University of Gothenburg
University of Gothenburg
  2. Research
  3. Find research
  4. Swedish School Culture in Comparative Perspective

Swedish School Culture in Comparative Perspective

Research project
Inactive research
Project period
2001 - 2011
Project owner
The Department of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg
Financier
Riksbankens Jubileumsfond
Area
Education and
learning
Topic
Educational
Sciences

Short description

The purpose of this research was to analyze Swedish school culture and to comprehend this culture in a comparative perspective – internationally and historically.

This was to be done in three parts

  • Studies in learning practices and organization of interaction in teaching
  • Studies in how learning in mathematics is constituted in interaction
  • International comparisons of learning practices and school cultures

This aim was formulated against the background of three research traditions; Curriculum theory and teaching as an institutionalized interaction process, based on specific linguistic patterns; Phenomenography and variation theory analyzing the teaching object in process and by that the potential for learning; and Comparative analyses of teaching over time and space.

Three most important results

Research in the KULT project has been demanding but intellectually and organizationally productive –as can be noted in the large amount of publications presented from KULT and its extensions.

A first result was the development of sustainable international research cooperation and networking manifested in a large set of international seminars, symposia and workshops as well as in international co-­publishing (see the list of publications and websites.

A second result concerns international comparisons of maths education–based on the international research cooperation out of which KULT played a part in different ways. We could show that the conclusions drawn from previous international comparisons werepremature and out of scope. For instance, the analyses within the international TIMSS-­‐R studies (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999, as a highly recognized example) was founded on too broad categorizations and too short teaching sequences, and their attempt to identify specific school cultures with certain “scripts” for teaching were not accurate according to Clarke et al (2008). Furthermore, Lindblad & Marton (2004) could show that there was a lack of content validity in the recordings of TIMSS-­R. These and other results of the LPS research was a result of the international cooperation in the LPS, but the contribution from the Swedish team was substantial in many ways.

Based on KULT-­data we could also develop comparative analyses of maths education and how the teaching object is constituted in our school classes compared to corresponding activities in school classes in other countries such as in mainland China and the US. These analyses contribute to an increased understanding of differences in school results in mathsin different social and cultural contexts (see e.g. Clarke, Emanuelsson et al, 2006).

A third group of results is based on research on teaching processes and learning practices. In our research we have developed a more differentiated understanding of teaching by means of international and historical comparisons in tandem with the development of new tools for analyses of patterns in teaching processes (Reichenberg, 2012) and for micro-­ethnographic analyses of learning, as presented in a special issue in Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research (Sahlström, 2009). These results are based on the construction of a national and international database for studies on teaching and interaction in educational settings.

Based on the before-­mentioned studies we havealso develop a criticism of the previously predominant connection between national boundaries and school cultures – as noted in the change of our title from “Swedish School Culture” to “School Cultures in Sweden”.  Considering these school cultures our analyses are presenting two predominant and interacting norms for teaching; one based on “traditional schooling practices” in teacher-­student interaction referring to questions and answers concerning a certain content, and one based on the experiences and interests among students – e.g. corresponding to school progressivism and reform ideas. Given these norms there is an increased complexity, but also an increased flexibility and vulnerability in teaching processes and classroom interaction. An implication of these conflicting norms in interaction is potentially a development of a more advanced capacity to deal with more complex communication – something hardly noted in international comparisons of school results.

New Research Questions

In research literaturesteaching is characterized as a highly stabilized and institutionalized interaction based on specific positions and actions. However, our research is presenting teaching as in many ways a complex and uncertain process. A fruitful and relevant question is then how this complexity and uncertainty is produced and managed in interaction. Of special importance is here the stabilization or dissolution of the teaching object and more unpredictable moments in the sequencing of teaching processes. A secondary, but important question is how potential turning points are identified and understood by the actors in the teaching process.

A second – and complementary –question concerns interaction outside teaching processessuch as student cooperation by means of social media. What is distinct in such interaction – e.g. in terms of instruction and learning – and how do such processes compare to interaction in teaching processes? This we consider important in order to understand potentials and traps in e.g. classroom interaction and vice versa.

Choice of two publications

We have chosen two articles by younger researchers. These texts present interesting findings and potential for further research.

The first article is an international comparative study emanating from a well-­known critique (Sfard, 1998) of the distinction in two metaphors in research on learning – as acquisition or as participation. Instead of leaning to one of these metaphors,a detailed analysis, based on variation theory and conversation analysis, is carried out (jfr Marton, 2009):

  • Emanuelsson, J & Sahlström, F. (2008). The price of participation. Teacher Control versus StudentParticipation in Classroom Interaction.

The article is presenting significant differences in teaching processes, based on similar mathematical content, in a school class in the US and in Sweden, considering student participation and teacher control. It is explaining these differences and discussing alternative paths of development. These results are of considerable importance tounderstand the design of teaching in mathematics and the practical principles that serve as the basis for classroom interaction.

The second article is based on historical comparisons of classroom interaction in Sweden (Lindblad et al, 2011) and the fact that later interaction seems to be more complex and contingent in sequencing. In the text an analytical tool for capturing interaction sequences based on a systemtheoretical and conversation-­analytic basis:

  • Reichenberg, O. (2012): A sequential analysis ofassessment in classroom interaction.

Expected relations between different events are compared to actual connections in classroom interaction – how such processes are stabilized or collapsing and the importance of assessment 4 in this respect. This text – though in an early stage – is conceived of as being of importance in the development of analyses of extended classroom interaction.

 

Publications

Last modified