereasothers meant it was ‘fun’ or ‘good’. Moreover, 12% of Swedish pupils did not bringforward all their views because of ‘fear of embarrassing someone’, whereas for 12%of them ‘a feeling of group pressure’ was the reason for not doing so. They madecomments such as ‘this was fun’, ‘very fun’, ‘interesting’, ‘good’ and ‘important’.

Performance of ‘political literacy’

English pupils seemed well-informed about their ‘rights and responsibilities’ andthere were many examples where they made statements such as:

It might have something to do with the country you come from… [they have] differenttraditions and stuff, which means you have to do different things and you have differentresponsibilities like with just different ethnic background and stuff like that.

The focus group researcher asked many follow-up questions about the detailssurrounding rights and responsibilities. Swedish pupils seemed relatively uninformedabout ‘rights and responsibilities’. Some were even completely unaware of theconcepts of ‘rights’ and ‘responsibilities’: ‘I don’t even know what it means’ or ‘weonly have classroom rules’. The focus group researchers did not address many follow-up questions about this aspect of citizenship education. Moving on, Finnish pupilsseemed not as well-informed as the English, but more than their Swedish counterparts.They provided more detailed examples of rights and responsibilities, for example, ‘theright to common access’ or the responsibility to obey traffic rules. The focus groupresearcher posed few follow-up questions on such topics.

Attitudes and values /value mediation

In the focus group dialogues, the number of retorts was counted, accounting for

how frequently values mediation in the classroom could be classified as moralinstruction, moral conversation or moral interaction. Figures in Table 2 belowdenote the number of retorts in percentage in relation to the total number of retortscategorised.

Table 1. Self-estimation of the focus group dialogue participation.

England Finland Sweden

Have absolutely/to some extent brought forward their views 100 84 84Have not/not to a large extent brought forward their views 16 16

Table 2. Distribution of retorts (%) for the type of values mediation.

Moral instruction Moral conversation Moral interaction

Finland 50 50 0

England 57 34 9Sweden 56 13 31




One can see that in all the groups, ‘values mediated through moral instruction’ wasa substantial part of the total number of categorised retorts. Yet, it must be noted thatthe total number of categorised retorts was almost the same in England and Sweden(102 retorts in England and 96 in Sweden), but in Finland only six retorts could becategorised. Thus, Finnish pupils were extremely taciturn. Also, ‘moral conversation’

did not occur so much in Sweden (or in Finland, since the number of retorts in Finlandwas so low) as in England. The most significant difference, however, was in ‘moralinteraction’, which was much more common in Sweden than in the other countries.

Furthermore, there were examples of Swedish pupils trying to interact with the focus group researcher by asking questions such as: ‘do you like to cook?’ ‘whocooks in your family: you or your husband?’ or ‘do you have any children?’ Some of them also explored the limits of what an unknown strange adult could be asked: for example: ‘do you think it is wise to use condoms?’ Amongst English pupils, no exam-

ples of pupils trying to interact with the focus group researchers were found. Insteadthere were retorts suggesting that the pupils wanted to have more moral conversation/

interaction with their teachers. The most striking result amongst Finnish pupils wasonce again the lack of interaction and dialogue among the pupils, where theyanswered the questions in minimalist ways.

Examples of categorisation

There were many examples of retorts categorised as values mediated via moralinstruction. An English pupil commented: ‘If you’re naughty they like tell you how to

behave’, whereas a Finnish pupil said: ‘There has been some teaching of mannerssometimes’. Similarly, their Swedish counterpart said: ‘If you step into the classroom

with a box of sweets, the teacher may say “what have we said about the rules”?’ Addi-tionally, there were examples of retorts categorised as values being mediated viamoral conversation: ‘We discuss right and wrong ways of behaving in citizenship[education] and compare religious beliefs’, said one English pupil. In a Finnish pupil’swords: ‘Sometimes we do talk about this during history or geography class’. By thesame token a Swedish pupil commented: ‘It is sort of fun during social studies,

because everybody will end up talking about the Second World War… Like this Adolf Hitler… get a pattern you know’. Among the Finnish pupils, no retorts were foundwhich can be categorised as values being mediated through moral interaction. Exam-

ples from England and Sweden were: ‘The only people I talk to are people like the

tutor and that is cause I know them really well and I can trust them that they won’t tellanybody else’ (English pupil) and (about a teacher) ‘She never assumes that anybodywill do something bad on purpose’ (Swedish pupil).

The tone of the pupils’ voices in Finland

The tones of the voices of Finnish pupils as a whole were very similar, i.e., as groupsthey sounded very secure, self-confident but laconic, ‘low-key’ (in two groups the

pupils said only a few words), down-to-earth. Yet, the dialogue groups can be cate-gorised as: (i) those where the tone of the pupils’ voices expressed obedience towardsall others at school; (ii) those selectively indifferent to other staff than teachers; and

(iii) those who were obedient towards teachers, but not towards other school staff (thus, ‘selectively obedient’).




All-obedient

Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as ‘all-obedient’. These pupilswere not very talkative and for this reason the conversations could not even besummarised. In one of the groups, it was said that in class there was not much talk about how to behave, they simply knew how to behave. They said for example ‘[I am]friendly towards the cleaners’ or ‘[I behave] similarly towards all’. In the classroom,focus was more on norm-guided behaviour and interaction than discussing and scru-tinising the norms per se in a democratic and open manner. Here ‘power-distance’

became obvious; regardless of public policies and curricula, teachers and pupils areunequal classroom participants.

Selectively indifferent

Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as ‘selectively indifferent’.These pupils seemed down-to-earth and said that they occasionally brought up thingsthat interested and evoked their curiosity in class. Yet, they had few experiences of fellow pupils or friends of immigrant descent. One of them said ‘there are two immi-grant students at the school, they are not much noticed’, and they seemed uninterestedor even indifferent to (but not condescending) towards other staff.

Selectively obedient

Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as ‘selectively obedient’. In thedialogues, these pupils typically talk about responsibilities in school such as the rightto work in peace and obligation not to disturb others. ‘[You have the] right to work in

peace at school’ and ‘[you have the] duty to let your classmates work without disturb-ing them’. At the same time, duties were seldom discussed in class, and they claimedsuch issues were parental responsibilities. Whereas they to some degree revealedcondescending attitudes towards other school staff, they were obedient towards their teachers. Additionally, they claimed that a limited number of pupils and teachersoccasionally expressed racist attitudes.

The tone of the pupils’ voices in Sweden

The tone of the voices of the Swedish dialogue groups was categorised as: (i) weak;

(ii) content; or (iii) very loud.

Weak

Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as ‘weak’. This is another wayof reporting that these pupils seemed very contented, did not seem to have anythingto be upset about and did not seem to expect classroom teacher–pupil communicationto be an important means of communicating. Pupils belonging to this group saw them-selves as ‘nice’ and ‘well-educated’. Being satisfied with things in school and all tooaware of the fact that other pupils were not as ‘well off’ as themselves, they talked

about social injustices. They kept their teachers at arm’s length (and similarly thefocus group researcher). Yet, they said that it would be possible to have closer




personal relationships with teachers, but saw no point in this for their own part: ‘It issomething else if you haven’t got good relationship with your parents, then you mightwant to talk to the teacher instead’. Sometimes, they conversed with the school cleaner and saw her as a very nice person: ‘The lady who cleans the place here – she is sonice… we talk a lot with her. She gives us Thai sweets’. In short, these pupils seemed

happy with everything.

Contented

Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as ‘contented’. In this group, pupils were overall satisfied with ‘their situation’. Their only complaint pertained tothe process of establishing school rules. For example, if they entered a lesson after a

break and were in the process of finishing a conversation with a friend; rules do notallow them to do so, which they considered unfair. With embarrassment on their faces,they also claimed that some teachers did not dare to use the authority provided by their

professional role to pursue behavioural norms in the classroom, i.e. to tell misbehav-ing pupils off. Albeit they occasionally talked to teachers about other things, such asa good goal in a football match; much time was spent discussing classroom rules.Overall, they characterised their relationship with teachers as good: ‘We are nice tothe teachers and they are nice to us. This is a good school’.

Very loud-voiced

Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as ‘very loud’. These pupilsquestioned their abilities, felt powerless and ‘in despair’. They dreaded adult life, and

yet seemed very anxious that things would turn well for them: ‘To make it at school – that’s what I think about all the time’. Amongst teachers, other staff and pupils alike,their class was seen as ‘troublesome’ and they said they had scared off severalteachers. These pupils were disappointed that their teachers had ‘abandoned’ them and

blamed them for not taking the time to listen to them or supporting them enough. Theycriticised the fact that they were not invited to discussions on school rules. Much timewas also spent discussing their sense of isolation and how they did not dare to contactother pupils. Instead they showed much concern for their ‘gang’: ‘We are like pals;we treat each other as brothers you see! But others… what’s it called… if not… if theyare mean or something… then we will also be sort of mean’. They worried about

being out-distanced by other pupils and adult life in general and wanted good schoolreports: ‘If you just get a good result you will get a good job’. All in all, these pupilsto a large extent seemed to view themselves as victims of an unfair system.

The tone of the pupils’ voices in England

The tones of the voices of the English pupils were categorised as: (i) weak; (ii)resigned; or (iii) bitter.

Weak

Three groups used a tone that was characterised as ‘weak’. As with the Swedish pupilsthat were characterised as having a ‘weak’ tone, these pupils did not seem to expect




much from classroom teacher–pupil communication. These pupils seemed well- behaved and well-informed. They linked the concepts ‘rights and responsibilities’ todifferent cultures, age groups, religions, etc, and were also able to link these differ-ences to how they behave in front of people. They said that they were responsible for

being good examples for the younger pupils, and that they were also responsible for

weaker people, elderly people, etc. They also viewed it important not to annoy other people. Their theoretical knowledge, in particular of ‘responsibilities’, seemed verygood. When it came to the classroom situation however, they said that they did nothave the right to criticise teaching methods: ‘otherwise you face consequences’. Theystated that there were differences between lessons with regard to how much you areallowed to speak out your opinions. In drama and ‘creative subjects’, they wereallowed to speak more freely, but not in science lessons: ‘it depends whether thelesson is like fact or opinion’. They thought that it was good that there were limits totheir freedom to criticise: ‘it’s not fair to criticise or use too much of your own opinion

because everybody has different ones so I think that it’s good that we have a certain

amount of that’. In one group, they talked about not disturbing other people early inthe morning or late in the evening in the neighbourhood. They stressed the importanceof the home for the way you behave and they connected good behaviour and followingrules with the chance of getting a good job. In short, their practical experience in theclassroom situation of ‘rights and responsibilities’ seemed to imply mostly responsi-

bilities. They mentioned that they wanted teachers to talk to them in a more friendlyways. They mentioned school rules in which boys and girls were treated differentlyand criticised that. They didn’t seem to care much about other staff at the school eventhough they didn’t give the impression of explicitly treating them badly.

Resigned

Two groups used a tone that was characterised as ‘resigned’. These pupils seemedwell-behaved and well-informed theoretically about rights and responsibilities, butwhen talking about their situation at school they seemed rather ‘resigned’. They talkeda lot about rights and responsibilites (vividly encouraged by the focus groupresearcher): ‘In America they have the right to speak and stuff like that, the right tofreedom and stuff… I don’t think there’s much over here’. In comparison with the‘weak pupils’ voices these groups connected their theoretical rights more to the strictschool rules. They said that they didn’t feel they had the same rights as older people,

since for example:

In shops and stuff they – they have notices saying you can’t have more than two children,schoolchildren, cause they don’t trust us when it’s only a selected amount of people wholike steal from shops, but we get stereotyped.

They talked about adults having low expectations of them and how it affectedthem. They wanted to behave badly to fulfil the low expectations. As to the situationin the classroom, they mentioned teachers’ collective punishments. They said thatwhen the lesson concerned things that you have opinions on, it would be good todiscuss them instead of writing excessively. It is often difficult to put down in writing.

Their way of speaking gave the impression that they felt defenceless in relation toteachers. Teachers seemed to be allowed to treat them capriciously. As regards other




school staff than teachers, they didn’t seem very interested. However, one pupil saidthat you should respect others, irrespective of their background. They talked aboutteachers being unfair and treating pupils differently, punishing and forcing them torespond in certain ways. Examples of good teacher response were also given, ‘Hewould sort of give you quite a lot of trust… but if you broke the trust then you would

be punished’.

Bitter

One group used a tone which was characterised as ‘bitter’. These pupils also seemedwell-behaving and rather well-informed, although not as explicitly as the others.When asked about rights and responsibilities, this group jumped quickly to what theywere not allowed to do at school and said that they wanted teachers to listen to themmore. They pointed out that teachers were unfair and picked favourites:

You get left out sometimes if you’re not their favourite… Because, say sometimes whena bad student is good, they get really, really, really good things done to them, but as soonas a good person does something a little bit wrong they are punished…

There were some signs of this ‘favouritism’ making the pupils become time-servers: ‘It has really saved me… I use favouritism, so I know it’s unfair’. They alsomentioned situations of bullying; one pupil told:

I got pushed in a shower with all my clothes on and that really, really did push my button,as they say and that kid hasn’t left me alone cause I told the teacher and he thinks that Ishould have just left it and let him get away with it, why should I? He just pushed me in

the shower, why should I let him get away with it? And all he got was a detention whichwas half-an-hour.

There were some examples of ‘good’ teachers as well:

There’s one teacher which I can trust with anything… my tutor, Miss C, like last year Ihad trouble at home and I just spoke to her about it and it’s like inside of me and I can’tspeak to anyone and I spoke to her and it was like gone, so it’s good that I have this oneteacher, and Mr D is a good teacher too.

They said that some teachers had prejudices against certain pupils; they didn’t givethem the chance to prove that they were good. They didn’t seem to respect the other staff at school as much as the teachers: ‘when I know them better I decide what mydegree of respect is going to be’. They suggested an explanation as to why there wasa difference in how they treated people: ‘it’s a question of trust’. To summarise, their

bitterness seemed to be about teachers being unfair and bullying situations not beingobserved.

Discussion

In all three countries, the pupils’ self-estimated participation in the focus groupdialogues was high. For English pupils it was 100%, which suggests a high motivation

for this type of discussion. At the same time, their comments indicate that they did notfeel respected by adults around them. With this said, the ‘attitudes and values’ did not




materialise in teachers’ performance of the lessons, at least not according to their pupils. These pupils were better informed about ‘rights and responsibilities’ than their Nordic counterparts. This is perhaps not surprising, given citizenship’s status as anindependent subject in the English curriculum. An advantage of organising citizenshipeducation in this way is that pupils become theoretically well-informed about rights

and responsibilities as well as rhetorically skilled in talking about these issues.Turning to attitudes and values mediation, the higher figure for England compared

to Sweden for ‘moral conversation’ (Finland cannot be compared to the other two,since the number of retorts was so small) indicates that such instruction is given withinthe subject of ‘citizenship’. The higher figure for ‘moral interaction’ for Sweden islikely explained by the presence of the ‘attitudes and values’ aspect of citizenshipeducation in the teachers’ attitude during all lessons. Also, the Swedish pupils’ wishto interact with the focus group researcher, suggests that they have an open and confi-dent relation with adults – something which may stimulate the development of keycompetence (i.e., ‘interpersonal, intercultural, social and civic competences’). By

contrast, and even if they wanted to, English pupils seemed less accustomed to openand confident relationships with adults. Most likely this had negative implications for key competence development. Explanations for the absence of dialogue amongFinnish pupils must be somewhat speculative. It is commonly assumed that Finnishculture is quieter than its English and Swedish counterparts. This, in conjunction witha larger classroom power distance (Suutarinen 2002; Törmäkangas 2002), may serveas a tentative explanation. Support for this conclusion, however, must be sought inmore research.

The dialogues with Swedish pupils showed that teachers struggled to find amorally acceptable and productive balance between the encouragement of divergent

opinions in the classroom (e.g. when Hitler was mentioned as a ‘model’). There werealso problems in the moral interaction, more than likely due to circumstances and behavioural norms unknown or tacit to some pupils of non-Swedish descent(Colnerud 2004). The English pupils’ voices were classified as ‘weak’, ‘resigned’, or ‘bitter’. The resigned and bitter voices seem interesting to compare with the Swedish‘contented’ or ‘very strong’ voices. It seems that the English participants had given upthe prospect of being listened to by the adults, whereas the Swedish ‘very strong

pupils’ voices’ stressed how important they considered the adults to be for their devel-opment. Apart from not encouraging development of the key competence, this mayalso cause the problem of timely obedience, one of the problems with too severe moralinstruction pointed out by Colnerud (2004). In fact, there were some signs of time-serving in the English groups. One of the pupils mentioned that she ‘used favouritism’for her own benefits. The Finnish pupils’ voices were highly similar in all dialoguegroups. They were all laconic, quiet, categorised to different degrees as obedient or indifferent towards teachers and other staff. The fact that moral interaction did notoccur at all raises doubts about the existence of key competences amongst these

pupils. In two groups, it was clear that some Finnish pupils do not hold a positive atti-tude towards immigrants, a finding similar to Suutarinen’s (2002).

The three countries’ national curricula leave more or less room for differentaspects of citizenship education. According to Eriksson (2007) Kelly’s classificationdoes not apply to the Swedish curriculum. The Swedish National Curriculum’s strong

emphasis on ‘fundamental values’ is a probable explanation for the focus on the‘attitudes and values’ aspect of citizenship education – a conclusion for which this




study found support. The results of this study supports Eriksson’s classification of theSwedish curriculum as ‘process and development’ oriented, allowing for discussionson democracy. Although not aware of the theoretical implications, the Swedishteenagers were used to being treated ‘democratically’ in classroom dialogues, thusnegotiating values in accordance with postmodern ethics (Baumann 1996; Nussbaum

1995; Hedin 2001). This linkage to practice is the focus of many Swedish researchers(see Colnerud 2004; Orlenius 2001; Tornberg 2004).

The research review relating to England (Crick 2007; Frazer 2007; Department for Children Schools and Families [DCSF] 2006; Woodhead 2002; Haydon 1997; Mace2001; Myers 2000; Kerr 2005) shows that the focus in England is on the individuallearner and on school efficiency. Eriksson (2007) views the English curriculum as

predominantly ‘result-oriented’ and content focused which does not leave much roomfor democratic classroom dialogue. Many pupils in the dialogues did not feel that theywere met with respect by the teachers. In our study, we found that the ‘rights andresponsibilities’ aspect of citizenship education was presented as theoretical goals.

However, this theoretical knowledge did not correspond to the practical classroomsituation of teachers, probably not always showing respect for the pupils.

The Finnish curriculum was described by Eriksson (2007) as contradictory.Results here show that none of the aspects of citizenship education were observed in

practice or in theory. Instead, it seemed that being at school for these pupils meantadopting knowledge without questioning or discussing it, as if the knowledge is‘outside yourself’. Suutarinen (2002) and Brunell and Törmäkangas (2002) found thatFinnish pupils do not view themselves as able to influence at school, something whichmay be one explanation to their very passive attitude.

The focus group dialogues indicated that all the pupils were concerned with

achieving good school results. English and Swedish pupils claimed that there is morefocus on responsibilities than rights in school. Teaching rights and responsibilities aremainly a ‘parental responsibility’ according to the Finnish. English and Finnish pupilscame across as less empathetic to fellow pupils who were ‘less well off’ (e.g., in termsof school results or background). Finnish and Swedish pupils possessed lower compe-tences in ‘political literacy’ than the English who had received a fair amount of theo-retical citizenship instruction and hence were well-informed about rights andresponsibilities. Swedish pupils were more exposed to the ‘attitudes and values’aspect of citizenship education than ‘political literacy’ education.

In the classroom however, English pupils did not think they were treated respect-fully by their teachers. Instead, they said that teachers occasionally could be unfair and

prone to punish pupils collectively if norms were violated. By contrast, their Swedishcounterparts provided many examples of how the focus on attitudes and values char-acterised teachers’ everyday approach to pupils; something which was not the case for Finnish pupils. The latter did not seem to be encouraged to talk, but to keep personalthoughts and feelings to themselves. Against this background, English and Finnish

pupils did not seem to have as ‘good’ relationships as the Swedish pupils with non- pedagogical school staff.

Finally, English and Swedish pupils were equally talkative in the interviews,whereas the Finnish were extremely taciturn. By the same token, English and Finnish

pupils came across as strict, polite and respectful in the interaction with the focus

group researcher, whereas the Swedish appeared relaxed, confident and familiar withhighly horizontal communication with adults. The English participants also talked




more about showing respect and consideration for other people in general (e.g., notdisturb people early in the morning or late in the evening).

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is a risk that (as pointed out by Orlenius 2001) children’s andyoung people’s lifestyles and ideas are belittled and viewed as results of imperfectvalue transmission, whereas the adults’ norms and worldviews have an aura of beingunproblematic and are taken for granted. Orlenius (2001) found that young people arenot uninterested in the adult world which was also found in the present study. Byencouraging young people to express their inner thoughts and feelings and facilitatedialogue, their competences and interest in the world are stimulated. A school whereteachers are genuinely interested in the views of the pupils is equally enriching for

pupils and teachers. In contrast: if teachers in their everyday practice do not respect or listen to the ideas and opinions of their pupils but instrumentally superimpose values

onto them, the prospect – via education – of developing morally aware, politicallyactive and democratic citizens seems more difficult, if not utopian.

Limitations

As pointed out elsewhere it must be emphasised that, in particular due to the notexactly identical approaches that were made, in the three countries, to encourageconversations, this study has limitations. However, the results from this study seeminteresting and indicate that the matter needs to be studied more closely. The study’svalue lies in that it probably sheds light on similarities and differences and contributes

to a higher degree of understanding for the social reality in the different nationalcontexts. A value of the study is also that if may raise the awareness of the fact thatresearch results in qualitative studies in social sciences are always culture specific(Bryman 2002).

Acknowledgements

The study was given financial support by The Faculty Board of Education at MälardalenUniversity, Mimer Bostads AB and the City of Västerås.

Notes

1. ‘Horizontal communication’ means that the two parties are perceived as equal, and ‘verticalcommunication’ means that the relationship between the two is unequal. Any adult–childrelation is by necessity to some extent vertical (Janson 2002); hence, provided by their institutionalised role, teachers have a posititional advantage compared to their pupils. Yet,

by being ‘omnipresent’ and receptive in classroom discussions teachers can allow for hori-zontal communication.

2. Note that classes are not ‘streamed’ in Swedish schools. Rather, this school had different‘profiles’ where some of the studied groups were in a ‘mathematics’ profile, and some in a‘football’ profile.

3. In focus group dialogue research it is stressed that dialogues ideally should be conducted

by the same person. This was impossible in our case. But by familiarising the other researchers with the manual prior to data collection and involving them in the prenalaysisand the analysis phase this potential weakness was partly compensated for.




4. Here it is only discerned whether they talked about ‘what rights they have’ or ‘what theyhave the responsibilities to do’.

Notes on contributors

Margareta Sandström Kjellin is an associate professor in education at Mälardalen University,Sweden. Her research field is citizenship education, the teacher–pupil relationship and readingand writing difficulties.

Jonas Stier is an associate professor in sociology at Mälardalen University. He has writtenseveral books in the field of intercultural communication and the internationalisation of higher education.

Tanja Einarson is a research assistant at Mälardalen University.

Trevor Davies is director of the International Centre for Studies in Education and Training atthe Institute of Education, University of Reading, UK. His responsibilities include training teach-

ers of science and technology and he has research interests that include supporting postgraduatestudents in areas related to creativity, global citizenship and education for sustainability.

Associate professor Tuula Asunta works at the Department of Teacher Education, Universityof Jyväskylä, Finland. She has had a long career at the university as a trainer of teachers andhas published about 150 papers.

References

Baumann, Z. 1996. Postmodern etik [Postmodern ethics]. Göteborg, Sweden: BokförlagetDaidalos.

Bourdieu, P. 1993. Kultursociologiska texter. [Sociocultural texts]. Stockholm/Stehag: Brutus

Östlings bokförlag Symposion.Brunell, V., and K. Törmäkangas. 2002. Tulevaisuuden yhteiskunnan rakentajat: yhteiskun-

nallisen opetuksen tutkimus Suomen näkökulmasta. [The constructors of the future soci-ety: A social educational study from the Finnish point of view]. Jyväskylän yliopisto,koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Jyväskylä.

Bryman, A. 2001. Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder [Methods in social sciences]. Malmö,Sweden: Liber.

Colnerud, G. 2004. Lärares moraliska praktik. Instruktion, konversation och interaktion [Theteacher’s moral practice. Instruction, conversation and interaction; in Swedish]. InSkolans moraliska och demokratiska praktik. Värdepedagogiska texter I, ed. G.Colnerud. Linköping: Linköpings universitet, IBV rapportserie.

Colnerud, G., and R. Thornberg. 2003. Värdepedagogik i internationell belysning [Values

education from an international point of view]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes.Commission of the European Communities. 2005. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/ policies/2010/et2010en.html.

Crick, B. 1998. Education for citizenship and the teaching democracy in schools: Final report of the advisory group on citizenship. London: QCA.

Crick, B. 2007. Citizenship: The political and the democratic. British Journal of Educational Studies 55, no. 3: 235–48.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). 2007. Education, training andemployment. http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/.

Durkheim, E. 1956. Education and sociology. New York: Macmillan.Durkheim, E. 1992. Professional ethics and civic morals. London: Routledge.Eriksson, I. 2007. Mål för alla – Mål i grundskolans tidigare år. En granskning av målsyste-

men i olika länders läroplaner [Goals for all – goals in the earlier compulsory schoolyears. A review of the goal systems in different countries’ curricula]. Stockholm,Sweden: Fritzes.




Eurydice. 2005. Citizenship education at school in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Frazer, E. 2007. Depoliticising citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies 55, no. 3:249–63.

Haydon, G. 1997. Teaching about values: A new approach. London: Cassell.Heath, S.B. 1983. Ways with words. Language, life and work in communities and classrooms.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hedin, C. 2001. Education to ethical evolution. The challenge of Montaigne’s opinions about

virtue and maturity. Paper presented at the ISATT conference, in Faro, Portugal.Ireland, E., D. Kerr, J. Lopes, J. Nelson, and E. Cleaver. 2006. Active citizenship and young

people: Opportunities, experiences and challenges in and beyond school citizenshipeducation longitudinal study: Fourth annual report. Research Report RR732. DES 2006.

Kerr, D. 2005. England’s teenagers fail the patriotic test; the lessons from England’s participa-tion in the IEA Civic Education Study. In Political and citizenship education, ed. S. Wilde.Oxford: Symposium Books.

Mace, J. 2001. Economic perspectives on values, culture and education: In Values, cultureand education, ed. J. Cairns, D. Lawton, and R. Gardner. London; Stylus Publishing.

Marshall, T.H. 1950. Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.May, T. 2001. Samhällsvetenskaplig forskning. [Research in social science]. Lund, Sweden:Studentlitteratur.

Myers, K. 2000. Whatever happened to equal opportunities in school: Gender equality initia-tives in education. Buckingham: OUP.

Nussbaum, M.C. 1995. Känslans skärpa, tankens inlevelse. Essäer om etik och politik [Thesharpness of feeling, the feeling of thought. Essays of ethics and politics]. Stockholm,Sweden: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion.

Ödman, P.J. 1998. Kontrasternas spel [The play of contrasts]. Stockholm, Sweden: Prisma.Ogbu, J. 1997. Speech community, language identity and language. In Language and environ-

ment – a cultural approach to education for minority and migrant students, ed. A.Sjögren. Botkyrka, Sweden: Mångkulturellt Centrum.

Orlenius, K. 2001. Värdegrunden – finns den? [Fundamental values – is there such a thing?].Malmö, Sweden: Runa.Ruddock, J., and J. Flutter. 2000. Pupil participation and pupil perspective: ‘Carving a new

order of experience’. Cambridge Journal of Education 30, no. 1: 75–89.Sandström Kjellin, M., and J. Stier. 2006. The school as an arena for citizenship education:

Multi-competence acquisition, values, ideologies and social dynamics. Paper presentedto the EERA-conference, September 13–16, in Geneva.

Sandström Kjellin, M., and J. Stier. 2007. Citizenship in the classroom: Transmitting and trans-forming transcultural values. Intercultural Education 19, no. 1: 41–51.

Schweisfurth, M., L. Davies, and C. Harber. 2002. Learning democracy and citizenship. International experiences. Oxford: Symposium Books.

Skolverket. 2000. Med demokrati som uppdrag [Democracy as a mission]. Stockholm,Sweden: Liber.

Suutarinen, S. 2000. Yhteiskunnallisen opetuksen asema Suomessa. Teoksessa S. Suutarinen(toim.) Nuoresta pätevä kansalainen. Yhteiskunnallinen opetus Suomen peruskoulussa.

IEA Civics – Nuori kansalainen tutkimuksen julkaisuja I [The stage of social teaching inFinland]. Jyväskylän yliopisto: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos.

Tornberg, R. 2004. Att skilja på etik och etikett – den domänteoretiska forskningen [To distin-guish between ethics and etiquette – the domain theoretical research; in Swedish]. InSkolans moraliska och demokratiska praktik. Värdepedagogiska texter I, ed. G.Colnerud. Linköping, Sweden: Linköpings universitet, IBV rapportserie.

Torney-Purta, J., R. Lehmann, H. Oswald, and W. Schulz. 2001. Citizenship and education intwenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. The Interna-tional Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Amsterdam: IEA.

Utbildningsdepartementet. 1994. Läroplan för det obligatoriska skolväsendet, förskoleklassen

och fritidshemmet [Curriculum for the compulsory educational system, nursery schooland the day care centre]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes.




Utbildningsdepartementet. 2007. SOU 2007:28. Tydliga mål och kunskapskrav i grundskolan – Förslag till nytt mål- och uppföljningssystem [Clear goals and knowledge claims in thecompulsory school – suggesting a new goal and follow-up system]. Stockholm, Sweden:Fritzes.

Wibeck, V. 2000. Fokusgrupper. Om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som undersökningsmetod [Focus groups. About focused group interviews as a research method]. Lund, Sweden:Studentlitteratur.

Wilde, S. 2005. Political and citizenship education. International perspectives. Oxford:Symposium Books.

Woodhead, C. 2002. Class war: The state of British education. London: Time Warner.

1.30018!PupilsVoices

Documents

Transcript of 1.30018!PupilsVoices