Since 2011, the first end-of-term grading in Swedish nine-year compulsory school, in the social studies subjects (civics, geography, history and religious studies) has started in Year 6. Before this, the grading had started in Year 8. Grading in Year 6 is carried out in relation to knowledge requirements (assessment criteria) in each social studies subject, and according to the Swedish national curriculum (SNAE, 2011), the starting point is that the subjects should be separated in both teaching and assessment (Claesson & Lindblad, 2013). A subject-separated approach to teaching and assessment in the social studies subjects is also common internationally (VanSledright, 2011). However, students in Swedish compulsory school should concurrently be given the opportunity to work in a subject-integrated manner (SNAE, 2011). Subject-integrated teaching, internationally often referred to as curriculum integration (Ferguson-Patrick, Reynolds and Macqueen, 2018), is considered to promote a more holistic student understanding of social studies subject matter - for example, key global issues (Jorgensen, 2014).

In Year 6, it is also possible to set a summarised grade in the social studies subjects, a grade that covers all subjects if the teaching has mainly been integrated (Swedish Education Act 2010: 800). Nevertheless, Olovsson & Näsström (2018) indicate that subject-integrated teaching and summarised grading in the social studies are quite rare in Swedish schools. In addition, Olovsson and Näsström (2018) describe that the subject-separated knowledge requirements has affected teachers’ choice of teaching form in favour of subject-separated teaching instead of subject integration. From a student learning perspective, this can be questionable: it has been argued that subject-integrated teaching in the social studies can provide more meaningful learning than what is developed in preparation for assessment in the individual subjects, such as “Standard Grade” (Fenwick, Minty & Priestley, 2013) which previously existed in the Scottish educational system.

Moreover, the assessment of students’ learning in subject-integrated social studies teaching has proven to be complicated and demands a great deal of attention to work out well (Harris, Harrison & McFahn, 2011). Assessment in subject-integrated teaching, with its unclear subject boundaries, can lead to unclear assessment criteria and can be connected to the concept of integrated code (Bernstein, 2000). The question of how to set grades in the social studies subjects, whether subject-separated or summarised, can affect the entire teaching process and students’ learning (cf. Samuelsson, 2014).

This study highlights and problematises the situation described above and shows how teachers and students in two classes, in Year 5 and 6 in Swedish compulsory school, approach assessment and develop summarised grading in four subject-integrated thematic units in the social studies subjects.

Aim and Research questions

The aim of the study is to investigate and analyse the assessment and grading practice in subject-integrated thematic units in the social studies subjects, and how practice can be developed to promote effective summarised grading and student learning.

The research questions are:

-How are assessment and grading carried out in conjunction with the subject-integrated teaching?

-How do students approach assessment and grading in conjunction with subject-integrated teaching?

-How do teachers approach assessment and develop summarised grading in the social studies subjects based on subject-separated knowledge requirements?

The results will be analysed in relation to Bernstein’s (2000) concepts of integrated code and collection code, and Gresnigt et al.’s. (2014) summary of approaches to integration, including a view that more complex knowledge can be developed during more complex integration. In addition, the indigenous perspective of social studies (Four Arrows, 2014) may be used, to analyse the provision of a holistic view of the social studies subjects.

Data collection was carried out in two classes in two schools in northern Sweden, during the Spring terms of 2019 and 2020. Both schools set summarised grades for Year 6 in the social studies subjects. The teaching was conducted in four thematic units in the social studies subjects. Each thematic unit consisted of about 6-12 lessons, with a length of about 40-70 minutes, over a period of 2-4 weeks. The collected material is in the form of classroom observations, audio recordings of lessons, interviews with teachers and students, informal conversations with teachers, and written material such as teachers’ notes regarding assessment and grading. The classes’ teachers planned and conducted teaching and assessment, and the researcher also acted, but to a low extent, as a discussion partner during teachers’ planning. Analysis of the empirical material is based on an interpretive approach, using concepts and processes from thematic analysis (Guest, MacQueen & Namey, 2012; Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Assessment, in relation to the knowledge requirements, was increasingly emphasised as end-of-term grading approached in Year 6. Regarding subject integration, several types of integration were identified, both during individual lessons and throughout the thematic units. More complex integration (Gresnigt et al., 2014) occured to some extent in the thematic units, but occurred less in Year 6, where teachers chose to plan thematic units in which one subject was the main subject and the other subjects were supplementary. The students’ acquired knowledge in the thematic units in Year 6 formed the basis for the end-of-term-grading, and the assessment took place in relation to the knowledge requirements in the individual subjects (cf. Bernstein, 2000). The teachers tried to find ways with subject-integrated teaching as a basis, and weave together the knowledge requirements of the different subjects, but found the task very challenging. In some parts, regarding the knowledge requirements, the subjects could interact, but in other parts interaction was more difficult. After completing the thematic units, the two teachers in some respects were contented. They have experienced the advantages with subject integration, and in some aspects they assert that their assessment skills have improved. However, on an overall level, they are still not contented with the structure and content of the national curriculum assessment system, particularly in terms of what knowledge they want the students to develop in social studies. In terms of opportunities for students to acquire a more holistic view, and in terms of the greater understanding of key global issues that the common core of the subjects can provide (Four Arrows, 2014), the benefits of subject integration in the social studies can probably be attained only to a lesser extent. This is due to the shortcomings of the existing Swedish national assessment system.

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (2nd rev.). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Braun, V., & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Claesson, S., & Lindblad, I. (2013). Spänningsfält mellan SO och fyra ämnen. I O. Franck (ed.), Samhällsämnenas didaktik - Årskurs 4-6 (pp. 13-32). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Fenwick, A. J. J., Minty, S., & Priestley, M. (2013). Swimming against the tide: a case study of an integrated social studies department. Curriculum Journal, 24(3), pp. 454-474, DOI: 10.1080/09585176.2013.805658 Ferguson-Patrick, K., Reynolds, R. & Macqueen, S. (2018). Integrating curriculum: a case study of teaching Global Education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 187–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2018.1426565 Four Arrows. (2014). Native studies, praxis, and the public good. In E.W. Ross (ed.), Social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems and possibilities, pp. 161-180. Albany: State University of New York Press. Gresnigt, R., Taconis, R., van Keulen, H., Gravemeijer, K. & Baartman, L. (2014). Promoting Science and Technology in Primary Education: A Review of Integrated Curricula. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 47–84. Guest, G., Macqueen, K. & Namey, E., (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Harris, R., Harrison, S. & McFahn, R. (2011). Cross-curricular teaching and learning in the secondary school. London: Routledge. Jorgensen, C. G., (2014). Social studies curriculum migration. In E.W. Ross (ed.), Social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems and possibilities, pp. 3-23. Albany: State University of New York Press. Olovsson, T.G., & Näsström, G. (2018). Ämnesövergripande undervisning och betyg i årskurs 4-6 i svensk grundskola i SO- och NO-ämnena. Nordidactica - Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education, (4), pp. 88-117. Samuelsson, J. (2014). Ämnesintegrering och ämnesspecialisering: SO-undervisningen i Sverige 1980–2014. Nordidactica – Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education, 2014(1), 85–118. Swedish Education Act (2010). http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument- Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Skollag-2010800_sfs-2010- 800/?bet_2010:800 Swedish National Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool Class and the Recreation Centre. Stockholm: Skolverket. Vansledright, B., (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education, practices, theories, and policy. New York: Routledge.