10 SES 09 D, Research on Values, Beliefs & Understandings in Teacher Education
Within the Swedish school context, several reports and literature reviews have been produced concerning teachers’ inability and inconsistency of grading practices (Gustafsson, Sörlin & Vlachos, 2016; Heller Sahlgren & Jordahl, 2016; Lundahl, Hultén, Klapp & Mickwitz, 2015). The critic has concerned teachers’ subjectivity when grading their students’ learning outcomes and teachers’ inability in applying the criterion based, Swedish grading system. The teachers’ individual differences has been of major concern and suggestions been made that their implicit are victims to factors such as the students personality and general behavior. Selghed (2010) states that the Swedish teachers do not cognitively grasp the grading system, Annersted and Larsson (2010) that Swedish teachers can’t make explicit the principles for their assessments and Svennberg, Meckbach and Redelius (2014) conclude that the Swedish teachers subjective feelings guides their grading procedures.
Historically the teachers’ individual variation in interpreting criteria and the teacher error are viewed as the largest set-back for reliability and validity when it comes to grades (Brimi, 2011). However, instead of focusing on teachers’ inability to follow criteria because of their inability and/or attitudes, there are other suggestions to this variation in grading. A recent review by Brookhart et al., (2016) reveals among many aspects of grading, that teachers grade an achievement-oriented behavior such as student engagement, persistence and completion of work (Bowers, 2011; Kelly, 2008) in favor of a strict criterion related approach. Brookhart with colleges conclude that the multidimensional aspect of grading includes “behavior that supports and promotes academic achievement, and that teachers evaluate these behaviors as well as academic content in determining grades” (p. 826-827, Brookhart et al., 2016). Within a Swedish context, teachers are strictly regulated to base their grading’s on subject area content only within a criteria based system which also emphasize the measurability of everything (Skolverket, 2011a; 2011b; 2014; 2015). In a US context, Barnes, Fives & Dacey (2017) found that 72% of their sample of teachers believed assessment (which many times forms the base of grading judgments) to be bad, irrelevant and inaccurate. This could be problematic when research has shown decreasing validity when conflicting interest exists between evaluator (teachers) and policy owners (Newton & Shaw, 2014). Our aim is to investigate if the problem with the Swedish teachers grading’s can be explained by something else than lack of cognition (Annersted & Larsson, 2010; Selghed, 2010), subjective feelings (Svennberg et al., 2014) or irrelevant personal beliefs and attitudes (Lundahl et al., 2016) and if this “something else” in fact can be related to the context of curricula governance and its dominant discourse on knowledge, pedagogy and the very meaning and mission of teaching and schooling. Opening this second possibility means that we will change previous focuses on teacher’s skills in grading, to contextual factors that gives significance to grading.
International research on reported grading practices has shown that teachers do distinguish between academic enablers’ contra personality and general behavior (McMillian, 2001; Sun & Cheng, 2013). However, these results comes from the context of USA and China and we don’t know if they are applicable in a Swedish context (where a new grading system was introduced 2011). Because of this we have asked upper-secondary pre-service their last semester to explain in written text, anonymous, what is required by a future student of theirs to get good grades.
Our research question is if and how these future teachers will report normatively according to the Swedish policy documents on grading (the criterion in the specific subject) and schooling (educational governance). Further, if and how they report academic enablers, personality and behavioral strategies as representative for god grades.
139 pre-service teachers participated their last semester (total of 11 semesters/5.5 years) of their upper-secondary teacher education. They filled in a questionnaire with first open qualitative questions and after this quantitative items.This study only addressed the open, qualitative question “what is required by a future student of theirs to get good grades”. The coding was initially inductive, categorizing each utterance as articulations of performative acts of making sense of the addressed question, more specifically “the good grade student” of theirs. Here, five categories was found: (1) Criterion referenced approach (2) Cognitive/metacognitive abilities, (3) Motivational- and behavioral- related factors (4) Support structures and (5) Language communication skills. Within each category a differentiated space of conceptual and context specific meanings was identified and analyzed. The analyses conducted concerned conceptual and context specific meanings from, firstly, previous literature concerning teachers’ grading procedures, and, secondly, from the wider point of view of addressing contextual and political factors given meaning to the grading and educational system in Sweden. Thereby, our inductive approach in the first step of coding, turned into one of deduction (addressing the above mentioned research literature) and abduction in our analytical phase. The abductive approach was based on performative and pragmatic discourse analyses which here concentrates on identifying the contexts that influence the respondents reply to the specific question. This knowledge approach takes inspiration from the meaning of discourse in more recent developments in studying the social, and contextual meaning of knowledge (Hacking, 2000; Latour, 2005). Our preliminary findings suggest that the differentiated conceptual and context specific space which give meaning to “the good grade student” echoes the complexity of both grading and schooling. Further, how this today’s focus on teachers’ cognitive skills, subjective feelings and beliefs is a too limited explanation of what might be the problem of grading. Though our respondents report academic enablers, motivational and behavioral strategies as representative for good grades, a closer look at each category opens it for a wider space of sense-making context which in different ways echoes dominant discourses in educational policy documents and governance. The essence is that the change in the Swedish grading system implies a discursive shift in which the role of the grade has a more prominent role in the background of PISA results and its discursive context. The Swedish curricula includes conflicting interests and might be seen as counteracting the meaning and mission of teaching and schooling.
These upper-secondary pre-service teachers reported first of all in accordance with the policy documents and the formal demands of criterion and measurability directing teachers’ grading procedures. This rules out lack of cognitive ability as Selghed (2010) or Annersted and Larsson (2010) at least for these participants. However, they simultaneously reported behavioral and motivational aspects, communication skills in knowledge mediation, supportive social structures and cognitive/metacognitive ability as representative for good grades. This support Brookhart et al. (2016) conclusions of the multidimensional aspects of grading where teachers’ grading of students includes behavior that promotes academic achievement such as engagement and persistence. There is however conflicting interest – good grades should according to the policy documents be given to measurable, objective knowledge within a specific subject according to the policy documents explicit stated criteria. Good grades should not depend on for example social supportive structures such as the quality of the students teacher, family and interactions with these, the students’ verbal skill in knowledge mediation or the students metacognitive ability to understand how the teacher interpret the criterion in the policy documents. But to dismiss this type of meta-knowledge in grading procedures as inability, subjectivity (Lundahl et al. 2015) or to emotional (Svennberg (2014) might be an oblique turn from the problem of validity in educational measurement (Newton & Shaw, 2014). There seems to be a conflict of interest between the policy makers and the teacher profession (Barnes et al., 2017) concerning the discourse of differentiation by grade and the very meaning and mission of teaching and schooling. The dominant discourse of knowledge and pedagogy that the curricula governance maintain could be a part of the problem and not the professional teachers’ ability or feelings. More research that do not objectify teachers as badly adjusted mechanical parts are urgent.
Annerstedt, C., & Larsson, S. (2010). ”I have my own picture of what the demands are…”: Grading in Swedish PEH – problems of validity, comparability and fairness. Eurpean Physical Education Review, 16(2), 97-115. Barnes, N., Fives, H., & Dacey, C.M. (2017). U.S. teachers’ conceptions of the purpose of assessment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 107-116. Bowers, A. J. (2011). What’s a grade? The multidimensional nature of what teacher-assigned grades assess in high school. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17, 141-159. Brimi, H.M. (2011). Reliability of grading high school work in English. Pratical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 16(17). Brookhart, A.M., Guskey, T.R., Bowers, A.J., McMillan, J.H., Smith, J.K., Smith, L.F., Stevens, M.T., & Welsh, M.E. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), 803-848. Gustafsson, J-E., Sörlin, S., & Vlachos, J. (2016). Policyidéer för den svenska skolan. Stockholm: SNS-förlag. Hacking, Ian (2000). The social construction of what. Harvard University press. Heller-Sahlgren, G., Jordahl, H. (2016). Information – ett verktyg för bättre skolsystem. Stockholm: SNS-förlag. Kelly, S. (2008). What types of students’ effort are rewarded with high marks? Sociology of Education, 81, 32-52. Latour, Bruno (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford University Press. Lundahl, C., Hultén, M., Klapp, A., & Mickwitz, L. (2015). Betygens geografi: forskning om betyg och summative bedömningar i Sverige och internationellt. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. McMillian, J.H. (2001). Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(1), 20-32. Newton, P.E. & Shaw, S.D. (2014). Validity in educational & psychological assessment. London: Sage Selghed, B. (2010). Ett omöjligt uppdrag. Om lärares bedömningar och betygssättning. I: Brante, G. & Hjort, K. (red). Dilemman i skolan - aktuella utmaningar och professionella omställningar. Kristianstad: Kristianstad University Press. Skolverket (2011a). Läroplan, examensmål och gymnasiegemensamma ämnen för gymnasieskola 2011. Stockholm Skolverket (2011b). Kunskapsbedömning i skolan – praxis, begrepp, problem och möjligheter. Stockholm Skolverket. (2014). Sambedömning i skolan – exempel och forskning. Stockholm: Skolverket. Skolverket. (2015). Kunskapsbedömning i träningsskolan. Stockholm: Fritzes. Sung, Y., & Cheng, L. (2013). Teachers’ grading practices: Meaning and values assigned. Assessment in Education, 21, 326-343. Svennberg, L., Meckbach J., & Redelius, K. (2014). Exploring PE teachers' 'gut feelings': An attempt to verbalise and discuss teachers' internalised grading criteria. European Physical Education Review, 20(2), 199-214.
Some networks have already started to plan their chairperson(s).
But at the moment chairpersons are only pencilled in, as we will still need to check for time conflicts between presentation and chairing duties. EERA office will work on this in due course and then officially let chairpersons know about their chairing duties.
Meanwhile, thank you for your patience.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- 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.