uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Almqvist, Jonas
Publications (10 of 93) Show all publications
Almqvist, J., Orpwood, G., Lundqvist, E. & Lidar, M. (2019). Analysing validity: The case of Swedish national tests in year 6 science.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Analysing validity: The case of Swedish national tests in year 6 science
2019 (English)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The purpose of this article is to analyse and discuss standardized tests in biology, physics and chemistry with a special focus on their content validity. In the article we describe and discuss three different tensions between the Swedish curricula and standardized tests in science: (1) Curricular intentions and assessment choices, (2) The ‘knowledge requirements’ specified in the curriculum and the marking scheme used in the assessment and (3) The intention of the evaluation system and its actual result. These tensions have consequences for the validity of the tests. Hence, it is necessary to regard these tests as only one of many resources teachers can use in their teaching and assessment practices.

Publisher
p. 21
Keywords
validity, standardized tests, science education
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Curriculum Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-381714 (URN)
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 2012-5769
Available from: 2019-04-12 Created: 2019-04-12 Last updated: 2019-04-16Bibliographically approved
Enoksson, H., Lidar, M., Ungewitter, A., Lindqvist, G. & Almqvist, J. (2019). Studier i en främmande skolkultur. In: Anette Olin, Jonas Almqvist, Karim Hamza & Lisbeth Gyllander Torkildsen (Ed.), Didaktisk utvecklingsdialog: Lärares och skolledares professionella utveckling (pp. 49-66). Lund: Studentlitteratur AB
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Studier i en främmande skolkultur
Show others...
2019 (Swedish)In: Didaktisk utvecklingsdialog: Lärares och skolledares professionella utveckling / [ed] Anette Olin, Jonas Almqvist, Karim Hamza & Lisbeth Gyllander Torkildsen, Lund: Studentlitteratur AB, 2019, p. 49-66Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Lund: Studentlitteratur AB, 2019
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Curriculum Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-393522 (URN)9789144125749 (ISBN)
Available from: 2019-09-24 Created: 2019-09-24 Last updated: 2020-02-07Bibliographically approved
Ligozat, F. & Almqvist, J. (2018). Conceptual frameworks in didactics - learning and teaching: Trends, evolutions and comparative challenges. European Educational Research Journal (online), 17(1), 3-16
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Conceptual frameworks in didactics - learning and teaching: Trends, evolutions and comparative challenges
2018 (English)In: European Educational Research Journal (online), ISSN 1474-9041, E-ISSN 1474-9041, Vol. 17, no 1, p. 3-16Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This special issue of the European Educational Research Journal presents a series of research papers reflecting the trends and evolutions in conceptual frameworks that took place within the EERA 27 ‘Didactics – Learning and Teaching’ network during its first ten years of existence. Most conceptual tools used in this field were elaborated in different socio-historical contexts for education and schooling delineated by nations and/or linguistic regions in Europe. This issue suggests possible integrative paths between certain frameworks debated in the Network 27 through co-authored papers. Crossed perspectives on the papers highlight certain important foci in the study of learning and teaching processes: (i) ‘Bildung’ discussed within didactics as a European research field; (ii) Educational goals, content and teaching methods expressed in curricula; (iii) Curriculum making processes; (iv) Teaching qualities, teaching (joint) actions and classroom discourses; and (v) Collaborative practices in teacher professional development. Finally, two strands of comparative research in didactics are sketched for increasing synergies in the field.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2018
Keywords
Bildung, curriculum, didactics, educational content, knowledge, learning, school subjects, teacher professional development, teaching
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Curriculum Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-339022 (URN)10.1177/1474904117746720 (DOI)000418959000001 ()
Projects
Teaching Traditions and Learning
Available from: 2018-01-15 Created: 2018-01-15 Last updated: 2019-06-27Bibliographically approved
Marty, L., Venturini, P. & Almqvist, J. (2018). Teaching Traditions in Science Education in Switzerland, Sweden and France: A comparative analysis of three curricula. European Educational Research Journal (online), 17(1), 51-70
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Teaching Traditions in Science Education in Switzerland, Sweden and France: A comparative analysis of three curricula
2018 (English)In: European Educational Research Journal (online), ISSN 1474-9041, E-ISSN 1474-9041, Vol. 17, no 1, p. 51-70Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Classroom actions rely, among other things, on teaching habits and traditions. Previous research has clarified three different teaching traditions in science education: the academic tradition builds on the idea that simply the products and methods of science are worth teaching; the applied tradition focuses on students’ ability to use scientific knowledge and skills in their everyday life; and the moral tradition opens up a relationship between science and society, focusing on students’ decision making concerning socio scientific issues. The aim of this paper is to identify and discuss similarities and differences between the science curricula in Sweden, France and Western Switzerland in terms of teaching traditions. The study considers the following dimensions in the analysis: (1) the goals of science education as presented in the initial recommendations of the curricula; (2) the organization and division of the core contents; and (3) the learning outcomes expected from the students in terms of concepts, skills and/or scientific literacy requirements. Although the three traditions are taken into account within the various initial recommendations, the place they occupy in the content to be taught is different in each case. In the Swedish curriculum, our analyses show that the three traditions are embedded in the initial recommendations and in the expected outcomes. On the other hand, in the Western-Swiss and French curricula, the three traditions are embedded in the initial recommendations but only 

academic tradition can be found in the expected outcomes. Therefore, the Swedish curriculum seems to be more consistent regarding teaching traditions. This may have some consequences on teaching and learning practices, which will be discussed in the article. Moreover, our analyses enable us to put forward definitions of teaching tradition.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2018
Keywords
Comparative didactics, teaching traditions, didactic transposition, curriculum, science education
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Curriculum Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-293757 (URN)10.1177/1474904117698710 (DOI)000418959000004 ()
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 2012-5023
Available from: 2016-05-15 Created: 2016-05-15 Last updated: 2019-06-27Bibliographically approved
Lidar, M., Karlberg, M., Almqvist, J., Östman, L. & Lundqvist, E. (2018). Teaching Traditions in Science Teachers’ Practices and the Introduction of National Testing. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5), 754-768
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Teaching Traditions in Science Teachers’ Practices and the Introduction of National Testing
Show others...
2018 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, ISSN 0031-3831, E-ISSN 1470-1170, Vol. 62, no 5, p. 754-768Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Our main interest in this article is to explore whether Swedish teachers changed their teaching and assessment practices in relation to the new national tests in science education that were introduced 2009. Data was collected using a web-distributed questionnaire, which was answered by 407 teachers. The concept of teaching traditions is used to capture patterns of what is emphasised by teachers in terms of goals and content in teaching and the design of the questionnaire was based on the concept of curriculum emphases. The results show two distinct groups of focus, which is compared with two traditions within science education: the Academic and the Moral tradition. The main content where teaching have been changed is in making science more applied than before, where applied not only mean the application of science knowledge to practical technical issues but also to moral and political issues.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis Group, 2018
Keywords
Teaching traditions, science education, standardized tests, teacher survey, educational change
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Curriculum Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-293941 (URN)10.1080/00313831.2017.1306802 (DOI)000442296200007 ()
Projects
NATIONELLA PROV I BIOLOGI, FYSIK OCH KEMI: EVENTUELL BETYDELSE FÖR LÄRARES UNDERVISNING OCH BEDÖMNING
Funder
Swedish Research Council, 2010-5153Swedish Research Council, 2012-5023
Available from: 2016-05-15 Created: 2016-05-15 Last updated: 2018-11-05Bibliographically approved
Almqvist, J. & Ligozat, F. (2016). Comparing, Combining and Fostering Conceptual Frameworks in Didactics: Double symposium at ECER in Dublin, August 22-26. In: : . Paper presented at ECER 2016.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Comparing, Combining and Fostering Conceptual Frameworks in Didactics: Double symposium at ECER in Dublin, August 22-26
2016 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In September 2016, the Network 27, Didactics, Learning and Teaching, will celebrate 10 years of development within the EERA. Since the beginning, this network is an important place for discussing and overcoming the fragmentation of the research paradigms in didactics. We focus on the relations between teaching, learning and knowledge content in the classroom from the learners and the teachers enacted practices and /or the curriculum perspectives. The network has been established as a unique place in the European educational research landscape for discussing:

  • Different paradigms for didactic research
  • Frameworks for comparison of teaching and learning actions across subjects and educational contexts
  • Methodologies for classroom observation including video studies of teaching and learning
  • Literacies, language use across school subjects and tacit dimensions of teaching
  • Teaching resources, teacher work and the “enacted” curriculum
  • Relationships between didactics and teacher professional development.

This symposium will go beyond mapping “state of the art” as documented by the diversity of research on didactics and/or learning and teaching (see Hudson & Schneuwly, 2007). The evolution of the conceptual frameworks used in “European didactics” in a broad sense will be traced, as it results from the encounter of the European researchers in the field (e.g., Hudson & Meyer, 2011; Meyer, 2012; Ligozat, Amade-Escot & Östman, 2015; Vollmer, 2014; Wickman, 2012). We will feature and discuss specific theoretical and empirical research results as they have been presented over recent years within the network.

The purpose of this symposium is to outline i) some conceptual relationships established between the strands of subject specific and general didactics and/or research on teaching and learning; ii) the significant role of comparison of classroom practices in various subjects for the exploration of the relations between different theoretical approaches to teaching and learning; iii) the emergence of new research processes involving teachers and researchers for jointly producing new didactical knowledge.

The first part of this double symposium focuses on general issues of frameworks and methodologies, as for example and ethical and political dimensions embedded in the curriculum-making process.

The second part will focus on the various role of comparison, either empirical and/or conceptual, for fostering our understanding of teaching and learning, and the subjects taught, as well as the conditions for producing and fostering didactic knowledge and professional development.

References

Hudson, B., & Schneuwly, B. (Éd.). (2007). Didactics – learning and teaching in Europe. Editorial. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 106‑108.

Hudson, B., & Meyer, M. A. (Éd.). (2011). Beyond Fragmentation: Didactics, learning and teaching in Europe. Opladen & Farmington Hills MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

Ligozat, F., Amade-Escot, C., & Östman, L. (Éd.). (2015). Beyond Subject Specific Approaches of Teaching and Learning: Comparative Didactics. Interchange, 46(4), 313‑321.

Meyer, M. A. (2012). Keyword: Didactics in Europe. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(3), 449‑482. Vollmer, H. J. (2014). Fachdidaktik and the Development of Generalised Subject Didactics in Germany. Education & didactique, 8(1), 23‑34.

Wickman, P.-O. (2012). A Comparison between Practical Epistemology Analysis and Some Schools in French Didactics. Éducation et didactique, 6(2), 145‑159.

Keywords
Didactics; subject didactics; comparative didactics; curriculum; classroom practice
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Curriculum Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-302040 (URN)
External cooperation:
Conference
ECER 2016
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2016-08-29 Created: 2016-08-29 Last updated: 2016-08-29
Almqvist, J., Hamza, K. & Olin, A. (2016). Didactical Investigations for Professional Development. In: : . Paper presented at ECER 2016.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Didactical Investigations for Professional Development
2016 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

The research presented in the paper is part of a large research project built on a comparative didactics approach (cf. Almqvist & Quennerstedt 2015; Ligozat et al 2015) with the overall ambition to search for and analyze different teaching traditions in order to optimize the possibility to find effective and fruitful teaching approaches. One of the aims in the project is to use and develop didactic knowledge and concepts in cooperation with teachers (cf. Sensevy et al 2013, Wickman 2015). In this paper we will present and discuss a way for researchers to participate in teachers’ development of teaching.

Teaching is a complex, transactional process affected by numerous contingencies both within and outside the classroom. Thus, it is necessarily underdetermined by any theories about teaching and learning. Just like medicine or engineering, didactic knowledge therefore needs to be developed in interaction between more general, ”theoretical” models of teaching, and the actual practices which these theories are intended to support (Wickman, 2015). This realization is consistent with current views of teacher professional development as needing to involve teachers in collaborative and inquiry-based projects grounded in problems identified by the teachers themselves (McNicholl, 2013; Sensevy et al 2013; van Driel, Meirink, van Veen, & Zwart, 2012).

The idea of didactic modelling or inquiry goes beyond these notions by emphasizing not only teacher learning and the development of local practice but also the successive modification and refinement of the theories themselves (Lijnse & Klaassen, 2004; Wickman, 2012). From that point of view, researchers in didactics and practicing teachers are seen as different but equally crucial actors in the joint construction and successive development of disciplinary knowledge about teaching.

Neither teacher professional learning nor didactic research primarily proceeds by substituting old ideas with new ones. Instead knowledge, personal as well as institutional, is transformed bit-by-bit through noticing of and reflection upon consequences for both practice and theory (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Wickman, 2012). Through this kind of joint and reciprocal work, generating personal as well as institutionalized knowledge which is thoroughly and continuously mangled through actual practice (Pickering, 1995), teachers as a collective may develop a common basis for their choices of content and methods for teaching (Wickman, 2015).

However, the ambition to find ways for researchers too contribute to educational development is not new. A research field with long experience of and knowledge about development work where researchers and teachers collaborate is the action research field. Action research is a broad field both in a geographical as well as theoretical sense (Somekh & Zeichner, 2009), including different purposes, conditions, philosophical starting-points and forms for inquiry. Nevertheless, there are also characterizing features in all variations of action research. According to Reason and Bradbury (2001), action research always has an emergent developmental form; it deals with practical issues, supports human development, is founded on knowledge-in-action and aims at participation and democracy (p. 2). The role of teachers in educational research has been an essential topic for decades especially in critical theoretical approaches such as Participatory Action Research (PAR).

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In the seminal book Becoming critical (Carr & Kemmis, 1986) the aim was to clarify that teachers have to be a part of the research together with researchers if there is going to be more than purely theoretical knowledge about educational change, and if actual change is to be effected. From a Swedish perspective working in action research partnerships between teachers and researchers, school and university, has been emphasized and developed since policies for education in the 1990s opened up for this kind of collaborations as a strategy of developing schools on the basis of research (Salo, Furu & Rönnerman, 2008, p.16). Being interested in how research and practice development may occur through productive relationships between researchers and teachers means that not only knowledge itself needs to be explored, but also dimensions like dialogue and recognition (Groves, Olin, & Karlberg-Granlund, forthcoming). In action research, there is a quest towards sound communication in community with other individuals as a foundation for professional growth and development in practices, which can contribute to knowledge formation. In transformative partnerships reciprocal relationships between research and practice based on ongoing negotiation and renegotiation of substantive claims and judgments by all involved in the research, rests on the possibility of recognition of the other within intersubjective spaces that openly nurtures an individual’s sense of being a valuable contributor in the professional learning projects. The methodology developed and discussed in the paper is a way for researchers and teachers to produce knowledge about teaching in common writing about educational cases. The case, which is written by an educational researcher (the lead author) together with an active teacher will (1) describe some kind of didactic dilemma or problem that the teacher has identified and (2) a description of how the dilemma is handled in the teacher's practice. In a second step of the analyses, a couple of researchers from different fields write comments on the case from their different perspectives. In the third step, the lead author and the teacher pull together, summarize and discuss the case and the different comments. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings In the paper we describe and discuss three cases of teaching written by teachers and researchers together. The results show how questions identified by active teachers can be developed by using results from didactical research, but also how didactical knowledge and concepts may be developed when applied in the cases. Preliminary themes handled in the cases are (a) different ways of teaching the same educational content, (b) student’s participation in the classroom discussion and (c) application of scientific knowledge in everyday situations. During the writing process we also analyze if and how the writers’ ways of thinking about the specific cases develops. Consequently, we produce and present two different kinds of knowledge in the paper. Firstly, the results show how the teaching practices was developed in the joint work of teacher and researcher, and secondly how didactical knowledge and concepts can be applied, and perhaps developed, in the writing process. We will also discuss the cases in relation to professional development – specifically the development of teaching in terms of educational content, teaching and learning – and how the relation between researcher and teacher in cooperation depends on their recognition of each other’s perspectives and knowledge.

References

Almqvist, J. & Quennerstedt, M. (2015). Is there (any)body in science education? Interchange, 46(4), 439-453.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. London: Falmer Press.

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947-967.

Groves, C.E., Olin, A., & Karlberg-Granlund, G. (forthcoming). Partnership and Recognition in Action Research: understanding the practices and practice architectures for participation and change. Educational Action Research.

Ligozat, F., Amade-Escot, C. & Östman, L. (2015). Beyond subject specific approaches of teaching and learning: Comparative didactics? Interchange, 46(4), 313-321.

Lijnse, P., & Klaassen, K. (2004). Didactical Structures as an Outcome of Research on Teaching-Learning Sequences? Special Issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 537-554.

McNicholl, J. (2013). Relational agency and teacher development: a CHAT analysis of a collaborative professional inquiry project with biology teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36, 218-232.

Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human Aspiration. I P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Red.), Handbook of Action Research. Participative Inquiry and Practice (s 1-14). London: SAGE.

Salo, P., Furu, E.M., & Rönnerman, K. (2008). Educational policies and reforms. In K. Rönnerman, E. Moksnes Furu, & P. Salo (Red.). Nurturing Praxis. Action Research in Partnerships Between School and University in a Nordic Light (s 11-20). (Pedagogy, Education and Praxis, 3). Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense.

Sensevy, G., Forest, D., Quilio, S. & Morales, G. (2013). Cooperative engineering as a specific design-based research. ZDM, The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 1031-1043

Somekh, B. & Zeichner, K. (2009). Action research for educational reform: remodeling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 5–21.

van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J. A., van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. C. (2012). Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: a review of design features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48, 129-160.

Wickman, P.-O. (2015). Teaching learning progressions: An international perspective. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (2nd ed., pp. 145-163). New York: Routledge.

Wickman, P.-O. (2012). How can conceptual schemes change teaching? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 129-136.

Keywords
teaching, professional development, recognition
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Curriculum Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-302042 (URN)
External cooperation:
Conference
ECER 2016
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2016-08-29 Created: 2016-08-29 Last updated: 2016-08-29
Almqvist, J. (2016). Didaktik och ämnesdidaktik: Exemplet Uppsala universitet.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Didaktik och ämnesdidaktik: Exemplet Uppsala universitet
2016 (Swedish)Report (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Curriculum Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-275846 (URN)
Available from: 2016-02-08 Created: 2016-02-08 Last updated: 2016-02-09Bibliographically approved
Almqvist, J., Meckbach, J., Öhman, M. & Quennerstedt, M. (2016). How wii teach physical education and health. SAGE Open, 6(4), Article ID 2158244016682995.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>How wii teach physical education and health
2016 (English)In: SAGE Open, ISSN 2158-2440, E-ISSN 2158-2440, Vol. 6, no 4, article id 2158244016682995Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The use of educational computer games in physical education (PE) has become more popular in recent years and has attracted research interest. The aim of the article is to investigate how physical activities and images of the human body are offered by the game. The results show how the “teacher” constituted in the games is one who instructs and encourages the players to exercise and think about their bodies, but not a “teacher” who can help students to investigate, argue, or discuss images of health and the human body. We argue that the use of a wide range and variety of ways of teaching would make the teaching richer and offer a deeper understanding about the body and health.

Keywords
teaching, artifact, physical education, exergames
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Curriculum Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-293747 (URN)10.1177/2158244016682995 (DOI)000458994100018 ()
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2016-05-15 Created: 2016-05-15 Last updated: 2020-01-07Bibliographically approved
Almqvist, J. (2016). Teaching traditions and learning: A comparative didactic approach. In: : . Paper presented at 4ème colloque international de l'Association pour des Recherches Comparatistes en Didactique, Toulouse, du 8 au 11 mars..
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Teaching traditions and learning: A comparative didactic approach
2016 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In this presentation, I propose that research about the limits and possibilities for action offered by different teaching traditions may influence students’ learning and be useful for teachers in thinking about and planning their teaching practices. Activities such as education, teaching and learning are constituted by choices of content and manners of teaching. These choices communicate what counts as valid knowledge and the proper ways of creating knowledge within the practice. I argue that comparative didactic studies, identifying teaching traditions in different educational practices, subjects and/or countries, contribute to an understanding of the prerequisites for learning formed in each of the traditions. In so doing, the research can create knowledge about the relation between customs of teaching and the learning outcome. In the presentation, I will present the framework of and some results from the project Teaching Traditions and Learning. The project builds on a comparative didactics approach combination with a pragmatic perspective on teaching and learning. The ambition is to search for as many different teaching traditions as possible in order to optimize the possibility to find effective and fruitful teaching approaches. Therefore, the project includes participants from various contexts in three countries; France, Sweden and Switzerland.

Keywords
teaching traditions, learning, comparative didactics, educational content, pragmatism
National Category
Didactics
Research subject
Curriculum Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-280518 (URN)
Conference
4ème colloque international de l'Association pour des Recherches Comparatistes en Didactique, Toulouse, du 8 au 11 mars.
Funder
Swedish Research Council
Available from: 2016-03-10 Created: 2016-03-10 Last updated: 2016-03-10
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications