In European schools, individualization and seatwork in classrooms is increasing (Lindblad & Sahlström, 1999; Biesta, 2006; Carlgren et al, 2006; Hopmann, 2007a; Hörmann, 2011). However, research indicates that immigrant and minority language students are disadvantaged by this kind of teaching-learning environment (Elstad & Sivesind, 2010; Winter & Lehmann, 2013; Gustafsson et al, 2016). In PISA 2015, immigrant students perform lower than non-immigrant students on average in the OECD-countries (OECD, 2016). Despite the massive amount of quantitative studies exposing this important challenge to equity in education (Mullis et al, 2012a, 2012b), there is a lack of research exploring this problem from the perspective of teaching in classrooms. The research field of multiculturalism and immigrants in school deals mainly with second language learning or second learning skills, bilingual questions, and immigrants’ achievements. There are some studies on adult immigrants and high school which include immigrants’ experiences and use of students’ narratives in teaching (Curry, 2001). Some studies deal with citizenship (Knight & Watson, 2014), and some studies deal with models of teaching (Bokek-Cohen & Davidovitch, 2011; Davies, Entin, & O’Malley, 2009), mentoring (Moreman, 2011), collaboration between teachers (Slater & Mohan, 2010) and curricula and programs particularly for immigrant students (Brickman & Nuzzo, 1999). However, what kind of teaching and learning methods they use, are tacit knowledge which rarely has been described in classroom research.

On this background we will contribute to the filed by accumulating knowledge, from a Bildung-centred didactic perspective, on the connections between how content in teaching refers to common knowledge, common cultural references and cultural communities, relevant for improving the situation for immigrant and minority language students in schools. The basic rationale for the approach can be summarized as follows: As ‘deep learning requires that learners relate new ideas and concepts to previous knowledge and experience’ (Sawyer, 2006, p. 4), quality teaching in a classroom is a matter of connecting new knowledge to knowledge bases familiar to these unique students present in the classroom. Hence, teaching presupposes common knowledge, common cultural references and cultural communities: the cultural is present through how the topic of the subject matter is expressed. In the history of philosophy, the question of how of teaching is a matter of referring to common knowledge, common cultural references and cultural communities, can be traced back to Aristotle’ assumption that the faculty of imagination is linked with perceptions (Aristotle, 1995). One of the central terms in Western philosophy describing this link, is the concept of mimesis (Ancient Greece 500 - 400 BC), and the original meaning of the word is: Miming, imitation, representation or replication (Else, 1958).

The main question in the study is about what kind of cultural references characterises the teaching in primary education:

- Are there implicit and explicit mechanisms of inclusion and/or exclusion within teaching itself, in its cultural references, and student learning is dependent on whether they can recognize and identify with the topics, the language use, the learning materials and the examples communicated in teaching?

- How are diverse kinds of social and cultural groups constructed using the personal pronouns ‘I’,‘you’, ‘we’ and ‘they’ in teaching? 

The methodology belongs to a constructivist paradigm and integrates perspectives from general didactics based on hermeneutic-critical phenomenological philosophy (mimesis, Ricoeur), sociology of education (boundaries, Barth), and linguistics (Levinson). The study is part of a comparative research project in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, but the recent paper relies on the ethnographic study in a Norwegian primary school which mainly means classroom observation of teaching. We have followed to classes in one school, grade 5 and 6 with 10-12-years-olds, in two weeks. The school are situated in an area with a certain number of immigrants and minority groups in the population, in a smaller city. The focus in the observations in the classroom has been a) Speech during interaction between teachers and students: Wording of concepts, references, examples and personal pronouns. b) Media: Examples and references in textbooks, work assignments, pictures, films, Internet and other objects used in teaching. A specific focus has been on teaching in the Norwegian language and history, since these are subject matters traditionally intended to form common cultures and identity, especially in the Scandinavian Bildung-centred didactic tradition. c) Body language, facial expressions, seating, interaction between students and teachers and between students. In addition, the teachers, one from each class, have been interviewed about their teaching, and some of the pupils have participated in focus group discussions about schooling and social inclusion and exclusion among peers at school.

The outcome will address the major challenge of integration, by drawing attention to how cultural values may be created, interpreted, negotiated and developed in educational settings. The analysis will illuminate the connections between how content in teaching refers to common knowledge, common cultural references and cultural communities, and the including and/or excluding mechanisms that lies within it. It will probably uncover the hidden curriculum and cultural references which is taken for granted in Norwegian teaching, the text books and the conversation in the classroom between teachers and pupils, and between pupils. The analysis of teachers and pupils’ talk will also uncover the dividing of people in categories, as ‘we’ and ‘the others’, and reveal whether these categories are based on culture, ethnicity or other factors, such as gender and social class. In the end, the purpose of the study is to create new inclusive teaching methods in cooperation with Scandinavian teachers, enabling them to improve the situation for immigrant and minority language students in schools. These methods will include a) a general didactic set of concepts and b) descriptions of how teachers should act when teaching diverse groups of students.

Aasebø, T. S., Midtsundstad, J. H., & Willbergh, I. (2017). Teaching in the age of accountability: restrained by school culture? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(3), 273-290. Alexander, R. J. (2000). Culture and pedagogy. International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Aristotle. (1995). Poetics (S. Halliwell, D. A. Russell, & D. Innes, Trans.). Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England: Harvard University Press. Auerbach, E., & Said, E. W. (2003). Mimesis: the representation of reality in western literature / by Erich Auerbach; translated from the German by WillardR. Trask; with a new introduction by Edward W. Said. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton UniversityPress. Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). Beyong learning: Democratic education for a human future. Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers. Bohnsack, R. (2004). Group discussion and focus groups. In U. Flick, I. Steinke, B. Jenner, & E. V. Kardorff (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 214-221). London: Sage. Bokek-Cohen, Y., & Davidovitch, N. (2011). The challenge of improving Teaching in a Globalizing World. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7), pp 817-830. Brickman, B., & Nuzzo, R. (1999). Curricula and programs for international and immigrant students. Journal of Intensive English Studies, 13, 53-62. Carlgren, I., Klette, K., Mýrdal, S., Schnack, K., & Simola, H. (2006). Changes in Nordic Teaching Practices: From individualised teaching to the teaching of individuals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(20), 301-326. Claesson, S. (2009). Lärares hållning. Klassiska undervisningsteorier och observationer av undervisning. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Researcher Projects 9. Else, G. F. (1958). Imitation in the 5th century. Classical Philology, 53(2), 73-90. Eriksen, T. H. (2002). Ethnicity and nationalism. Anthropological perspectives. London: Pluto Press. Kemp, P. (2006). Mimesis in Educational Hermeneutics. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(2), 171-184. Lindblad, S., & Sahlström, F. (1999). Gamla mönster och nya gränser. Om ramfaktorer och klassrumsinteraktion. Pedagogiskforskning i Sverige, 4(1), 73-92. Merleau-Pônty, M. (1962/2008). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routhledge Classics. Meyer, M. A. (2007). Didactics, Sense Making , and Educational Experience. European Educational Research Journal (Eerj), 6(2), Smith, D. E, (2002). Institutional Ethnography. In Tim May (ed.), Qualitative Research in action (pp 150-161). London: Sage. Willbergh, I. (2011). The role of imagination when teaching the diverse group. In S. Hillen, Tanja Sturm & Ilmi Willbergh (Ed.), Challenges facing contemporary didactics: Diversity of students and the role of new media in teaching and learning (pp.61-73). Münster: Waxmann.