Pupils` learning environments in upper secondary schools in Norway – on which level do we find the variation?

Author(s):

Lars Monsen(presenting / submitting)

Conference:

ECER 2011

Network:

3. Curriculum Innovation by Schools and Teachers

Format:

Paper

Session Information

03 SES 12, Learner Support

Paper Session

Time:

2011-09-16

08:30-10:00

Room:

JK 31/227,1 FL., 30

Chair:

Moira Hulme

Contribution

In this paper I will analyze data from a national pupil survey in Norway in 2009. The aim of the survey is getting inclusive data on learning environments in Norwegian schools with more than 300 000 thousand answers. In my analysis I will compare data from this national sample with a sample from one county – Hedmark county with answers from 2600 pupils. The aim of this analysis is to find out the variation in learning environments between different schools in Hedmark county. From earlier surveys we knew that the variations between the 20 counties in Norway were rather small. In my analysis I found a rather astounding variation in pupils responses between different schools. I could identify school were pupils were more content with their learning environments than in other schools. In the concluding part of the paper I discuss what we could do with this kind of information.

Method

My survey in Hedmark county is based upon national surveys in upper and lower secondary shools where all pupils in in 4 different levels are included. I could take out all pupils in 1.st and 3.rd year in all upper secondary schools in Hedmark in 2008, with more than 2600 answers from the electronic submitted responses. All questions and subquestions were factor analysed. Those factors were developed to z-scores to make it possible to compare all school results as a deviation from the mean for all schools in Hedmark, expressed in standarised measures. As we could see from the result of the factor analyzis, items from differerent questions could go together, showing that pupils saw a different logic than the logic of questions and subquestions from the survey.

Expected Outcomes

Some major outcomes: 1. There is much greater variation between schools than between counties. 2. The variation between schools is systematic, meaning that pupils rating their schools high on one factor, will also do so in many other factors 3. This variation between schools regading pupils evaluation of their learning environment has little to do with the schools examination results. 4. We find a strong relationship between pupils having "a voice" in their school and other factors in their learning environment. 5. Compared to other factors, most schools get low scores on pupils influence and pupils taking part in school decision-making. 6. In many schools we can also find much variation between different departments.

References

Center for Educational Leadership (2007). Changing teacher beliefs and instructional practices. High-quality professional learning opportunities for high school teachers, Reseach Brief 4, University of Washington Flutter, J. J. Ruddock (2004). Consulting pupils. What`s in it for schools?, Routledge Falmer, London Lauglo, J. & T. Øia (2006). Education and civic engagement among Norwegian youths, Rapport nr.14, Norwegian Social Research, Oslo Littele, J.W. (2002). Professional community and the problem of high school reform, International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8) Marsh, H.W. et.al. (2007). The big-fish-little-pond effect: Persistent negative effects of selective high schools on self-concept after graduation, American Educational Research Journal, 44(3) Monsen, L. & O.P. Hansen (2002). Cooperative learning in Oppland County. An experience in transforming curriculum demands to the classroom level, paper American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, april Olson, J. (2002). Systemic change/teacher tradition: Legends of reform continue, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(2) Peder, D. & D. McIntyre (2006). Pupil consultation: The importance of social capital, Education Review, 58(2) Ruddock, J.& D. McIntyre (2007).Improving learning through consulting pupils, Routledge, London Skaar, K. m.fl. (2008). Se den enkelte. Analyse av Elevundersøkelsen 2008, Oxford Research, Kristiansand Spillane, J. (2002). Local theories of teacher change: The Pedagogy of District Policies and Programs, Teachers College Record, 104(3) Stringfield, S. (2002). Is large scale educational reform still possible? Journal of Educational Change, v.3 .p. 63-73 Torgerson, C.J. m.fl.(2007). What are the factors that drive high post-16 participation of many minority ethnic groups, and what strategies are effective in encouraging participation? EPPI-Centre,Social Sciences Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London Utdanningsdirektoratet (2007). En lærende skole. Skoleutvikling gjennom fag

Author Information

Lars Monsen (presenting / submitting)

Lillehammer University College

Lillehammer

Search the ECER Programme

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.