How Can The Solidarity Action Operation Day's Work 2015 Contribute To Student Bildung?

Author(s):

Ylva Frøjd(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching

Format:

Paper

Session Information

27 SES 03 B, Critical Thinking, Citizenship and Worldview Education

Paper Session

Time:

2016-08-23

17:15-18:45

Room:

NM-F103

Chair:

Meinert Arnd Meyer

Contribution

For 50 years, since 1964, the organization Operasjon Dagsverk (Operation Day’s Work, OD) has encouraged Norwegian students to work and collect money for one day a year. This money is then donated to projects that aim at educating youth in ”needy” countries. OD develops an educational program, which is to be used in Norwegian public schools at the secondary level. The program focuses on global topics such as solidarity, human rights and education. In addition to the Scandinavian countries, schools in a handful of countries in Europe are involved in Operation Day’s Work, including Germany, Belgium and Italy. The Norwegian Operasjon Dagsverk is however the largest, engaging approx. 100 000 students and collecting approx. NOK 30 million (EUR 3.1 million) for their projects each year. The OD2015 campaign was for education on sexual and reproductive rights in Peru, Chile and Argentina, and the funds are distributed through Amnesty International.

My primary research question is how OD2015s educational material can support operationalizing the high school curriculum. By analysing the material in relevance to the curriculum competence aim and overall goals, I will discuss how this educational material can add to the students’ Bildung, as stated as goals in the Norwegian Education Act and Core Curriculum. I will implement classic motivation theory in the analysis (Atkinson 1964; Heckhausen 1977) and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky 1987; Bruner 1960; Bandera 1986), in order to identify the OD2015s educational material's potential to motivate and educate students.

After 50 years, OD is losing grounds in the Norwegian schools. A second research question is to what extent this loss is caused by (what is experienced as) more narrow curriculums and teaching plans that do not permit the school to implement the educational material developed by OD? To what extent does this pertain to a general notion of Bildung (as a stated goal in the Norwegian Core Curriculum) losing grounds?

A central theoretical framework for both research questions is Janicke Heldal Stray’s research on how the Norwegian Education Act and Core Curriculum are implemented in the Norwegian schools, especially the challenge of how the teaching should contribute to the students’ social and cultural competence, empathy, understanding of human rights and democratic citizenship (Stray 2011).

Method

In the analysis of OD2015's educational material I will apply an evaluation method on education material developed at University College Lillebælt: Læremiddeltjek (læremiddel.dk). The method assesses and characterizes learning resources based on the following six parameters: Availability, progression, differentiation, teacher support, context and legitimacy. The parameters are related to three key perspectives on a learning resources value: Value to the student, value to the teacher and value to the society's goal in the Education Acts and Curricula. This method will contribute to highlight the material's teaching and learning potential (research question 1). The Norwegian Education Act forms the base for the analysis of both the educational material and the teacher interviews, as it will be analysed in relation to these core values. The Norwegian Education Act states that [E]ducation and training shall be based on fundamental values in Christian and humanist heritage and traditions, such as respect for human dignity and nature, on intellectual freedom, charity, forgiveness, equality and solidarity, values that also appear in different religions and beliefs and are rooted in human rights. […] Education and training shall provide insight into cultural diversity and show respect for the individual’s convictions. They are to promote democracy, equality and scientific thinking […]. (government.no) In order to explore the second research question, I have conducted in-depth interviews with six high-school teachers in the two months following the OD 2015 campaign. As this case study (Yin 2006) is explorative, I chose to use a semi-structured interview guide. This type of interview guide facilities a strong element of discovery, while its structured focus allows an analysis in terms of commonalities (Gillham 2005). The interviews were transcribed and coded in HyperTranscribe/-Research. The coding followed a Stepwise-Deductive Inductive method (Tjora 2010), and the codes were categorized in relevance to the research question.

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary analysis of the OD2015s educational material indicates a potential to contribute to the students’ Bildung, especially concerning knowledge of human rights, solidarity and respect for human dignity. The material also has the potential to add to specific competence aims in the curricula. However, the material pedagogic potential does not present itself as self-evident and requires a strong involvement from the teacher and students to optimize its potential learning outcome. This brings me to the second research questions, where the interviews indicate that teachers find it hard to fit OD’s educational program into their teaching plan. Categorization of the teacher interviews shows that the teachers describe multifaceted reasons behind this; they experience 1) a lack of guidelines and expectations from the school administration, 2) that the OD2015 material came late and lacked guidance for use, 3) a lack of solidarity and interest in the world at large among many of the students and, 4) a personal lack of interest and time to use the material in the classroom despite their otherwise positive attitudes. There are of course variations to this; some students are heavily engaged and the use of OD's educational material varies among the teachers interviewed. I will compare the outcome of the teacher interviews with my evaluation of the teaching material using Læremiddeltjek, and seek to account for discrepancies. OD, school administrations and students spend a lot of time and resources each year planning and producing the material and the campaign. Even thought the interviews are too few to be representative, they exemplify how ODs campaigns are considered to be beside the curriculum rather than an integrated part of the student’s Bildung. Neither the learning outcome of the OD educational material, nor the contribution to the students’ Bildung is optimized.

References

Atkinson, J.W. (1964), An introduction to motivation. New York: Van Nostrand Company Bandura, A. (1986), Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Bruner, J. (1960), The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press Education Act (2014), Education Act published on government.no, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/education-act/id213315/ [read 13.11.15] Gillham, B. (2005), Research Interviewing: The Range of Techniques. Open University Press Heckhausen, H. (1977), ”Achievement Motivation and its Constructs: A cognitive model" published in Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 1, Nr. 4, 1977 Læremiddeltjek, published on læremiddel.dk, http://laeremiddel.dk/evalueringsvaerktojer/laeremiddeltjek/ [read 13.11.15] Tjora, A. (2010), Kvalitative forskningsmetoder i praksis. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk Stray, J. H. (2011), Demokrati på timeplanen. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget Vygosky, L.S. (1978), Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Author Information

Ylva Frøjd (presenting / submitting)

University of Oslo

Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies

Oslo

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.