| 1. |
- Almqvist, Jonas, et al.
(författare)
-
Didactical Dilemmas in a Research and School Development Project
- 2019
-
Ingår i: ECER-conference, Hamburg, 3-6 September 2019.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In this paper, we will present a study of development dialogues between researchers and practitioners in a Swedish upper secondary school. In working with this project we have used and further developed an approach, inspired by the work of Kathleen Armour (Armour, 2014; Casey et al., 2016), that we have named Dialogue for Didactic Development (Almqvist et al., 2016; Almqvist et al., 2017; Olin et al., 2017; Olin et al. 2018). This is a method which was enacted and developed in a book project (Almqvist et al., 207) and which is now used in a large school development project in a Swedish municipality. The aim of the presentation is to describe and discuss didactical knowledge produced by researchers and practitioners together. The idea of didactic inquiry emphasizes both researchers and teachers as crucial actors in development of disciplinary knowledge about teaching (Carlgren, 2012; Ingerman & Wickman, 2015; Ko, 2018; Wickman, 2015). In our study, we highlight the notion that researchers’ and practitioners’ mutual knowledge production may have consequences for both practices. To be able do this, we turn to previous didactical research built on pragmatism, namely, the cooperative engineering and the didactic modeling approaches (cf. Hamza et al., 2018; Joffredo-Le Brun et al., 2018; Sensevy et al., 2013; Wickman et al, 2018). In our work, we have combined this line of didactical research with theories, methodologies and results from the field of action research (Almqvist et al., 2016; Almqvist et al., 2017; Olin et al., 2017; Olin et al. 2018). Action research contributes to this in many ways, but especially in its interest in changes of practices and what is at stake for the participants in collaborative work (cf. Edwards-Groves et al., 2016). The combination of these approaches makes it possible to study teachers’ and school leaders’ practice. In this work, the dialogue between participants (both practitioners and researchers) is central, both as a base for development and as a unit of analysis. Meetings between practitioners and researchers are being arranged and developed in the project. One ambition is to create knowledge in the intersection between the two fields of action research and didactics, two fields that are both interested in the development of the teacher profession and school development. If and how the collaboration between researchers and teachers may occur is, in this perspective, not an uncontested area of knowledge, and depends on underlying views of theory and practice as well as how professional learning may be framed (Carlgren, 2012; Hamza et al, 2018). Thus, one crucial question in development work is how the relation between the participating actors in a practice is constituted. Hence, the basic idea of the project is to use research and practice in reflection on and development of concrete didactic dilemmas. In our previous studies in the project, we have concentrated on the two forms of recognition identified by Ricœur, namely recognition of oneself and the notion of mutual recognition between participants (Almqvist et al., 2016; Olin et al., 2017; Olin et al. 2018). In this paper we focus on the third form of recognition, namely recognition of something. We understand this as the didactical dilemmas recognized by the practitioners in the project. Method The empirical material analyzed in this study is produced in a research and development project in Landskrona, a municipality in the southern part of Swedish. The project centers on school development on the basis of teaching challenges. In the very center of the work are didactical dilemmas identified and described by practitioners. These dilemmas are written as cases by the practitioners, describing the problem that they have identified, together with a description of how the dilemma is handled by them in practice. Three experts (researchers and teachers) from different fields contribute with comments on the case from their different perspectives. The comment is based on the case and has to be of a reasoning nature. It can, for example, be about (1) Strengthening: The arguments and points presented by the case author are highlighted, confirmed and discussed. (2) Supplementing: The comment points to things that may be missing in the description of the case and complements additional aspects of how the dilemma has been dealt with in other contexts. (3) Problematizing: The starting points on which the case is based are challenged and nuanced. In this way, the commentary is about changing focus and suggesting alternative ways of understanding the current dilemma. A collaborating author (researcher) pulls together and summarizes the case and the different comments, and finally, the practitioner discusses and reflects on the comments. We see the last section of each dialogue as very central. This is where the practitioner’s voice and agency become most evident in the dialogue. The empirical material consists of eleven didactical development dialogues organized in eleven chapters in a forthcoming anthology. For the study presented in this paper, we have made a qualitative analysis of the chapters, focusing on the practitioners’ dilemmas. More specifically, we have concentrated on the last section of the case descriptions, analyzing the knowledge that is expressed in practitioners’ reflections about their own development based on their case description and the three comments they have received. Expected Outcomes In the analysis of the dialogues, we have found three categories of dilemmas, with sub-categories. These correspond very well with the three different kinds of relations expressed in the didactical triangle, namely teacher-student, teacher-content and student-content. Our findings about practitioners’ identification and handling of didactic dilemmas are the following. First, the teachers handle dilemmas related to the relation between teacher and student. This concern issues such as individualization while working with large heterogenic student groups, teaching students to become independent, teachers’ and students’ respective responsibilities in the classroom, and how to act in and change the school system in order to enhance the prerequisites for teaching. Secondly, the teachers handle dilemmas related to the relationship between teacher and educational content. They select, opt out and organize educational content and teaching method, teach study technique and hand out homework. Thirdly, teachers handle dilemmas related to the relationship between student and educational content, which means that they handle dilemmas concerning for example students’ difficulties to understand a task or a content of some kind and students’ different prerequisites for learning. The study indicates that the researchers and practitioners who are participating in the development dialogues mutually contribute to the construction of knowledge. The dilemmas that the teachers identify are in a way very general, but they are also specific and situational in the sense that they concern the teachers’ work in specific classrooms. In development dialogues, teachers and researcher contribute with new ways of understanding and dealing with didactical dilemmas. This becomes very obvious when reading and analyzing the concluding remarks made by the practitioners. References Almqvist, J., Hamza, K., Olin, A. (2016). Didactical investigations for professional development. Paper presented at ECER in Dublin, August 22-26 Almqvist, J; Hamza, K. & Olin, A. (Eds.)(2017). Undersöka och utveckla undervisning [Investigating and Developing Teaching]. Lund: Studentlittteratur. Armour, K.(Ed.)(2014). Pedagogical cases in physical education and youth sport. Oxon: Routledge. Casey, A.; Goodyear, V. & Armour, K. (Eds.)(2016). Digital technologies and learning in physical education. Pedagogical cases. Oxon: Routledge. Carlgren, I. (2012). The learning study as an approach for “clinical” subject matter didactic research. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(2), 126-139. Edwards-Groves, C.; Olin, A & Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2016). Partnership and recognition in action research: understanding the practices and practice architectures for participation and change. Educational Action Research, 24(3), 321-333. Hamza, K., Palm, O., Palmqvist, J., Piqueras, J., & Wickman, P.-O. (2018). Hybridization of practices in teacher-researcher collaboration. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 170-186 Ingerman, A., & Wickman, P.-O. (2015). Towards a teachers' professional discipline: Shared Responsibility for didactic models in research and practice. In P. Burnard, B.-M. Apelgren & N. Cabaroglu (Eds.), Transformative teacher research (pp. 167-179). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Joffredo-Le Brun, S.; Morellato, M.; Sensevy, G. & Quilio, S. (2018). Cooperative engineering as a joint action. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 187-208. Ko, P.Y. (2018): Beyond labels: what are the salient features of lesson study and learning study?, Educational Action Research. Published online 11 October 2018. Olin, A., Almqvist, J & Hamza, K. (2017). Didactics, dialogue and development. Paper presented at the ECER conference, August 22-25, 2017. Olin, A., Lenzen, B & Sensevy, G (2018). Professional development and recognition. Paper presented in the double symposium Comparative Didactic Analyses of Science Education and Physical Education and Health in Sweden, Switzerland and France, at ECER in Bolzano. Sensevy G, Forest D, Quilio S, et al. (2013) Cooperative engineering as a specific design-based research. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education 45(7): 1031–1043. Wickman, P.-O. (2015). Teaching learning progressions: An international perspective. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (2nd ed., pp. 145-163). New York: Routledge. Wickman, P.-O., Hamza, K., & Lundegård, I. (20
|
|
| 2. |
- Bergdahl, Nina, 1971-, et al.
(författare)
-
Analysing Visual Representations of Adult Online Learning Across Formats
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. User and Context Diversity. - Cham : Springer. - 9783031050398 - 9783031050381 ; , s. 3-14
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The past years have triggered the established blended learning format to develop into other kinds of online teaching formats, with, for example, combinations of a/synchronous learning with more flexible (co-)location requirements for teachers and students. This has led to a renewed exploration of ways to ensure accessible and life-long learning through developed educational practices. Comparing online education formats can be challenging but is necessary. Building on case study methodology, the objective of this study was to explore online learning situations (n = 21): Asynchronous Distance Education (ADE) (n = 15) and (synchronous) Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) (n = 6), to develop a method to systematically analyse and evaluate different formats of online education using engagement theory. To do so, a schema was developed through which visual representations of learning situations were analysed. Results show that visual representations of learning situations enable nuanced comparisons across different formats of online education. Analysis reveals that the format of education affects the conditions under which the teacher more readily facilitates student engagement and that asynchronous and synchronous formats support different nuances of engagement. © 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
|
|
| 3. |
-
Didaktisk utvecklingsdialog. Lärares och skolledares professionella utveckling.
- 2019
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Boken innehåller elva exempel på möten mellan skolpraktik och forskning. Varje kapitel inleds av en lärare eller skolledare som beskriver ett eget valt didaktiskt dilemma. Författarna delar öppenhjärtigt med sig av upplevda svårigheter i den egna verksamheten. Varje dilemma kommenteras sedan av två forskare och en kollega. Avslutningsvis reflekterar läraren eller skolledaren över vad som framkommit i dialogen. Poängen med didaktisk utvecklingsdialog är att praktiska erfarenheter på detta sätt beprövas och generaliseras. Dessutom prövas teoretisk kunskap och görs relevant genom att konkretiseras. Den didaktiska utvecklingsdialogen är grundad i didaktik och aktionsforskning, vilka båda förespråkar att lärare och skolledare ses som experter i sin egen yrkesutövning. En utgångspunkt i boken är att didaktik som kunskapsfält bidrar till utveckling såväl av lärares undervisning som skolledares ledarskap. I boken bidrar varje kapitel med kunskap om de dilemman som bearbetas och avslutningsvis beskrivs hur didaktisk utvecklingsdialog kan användas som skolutvecklingsmodell. Boken riktar sig därmed till både erfarna och blivande lärare och skolledare, på skolor och i lärar- och rektorsutbildningar, som vill ha autentiska fall att diskutera eller som vill använda didaktisk utvecklingsdialog i sitt utvecklingsarbete.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Gyllander Torkildsen, Lisbeth, 1971
(författare)
-
Bedömning som gemensam angelägenhet - enkelt i retoriken, svårare i praktiken. Elevers och lärares förståelse och erfarenheter
- 2016
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The thesis focuses on students’ understanding of assessment and their agency in assessment practices. It discusses assessment in relation to arrangements that shape students’ and teachers’ mutual assessment practices. The study is based on a development project in a secondary school, involving 25 students and 9 teachers. It uses an action research approach and was carried out between 2010 and 2014. The aims of the study were to generate knowledge (1) on students’ understanding of assessment and assessment practices, (2) on how arrangements shape students’ understanding and agency, and (3) on how arrangements shape students’ and teachers’ opportunities to develop assessment practices. The theoretical and analytical framework consists of validity theories and practice theories. Construct validity refers to empirically observable behavior that can be associated with theoretically explicable attributes. The construct is used to validate the relevance, use and consequences of assessment; here: accessibility and reciprocity of assessment practices (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Messick, 1989; Stobart, 2012). The theory of practice architectures (Kemmis, Wilkinson, Edwards-Groves, Hardy, Grootenboer & Bristol, 2014) explains how practices are shaped by cultural-discursive, material-economic, and social- political arrangements. Practices in a site are interrelated and interdependent. The study shows that students understand assessment on three hierarchically qualitative levels: performance, understanding and learning. Their understanding is linked to clarified goals, diagnosis, feedback and pre- conditions in the site. Students’ agency is shaped by the way teachers: clarify goals; arrange teaching, learning and assessment activities; enable the use of feedback to enhance learning; and by the way relationships, roles and responsibilities are negotiated. Communicative spaces may enhance students’ agency in assessment practices. Arrangements – like policy documents, assessment literature, local assessment policies and tools – shape teachers’ practices, thus enabling and constraining students’ and teachers’ development of reciprocal assessment practices. Assessment is a reflection of both students’ and teachers’ current practices. As a reciprocal concern, assessment requires collaboration between students and teachers. Furthermore, the reciprocal concern involves school leaders, officials in local school boards, politicians, policy writers and researchers. Reasonable consensus on assessment ought to be reached – based on students’ perspectives and rights – in order to strengthen students’ agency, learning and knowing. The thesis aims to contribute to knowledge on students’ understanding of assessment and on arrangements that affect students’ and teachers’ agency and opportunities to develop reciprocal assessment practices. It also shows how meta-practices and discourses affect local practices.
|
|
| 6. |
- Gyllander Torkildsen, Lisbeth, 1971, et al.
(författare)
-
’If they’d written more…’ – On students’ perceptions of assessment and assessment practices.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Education Inquiry. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2000-4508. ; 7:2, s. 137-157
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The focus of the current study is students’ perceptions of assessment and assessment practices. Assessment is understood as practices closely connected to the planning, enactment and evaluation of teaching and learning activities. The data derive from focus group interviews and dialogical meetings with students at a Swedish comprehensive school. Theories of assessment and validity are used as a framework to interpret and contextualise the data. An empirically developed interconnecting data analysis model is used as an analytical tool to connect students’ perceptions, assessment aspects and preconditions in a specific context. Our results indicate that students perceive assessment at different comprehension levels, categorised as performing, understanding and learning. Preconditions affect students’ possibilities of accessing assessment practices and using assessments to improve their performance. In this article we highlight the importance of taking student voice and preconditions into consideration when structuring accessible and meaning-making assessment practices that hold possibilities for enhanced learning.
|
|
| 7. |
- Gyllander Torkildsen, Lisbeth, 1971, et al.
(författare)
-
Translating ideas for school development into changed leading practices
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA) 2017, Copenhagen Denmark.
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This paper draws on, and extends, insights from previous parallel case studies of leading and teacher’s professional learning conducted in Sweden, Norway and Australia. Previous studies examined the role of leading practices in the circulation and transformation of key educational ideas (Wilkinson, Olin, Lund & Stjernstrom, 2013). The research focused on how leading practices travel within and between educational sites, transforming the discursive, material and social conditions for learning and teaching practices in schools. Scandinavian new organisational literature, on how ideas travel globally, was used as a frame. The ongoing research focuses on new developments in organizational literature and translation studies, as well as research conducted amongst middle leaders in Norway and Sweden. This paper examines how key educational ideas circulate, are transformed and translated with varying degrees of success by middle leaders into educational practice. In particular, it analyses the process of translation, that is, how ideas travel, are made legible to individual practitioners, and translated into local practices. The focus is on the translator`s understanding and competence in the process of knowledge-transfer where he/she plays an active role. Røvik (2015) claims that there are certain rules that inform the translation processes and that these rules are contextually dependent. The rules thereby need to be developed and investigated at the local site. There has been sparse empirical research conducted on this issue as well as on the related issue of how different translations rules are “deliberately chosen or just followed” by translators. Insights into these questions have the potential to enhance understanding of how translations of ideas into local practices in local sites may be (mis)guided, (mis-)interpreted or (mis-)understood. Based on insights from translation theory and previous studies of middle leaders, we explore the following questions: •How do middle leaders ‘translate’ new ideas into leading practices? •How are middle leaders informed/influenced and inform/influence the translation process through their leading practices? Focus group interviews are being conducted with middle leaders (process leaders in Swedish schools and principals and development leaders in Norwegian schools) in two municipalities where new school development reforms have been implemented. Using middle leaders to support and enhance school development, is part of the reform. The new ideas is being translated through their ways of understanding and acting in the their schools. We will look for differences and similarities in the translation process expressed through the middle leaders’ ways of describing their role as leaders in the change processes. These descriptions will be compared with the general rules described by Røvik (2015), thereby addressing the lack of empirical work mentioned earlier. Translation theories have not been much used in Nordic education empirical studies, even though there are some exceptions (Lund & Moksnes, 2013; Røvik et. al. 2015). This study adds to this new body of knowledge, thereby contributing with a new perspective on questions on change processes in schools, making it possible to understand local variation and general rules as two sides of a coin.
|
|
| 8. |
- Kemmis, Stephen, et al.
(författare)
-
Teaching as pedagogical praxis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Pedagogy, Education, and Praxis in Critical Times. Mahon, K., Edwards-Groves, C., Francisco, S., Kaukko, M., Kemmis, S., Petrie, K. (Eds.). - Singapore : Springer. - 9789811569258 - 9789811569289 - 9789811569265 ; , s. 85-116
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This chapter reports findings of research into the practice of teaching conducted by members of the Pedagogy, Education and Praxis The (PEP) international research network, much of it using the theory of practice architectures as an analytical framework. Examples of teaching practices are given across education sectors from early childhood education and care, to primary and secondary schooling, to vocational education and training, and university education, as well as from community education. The theory allows us to see different kinds of teaching practices as they unfold in intersubjective space (semantic space, physical space-time, and social space) to engage learners in different ways and to produce different kinds of opportunities for learning. Much of the research on teaching presented in this chapter used close interaction analysis to show how teaching practices unfold in synchrony with learning practices, to give new insights into the interconnected ways learning drives teaching while teaching (also) drives learning. The chapter also suggests that, in many cases, teachers' teaching and students' learning are jointly necessary parts of a combined pedagogical practice.
|
|
| 9. |
- Lund, Torbjørn, et al.
(författare)
-
Using translation theory to understand and improve reforms in schools
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Redress. - 1039-382X. ; 27:1, s. 8-13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Ongoing reforms are constantly influencing practices in schools. Schools have to adopt both national reform ideas and local school initiatives in order to meet new standards and demands and to develop new practices. New practices and ideas are expected to be transferred from contexts outside schools into schools and from one school to another. The schools’ unique contexts are rarely taken into consideration. Adopting ideas and implementing them in practice is a complex process, and the quality of the outcomes tend to vary. Sometimes schools succeed in implementing an idea in practice, with the desired outcome, but other times they are unsuccessful. This article introduces a theory that teachers can use in order to better understand and improve reform processes.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
