The purpose of this study is to make an analysis of meanings about purposes, contents and teaching methods in the school subject law, formulated by secondary level teachers in interviews. My ambition is to fill a gap in Swedish subject didactic research in the field, as well as to support knowledge needed by a new group of subject teachers. The gap consists of a lack of knowledge about teaching in the school subject law (Henriksson, 2018). Le Brun & Clark (1989) argue for more research in the school subject law; especially on the transformation of legal knowledge into secondary level. Successful teachers, providing students with desired abilities, should be studied. Kohlmeyer & Saye (2014) believe in a line of studies regarding students’ ability to reason morally about legal issues.

Socialization and personality development occur simultaneously as learning facts (Almqvist et al., 2008; Englund, 1997). Socialization is about our worldviews and personality development is about how we are supposed to be and behave. According to Englund (1997), teaching is a social act with moral meanings and consequences and Biesta & Burbules (2003) argue that facts and values are inseparable in practice. In relation to the school subject law, this would mean that when students learn facts about marriage they also learn for example how to value same-sex relations.

There are two different views on knowledge in relation to norms and values in education (Östman & Almqvist, 2011). On the one hand norms should be avoided since they are opposite to scientific, objective facts. On the other hand norms are a natural, inevitable and central part of education. Believing norms can be avoided is an illusion according to Östman & Almqvist (Ibid., p. 170).

We argue that the pragmatic empirical research we are going to present shows values and norms are integral parts of learning, as well as preconditions for learning.

Selections of purposes, contents and manners of teaching made by teachers influence students’ meaning making (Cherryholmes, 2000). According to Dewey (1925/1995), meanings are based on our experiences and when teachers introduce new subject contents, students need to reflect in order to make new meanings; thinking bridges the gap between the previously known and the new and continuity between these is created by language (cf. Wickman & Östman, 2002).

I am interested in questions about if, how and why teachers at secondary level offer students opportunity to make conscious moral meanings. Therefore, I will study how they make selections in their teaching practices.

In one of the larger cities in Sweden, legal education at secondary level is offered at five secondary level schools. Teachers in the course “Law and society” was offered to participate in this interview study and four teachers from different schools accepted. Each teacher was interviewed on three different occasions and the interviews are transcribed verbatim. All interviews were semi-structured with an interview guide securing the covering of all relevant questions. However, for the second interview I used a questionnaire where teachers were asked to rank their priorities regarding purposes, contents and teaching methods. They were also asked to position themselves on scales, regarding questions about law at secondary level being a moral free zone or not, their faithfulness to the curriculum and their attitude toward student influence. This approach turned out to generate fruitful discussions. I draw on pragmatism, inspired by Quennerstedts (2006) operationalization of pragmatic discourse analysis. Cherryholmes (1988) argues that meanings are located in ongoing discourses, texts as well as speech. This assumption implies that meanings are reachable through teachers’ speech and not isolated within them, hence enabling analysis of teachers offered meanings through discourse analysis of their spoken words. In the pragmatic sense, meaning is an empirical and context related issue, as opposed to an inherent property of language. Foucault (1971/1993) defines the discursive analysis unit as an uttering and discourses as separated, homogenous, distinct, regular series of utterings. I draw on Foucault, when considering meanings expressed verbally by teachers as discursive utterings. Discourses are in my study, more or less homogenous series of meanings/utterings about purposes, contents and teaching methods in the school subject law. First, all interviews have been carefully analyzed and categorized in relation to the research questions about purposes, contents and teaching methods in the school subject law. The second step consists of search for regular patterns, where contrasts, similarities, continuity, contradictions but also missing aspects are considered. Finally, the last step consists of reflection on consequences of the identified discourses.

Regarding the purpose of teaching the school subject law most teachers argue for the benefit of society, for example the importance of knowledge about the Swedish legal system. However students’ private needs are also mentioned, for example in order to understand their own rights and obligations. The teachers also problematize the subject and state that teaching law at this level is somewhat pointless, because it is too limited to really convey the true nature of the law. Most teachers prioritize criminal law whilst international law often is of lowest priority. Other covered legal areas are procedural law and constitutional law. A lot of different teaching methods are used, where case studies and problem-solving is of highest priority among the interviewed teachers. Lectures and reading of different kinds of legal texts are other frequent teaching methods, along with field trips and role playing. Regarding the moral dimension of teaching law, there is a related grading criterion according to the latest Swedish syllabus, where students are expected to make ethical and jurisprudent reflections. Teachers usually treat this aspect of the school subject law as a separated activity where specific issues are discussed, for example cases related to citizen rights, punishment philosophies or deportation of immigrants. Hence, in practice, knowledge and values tend to be treated as separate entities by the interviewed teachers. A consequence of this is that ethical and jurisprudent reasoning do not permeate the teaching as a whole.

Almqvist, Jonas, Kronlid, David, Quennerstedt, Mikael, Öhman, Johan, Öhman, Marie, & Östman, Leif (2008). Pragmatiska studier av meningsskapande. Utbildning & Demokrati, 17(3), 11-24. Biesta, Gert J. J. & Burbules, Nicholas C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield publishers. Cherryholmes, Cleo H. (1988). Power and criticism. Poststructural investigations in education. New York: Teacher College Press. Cherryholmes, Cleo H. (2000). Pragmatismens innebörder och dess konsekvenser. Utbildning & Demokrati, 9(3), s. 13-29. Dewey, John (1925/1995). Experience and nature. New York: Dover Publications. Englund, Tomas (1997). Undervisning som meningserbjudande. I Michael Uljens (red.), Didaktik, (s 120-145). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Foucault, Michel (1971/1993). Diskursens ordning. Stockholm: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag Symposion. Henriksson, Mona-Lisa (2018). Discourses about the school subject law at secondary level – A literature study. Paper presented at ECER 2018, the 2018 European Conference on Educational Research, Bolzano, Italy. Kohlmeier, Jada & Saye, John W. (2014). Ethical reasoning of U.S. high school seniors exploring just versus unjust laws. Theory & Research in social education, 42(4), s 548-578. Le Brun, Marlene & Clark, Eugene E. (1989). The growth of legal education in australian secondary schools : Implications for tertiary and secondary legal education. Legal education review, 1(2), s 217-236. Quennerstedt, Mikael (2006). Att lära sig hälsa. Örebro: Örebro studies in Education, 15. Wickman, Per-Olof & Östman, Leif (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86, 601-623. Östman, Leif & Almqvist, Jonas (2011). What do values and norms have to do with scientific literacy? I Cedric Linder, Leif Östman, Douglas A. Roberts, Per-Olof Wickman, Gaalen Erickson & Allan MacKinnon (red.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy, (s. 160-175). London: Routledge.