Teaching in and with democracy (Stray & Sætra, 2017) can be seen as an example of the balance between theory and practice since it is addressed in some general subjects; it is an educational obligation to educate democratic citizens, and stakeholders expect the future labour force to be able to take part in vocational decisions and discussions (Nylund, Ledman, Rosvall & Rönnlund, 2020). However, there is limited knowledge about how this can be done in VET, but the IEA, International Civic and Citizenship Education Study shows the need to focus on pupils at VET (Bruun & Lieberkind, 2023).

Challenges to teaching democracy can be found in the structure of VET as an alternating education (Akkerman & Bakker, 2012), the division into general subjects and vocational subjects, and in the multiple perspectives in the Danish Vocational Education and Training Act (Ministry of Children and education, 2023). Danish VET is a youth education aiming for pupils' “interest in and ability to actively participate in a democratic society”; it must give a “foundation for future working life” and “meet the labour markets needs for vocational and general qualifications”. This research addresses teachers´ pedagogical choices in such balances between general and vocational perspectives teaching democracy based on the quotation from the law.

Internationally, some countries have a policy and interpretation of the pedagogical approach to democracy and research tradition (Stray & Sætra, 2017). However, in Denmark, research and discussions about democracy are found in public schools and the gymnasium, but they are still new at VET, and few policy documents are found (Duch & Skov, 2023). Furthermore, the colleges and the training have different approaches to and understanding of democracy (Duch, 2023). The paper aims to contribute to democracy in VET by addressing the pedagogy. The research question is how teachers' pedagogy of democracy is based on the formulations in the law.

The theoretical framework is Bernstein's notion of recontextualisation. The pedagogic device has “internal rules which regulate the pedagogic communication which the device makes possible” (Bernstein, 2000, p. 27). Recontextualisation takes place at different levels since “there are an official recontextualising field (ORF) created and dominated by the state and its selected agents and ministries, and a pedagogical extualising field (PRF). The latter consists of pedagogues in schools and colleges, and departments of education” (Bernstein, 2000, p. 33). The PRF can have more or less autonomy. Since there are only weak formulations from the ORF about democracy, the regulations are indirect and related to the structure of VET and the subjects. Hence, it is assumed that the teachers pedagogise democracy based on their understanding of framing and classifications. “Classification refers to what, framing is concerned with how meanings are to be put together, the forms by which they are to be made public, and the nature of the social relationships that go with it” (Bernstein, 2000 p 12). In the analysis Illeris´ (2006) model for learning and working patterns are used to observe and operationalise the framing. Solhaug’s (2021) characteristics of different understandings of democracy are used to operationalise the classification. Furthermore, the division of the general and the vocational aspects of democracy are part of this classification.

The findings contribute to didactic discussions at VET (Gessler & Herrera, 2015), democracy from the perspective of other agendas at VET (Nylund, Ledman, Rosvall & Rönnlund, 2020), and teacher training.

The research in this presentation is the last part of a project about democracy at VET. The educational context is a social and healthcare college. The project is initiated with dialogues with managers at a college, followed by interviews with 12 pupils (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Pupils´ experiences and future expectations in participating in democracy are the focus. Based on results and perspectives from the pupils, the managers at three colleges and three representatives from the training are interviewed. The focus is on democracy-related activities and understanding the educational task mentioned in the law. Then, a group of teachers were followed in 2023 based on action research (Laursen, 2012). Eight teachers, a manager, and the researcher have four meetings in spring. Reflective dialogues are inspired by professional learning (Hargreaves & O´Connor, 2018), and the teachers develop teaching with democracy from an inductive approach. Field notes are taken during the dialogues. Four teachers are observed while they try the chosen approach to democracy. This is done from a complete observer position based on the relation to pupils but more likely an observer-as-participant based on the relation to the teachers (Gold, 1958). The teachers were interviewed immediately following the observations. Field notes and brief transcriptions are taken. In the autumn, the group of teachers changed slightly, with one new teacher and three teachers leaving the group due to other obligations at the college. Four meetings were planned using a more deductive approach. The participants made logbooks twice, and at the end of the action research, four teachers and the manager were interviewed. The interviews lasted 30 to 45 minutes and were transcribed. The analyses are based on the field notes from observations and meetings, the logbooks, and the interviews. In the spring, the analytical approach was inductive and informed the planning of meetings in autumn. However, due to the democratic approach to action research, the plans for the last two meetings changed to a more dialogue-based direction with collegial reflections. The hermeneutic-inspired analysis of the material strives to go across the different kinds of data supported by the questions in the final interviews, stressing the teachers' chosen pedagogical approaches to democracy and the views on the general and vocational aspects at VET.

The interviews with pupils in the initial phase of the research show the need for teachers to focus on democracy since some pupils seem at risk of exclusion from participating in discussions at college and in their future working lives, as well as representative democracy. The interviews with managers and representatives from the training show a variation in awareness and understanding of democracy; however, some groups of pupils got a special intention. Hence, there is a need to focus on how teachers pedagogise democracy based on the formulations in the law. The action research shows that the teachers did not know about the obligations to teach with democracy. However, all of them develop and try out new initiatives. The teachers understand democracy differently, but the main approach can be categorised as variations of participatory democracy. There is a tension in the difference between general subjects and vocational subjects. The recontextualisation of democracy in classrooms is mostly explained as important based on VET as a youth education in combination with a vocational perspective. Teachers find a close connection between the two, and the majority argue that starting with experiences with democracy in the college is important to train for participation in democracy in training and working life. The observations show a variation in framing. Teachers chose different ways of introducing democracy and steering in the classroom, giving pupils different roles and responsibilities. This connects to teachers' approach to learning. Some teachers focus on VET perspectives connecting to older people or children; some focus more generally on the pupils' ability to participate and express opinions. To sum up, all teachers recontextualise the formulations of democracy in the law to teaching. However, since there is no official recontextualisation, teachers' beliefs, positions, and context play a crucial role.

Akkerman, S. & Bakker, A. (2012). Crossing Boundaries Between School and Work During Apprenticeships. Vocations and Learning, 5(2), 153–173. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12186-011-9073-6 Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bruun, J. & Lieberkind, J. (2023). Viden, engagement og demokratisk dannelse i en krisetid - hovedresultater af ICCS 2022. Aarhus Universitet. Duch, H. (2023). Demokrati - Potentialer og udfordringer i en social- og sundhedsuddannelse. Utbilding & Demokrati, 32 (1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.48059/uod.v32i1.2103 Duch, H., & Kidde Skov, T. (2023). Demokrati på erhvervsuddannelser med afsæt i social- og sundheds-uddannelser: [Democracy at vocational education based on social and health care programmes]. Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 13(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.231311 Gessler, M., & Herrera, L. M. (2015). Vocational didactics: core assumptions and approaches from Denmark, Germany, Norway, Spain and Sweden. International journal for research in vocational education and training, 2(3), 152-160. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:11552 Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36(3), 217–223. Hargreaves; A. & O´Connor, M. T. (2018). Collaborative professionalism: when teaching together means learning for all. Corvin Illeris, K. (2006). Læring (2.udgave). Roskilde Universitetsforlag. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interview: Introduktion til et håndværk. Hans Reitzel Laursen, E. (2012). Aktionsforskningens produktion af viden. I G. Duus, M. Husted, K. Kildedal, E. Laursen & D. Tofteng (red.) Aktionsforskning. En grundbog (s. 97-112). Samfundslitteratur. Ministry of children and education (2023). Erhvervsuddannelsesloven [law of vocational education and training). Nylund, M., Ledman, K., Rosvall P.-Å. & Rönnlund, M. (2020). Socialisation and citizenship preparation in vocational education: Pedagogic codes and democratic rights in VET-subjects. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1665498 Solhaug, T. (2012). Demokratibegrepet i skolen. I T. Solhaug (red.). Skolen i demokratiet. Demokratiet i skolen (33-46). Universitetsforlaget. Stray, J. & Sætra, E. (2017). Teaching for democracy: Transformative learning theory mediating policy and practice. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk, 3(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.23865/ntpk.v3.555