School Policies and Classroom Practices: A Study of Icelandic Compulsory Schools.

Author(s):

Ingvar Sigurgeirsson(presenting / submitting)Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir Kristín Jónsdóttir

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

23 SES 08 C, Education Policies and Development (Part 2)

Paper Session continued from 23 SES 07 C

Time:

2016-08-25

09:00-10:30

Room:

NM-A109

Chair:

Andrew Skourdoumbis

Contribution

The main aims of this research project were to provide an overview of the compulsory school practices in Iceland at the beginning of the 21st century, focusing on the trend towards individualised learning, and to reveal if and how official policies were reflected in school practices.

The focus on individualised learning has been prominent in national curricula and other policy documents in recent decades in Iceland (Ministry of Education, 1999, 2006), even though its meaning is far from clear. This concept has been defined in a number of ways using different terms, such as individualised learning, personalized learning, student-centred instruction or differentiated instruction (teaching / learning) (Keefe and Jenkins, 2000; Sigurðardóttir, 2007; Sigurgeirsson, 2005; Tomlinson, 2014).

This view of individualised learning has in Iceland, as elsewhere in Europe for example, implied a focus on adapting teaching and learning to different individual needs, increasing students’ responsibility for their learning and their active participation in the classroom and the school (Hargreaves, 2004, 2006; Tomlinson, 2014).The term has also been related to concepts such as student empowerment and student voices (Fielding, 2006; Harvey & Burrows, 1992; Hargreaves, 2004; Rudduck, 2003) and democratic education (Dewey, 2016/2014). Learning is viewed as a social process based on student co-operation (Hannafin, Land & Oliver, 2012; Roseth, Johnson and Johnson, 2008), co-construction (Hargreaves, 2006) and team-teaching (Buckley, 2000).

The research project was organised within a framework based on an evaluation tool for schools´ progress towards individualised and cooperative learning, published by the Reykjavík Department of Education in 2005 (Reykjavíkurborg, 2005; Óskarsdóttir, 2014a), and consisted of six strands:

Internal structures: school-based planning and management
Learning environment: buildings, classrooms and general equipment
Attitudes: views of students, teachers, administrators and parents towards teaching and learning
Teaching strategies and classroom practices
Students’ activities and responsibilities
Parental involvement and school community relations

Two additional components where added, one focusing on the development of information technology and the other on the status of teaching and learning in the art and crafts subjects, as well as physical education.

The research questions addressed in this paper are the following:

What are teaching and learning practices like in Icelandic compulsory schools at the beginning of the 21st century? That is, how do they reflect attitudes, the learning environment, internal structures, teaching methods, students’ activities and responsibilities, and parental involvement?
How are the policies of state and local authorities reflected in school practices, and to what extent have predictions made in recent decades regarding school development materialised?

Method

The study, based on a mixed-methods approach, was conducted in 20 schools in collaboration with their staff, students and parents. Seventeen of the schools were randomly selected in four municipalities and three were selected on the grounds of their official policy on individualized learning. When the sample was drawn, 175 compulsory schools operated in Iceland. School staff (N = 823); students in grades 7–10 (N = 1821), and parents (N = 3481) responded to electronic questionnaire surveys. The response rate was 80–92% for school staff, 86% for the student group and 67% for parents. Classroom observations were conducted in grades 1–10 (382 lessons); five school days in each of the twenty schools. Students, teachers and school administrators were interviewed (with the total of 153 semi-structured individual and group interviews).Various documents were analysed, such as school curricula and plans of school buildings. The data collection took place in 2009 to 2011.

Expected Outcomes

Various aspects of the external framework of schools were in many respects consistent with statutory law, the policies of the municipalities selected as examples, and predictions. The attitudes of teachers and school administrative staff were also generally consistent with the official policies and expressed positive attitudes towards individualisation, but many teachers were sceptical as to whether these ideas could be put into practice, as well as towards inclusion. Overall staff was satisfied with governance and morale in the schools, but most teachers did call for increased pedagogical leadership. The most common lesson arrangement was direct instruction, followed up by a variety of individual seat-work assignments. Teaching methods in schools using team teaching set themselves apart in many ways: learning was more individualized than in other schools; student collaboration was more widespread; and developmental work was more extensive. There was also difference according to grade levels; teaching and assessment methods were considerably more varied in the lower grades, i.e. in grades 1-4. The physical learning environment most commonly remained in the form of traditional classrooms, although there were open spaces in various forms, particularly in the most recently constructed buildings. Further, the classroom environment in the younger grades was more varied compared to the upper grades. The attitudes of students in grades 7–10 to teaching and learning were generally positive, as well as towards relations within the school. However, students’ interest in their studies and influence on their learning was limited, and examples of democratic collaboration were scarce. Students’ dissatisfaction with homework assignments was especially apparent. As can be seen from the results outlined above it is yet difficult to relate the concept of individualized learning to classroom practices in the schools investigated in this study. The positive attitudes of teachers towards differentiation indicate grounds for promising developments.

References

Buckley, S. J. (2000). Team teaching: What, why and how. London. Sage Publications. Dewey, J. (1916/2004). Democracy and education. New York: Dover Publications. Fielding, M. (2006). Leadership, radical student engagement and the necessity of person-centered education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(4), 299–313. Hargreaves, D. H. (2004). Personalising learning – 2: Student voice and assessment for learning. London: Specialist Schools Trust. Hargreaves, D. H. (2006). A new shape for schooling? London: Specialist Schools and Academic Trust. Harvey, L. & Burrows, A. (1992). Empowering students. The New Academic, 1(3), 1–3. Keefe, J. W. & Jenkins, J. M. (2000). Personalized Instruction: Changing Classroom Practice. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on Education. Land, S., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions and design. In D. Jonasson, & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd edition, pp. 3–25). New York and London: Routledge. Menntamálaráðuneytið [Minstry of Education]. (1999). Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla. Almennur hluti [National Curriculum Guidelines. Introduction]. Reykjavík: Menntamálaráðuneytið. Menntamálaráðuneytið [Minstry of Education]. (2006). Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla. Almennur hluti [National Curriculum Guidelines. Introduction]. Reykjavík: Menntamálaráðuneytið. Óskarsdóttir, G.G. (Ed). (2014). Starfshættir í grunnskóla við upphaf 21. aldar [Teaching and learning in Icelandic schools at the beginning of 21st century]. Reykavík: Háskólaútgáfan. Reykjavik City Department of Education. (2005). Measurement tool on individualized and cooperative learning. Reykjavik: Reykjavik City Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.rvk.is/Portaldata/1/Resources/skjol/svid/menntasvid/pdf_skjol/skyrslur/einstaklingsmidad-nam_enska.pdf Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223–246. Rudduck, J. (2003). Pupil voice and citizenship education: A report for the QCA Citizenship and PSHE team. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Sigurðardóttir, A. K. (2007). Þróun einstaklingsmiðaðs náms í grunnskólum Reykjavíkur. [The development of individualised learning in compulsory schools in Reykjavík.] Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. Retrieved from: http://netla.khi.is/greinar/2007/012/index.htm Sigurgeirsson, I. (2005). Um einstaklingsmiðað nám, opinn skóla og enn fleiri hugtök … [About individualised learning, open school and other concepts … Uppeldi og menntun, 14(5), 9–32. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners (2nd edition). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Author Information

Ingvar Sigurgeirsson (presenting / submitting)

University of Iceland

Education

Reykjavík

Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir

University of Iceland, Iceland

Kristín Jónsdóttir