In the middle of the 1990s Swedish educational research and especially the two traditions related to the didactic movement, phenomenographic didactics and didactics based on curriculum theory, was praised and looked upon as very successful in an international perspective. During the last 10-15 years these didactic traditions have developed further into a sociocultural perspective on learning and the idea of dialogic classrooms (Säljö 1995, 2000, 2005, Dysthe ed. 2003) inspired by Vygotsky and Bakhtin and a socio-political perspective on teaching and the idea of deliberative communication (Englund 1996, 2000, ed. 2007) inspired by Dewey, Mead and Habermas. Implied in this later development is the proliferated use of the linguistic and communicative turns meaning that teaching and learning are looked upon as processes of mutual communication and meaning creating. A question than can be put is if the problematization of the selective tradition of each school subject and the displacement to a view of education as communication that this implies, also means that we have to exceed our traditional language of teaching and learning, i.e. that our didactic language has constituted a selective tradition and a limited and recitative relationship between teachers and learners for what we see as possible activities of the classroom. In sum, do we (researchers and teachers) need a language of communication and meaning-creating, instead of, or at least supplementing the languages of different subject didactics, to analyse the desirable activities of the classroom? References: Dysthe, Olga ed. (2003): Dialog, samspel och lärande [Dialogue, interaction and learning]. Lund: Studentlitteratur Englund, Tomas (1996): Pedagogikens uppgifter. Att utveckla kunskap om socialisations- och kommunikationsprocesser som meningsskapande [The tasks of educational research. To develop knowledge of socialization- and communication processes as meaning creating processes]. Pedagogisk forskning 1(1) 40-53. Englund, Tomas (2000). Deliberativa samtal som värdegrund – historiska perspektoiv och aktuella förutsättningar [Deliberative communication as value base – historical perspectives and current possibilities. Stockholm: Skolverket. Englund, Tomas ed. (2007): Utbildning som kommunikation. Deliberativa samtal som möjlighet [Education as communication. Deliberative communication as possibility]. Göteborg: Daidalos. Hoetker, J. & Ahlbrand, W.P. (1969): The persistence of recitation. American Educational Research Journal 6(2) 145-167. Nystrand, Martin (1997): Opening Dialogue. Understanding the Dynamics of Language and Learning in the English Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Säljö, Roger (1995): Begreppsbildning som pedagogisk drog [Concept formation as a pedagogic drug]. Utbildning & Demokrati – tidskrift för didaktik och utbildningspolitik 4(1) 5-22. Säljö, Roger (2000): Lärande i praktiken [Learning in practice]. Stockholm: Prisma Säljö. Roger (2005): Lärande och kulturella redskap [Learning and cultural tools]. Stockholm: Norstedts akademiska förlag.

text analysis

A question than can be put is if the problematization of the selective tradition of each school subject and the displacement to a view of education as communication that this implies, also means that we have to exceed our traditional language of teaching and learning, i.e. that our didactic language has constituted a selective tradition and a limited and recitative relationship between teachers and learners for what we see as possible activities of the classroom. In sum, do we (researchers and teachers) need a language of communication and meaning-creating, instead of, or at least supplementing the languages of different subject didactics, to analyse the desirable activities of the classroom?