Session Information
25 SES 04, Children's Rights: Regional Perspectives (Part 1)
Paper Session to be continued in 25 SES 05
Contribution
In Finland, the recognition of children’s rights to participation in the educational process has been institutionalised. For example, in the Basic Education Act 47 a § 1 mom. (1267/2013), it is stated that children have a right to participate in the process of planning the curriculum. These rights are further underscored in the new national core curriculum for Finnish preschool and basic education (FNBE, 2014), which will formally come into effect in the year 2016. In addition to emphasising the importance of acknowledging pupils’ voices and participation in school communities, the national core curriculum emphasises the social nature of teaching and learning. For example, it focuses on developing pupils’ investigative, reflective, and communicative competencies across the curriculum. Moreover, it stresses pupils’ active participation in the process of evaluating and developing the pedagogical practices of the classroom.
It is common for children’s options for participating, expressing their voices, and taking part in decision making in the classroom to be organised around specific projects, which are, in many cases, “add-on” practices in classroom life (Malone & Hartung 2010, p. 32). For example, children may plan a Christmas event or a special school day. In the approach described here, however, pupils’ participation is viewed as a legitimate practice and an organic part classroom life.
We draw on empirical data based on an action research initiative collected in one primary classroom community in Helsinki between August 2009 and May 2015. The action research study was situated in a suburban primary school district in the city of Helsinki, Finland. One classroom and one teacher joined the study. The number of pupils varied from twenty-three to twenty-six. At the end of the study, there were twenty-four pupils (thirteen girls and eleven boys). The classroom was culturally diverse, and there were several multicultural pupils, two of whom did not speak Finnish as a first language. During the research period, the pupils were aged seven years to thirteen years old.
In this presentation we focus on a dialogue between theory and practice and demonstrate how the new goals set forth by the Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE) in the national core curriculum for pupils’ participation in classrooms have already been realised as lived practices in the past, as well as how these practices could be expanded into lived practices in other contexts in the future. We use three models of participation— Roger Hart’s (1992) ladder of participation, Harry Shier’s (2001) model of the five levels of participation, and Laura Lundy’s (2007) model for implementing Article 12—as lenses when demonstrating how we enacted the curriculum goals for pupils’ participation according to the FNBE (2014) in one classroom in Helsinki, Finland.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
ALDERSON, P. (2010) Young children’s individual participation in ‘all matters affecting the child’. in B. Percey-Smith & N. Thomas (ed) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation. Perspectives from Theory and Practice. Oxon: Routledge, p. 88-96. BASIC EDUCATION ACT Available from: http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/koulutuspolitiikka/lait_ja_ohjeet/?lang=en [accessed 14th June 2015]. BAUMFIELD, V., HALL, E & WALL K. (2013) Action Research in Education. London: Sage. GRESALFI, M., MARTIN T., HAND, V. et al. (2009) Constructing competence: an analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics 70(1), p. 49–70. HART, R.A. (1992) Children’s Participation, from Tokenism to Citizenship. UNICEF:Florence. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/childrens_participation.pdf [accessed 14th June 2015] KEMMIS, S & WILKINSON, M. (1998) Participatory action research and the study of practice. In: Atweh B, Kemmis S and Weeks P (eds) Action Research in Practice: Partnerships for Social Justice in Education.London: Routledge, p. 21–36. LUNDY, L. (2007) Voice’ is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal 33 (6), p.927–942 MALONE, K & HARTUNG, C. (2010) Challenges of participatory practices with children. in B. Percey-Smith & N. Thomas (ed) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation. Perspectives from Theory and Practice. Oxon: Routledge, p. 24-38. NIEMI, R., KUMPULAINEN, K., & LIPPONEN, L (2015a). Pupils’ documentation enlightening teachers’ practical theory and pedagogical actions. Educational Action Research 23 (4), p.599-614. NIEMI, R., KUMPULAINEN, K., & LIPPONEN, L. (2015b). Pupils as active participants: Diamond ranking as a tool to investigate pupils’ experiences of classroom practices. European Educational Research Journal. 10.1177/1474904115571797 NIEMI, R., KUMPULAINEN, K., LIPPONEN, L., & HILPPÖ, J. A. (2015). Pupils’ perspectives on the lived pedagogy of the classroom. Education 3-13 43 (6), p. 681-697. SHIER, H. (2001) Pathways to Participation: Openings, Opportunities and Obligations. A New Model for Enhancing Children’s Participation in Decision-making, in line with Article 12.1 of the United Nations Convention of the Right of the Child. Children and Society 15,p.107-117. WOOLNER, P., CLARK, J., HALL, E. et al. (2010) Pictures are necessary but not sufficient: using a range of visual methods to engage users about school design. Learning Environments Research 13(1), p. 1–22.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.