uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
Refine search result
12 1 - 50 of 91
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Agents and artefactsConference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
    Abstract [en]

    The importance of the usage of artefacts is a central question within sociocultural perspectives on learning. In everyday life people use artefacts to be able do things they would not be able to do otherwise. Learning, in this respect, is a matter of appropriating ways of acting with artefacts. However, the nature of the relationship between artefacts and human action is, from a sociotechnical view, rather confusing. On the one hand we can emphasise the influence of artefacts on action. On the other hand we can emphasise that the meaning of artefacts is constituted in action. A third possibility is to emphasise the process in which individuals act with technology. In this paper I will focus on this confusion in a discussion of the concept of technological closure. The aim is to illustrate and discuss an approach that makes it possible to study the role of artefacts in ongoing meaning making processes. This is done from a sociocultural perspective on learning specified by a sociotechnical perspective on artefacts and inspired by the late writings of Wittgenstein. The approach is illustrated in a few case studies of video recorded educational settings where pupils use information technology.

  • 2.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Akademiska professionsutbildningar2011In: Det goda lärandet: en bok om Liberal Arts Education / [ed] Anders Burman & Patrik Mehrens, Lund: Studentlitteratur , 2011, p. 117-132Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 3.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Artefaktanvändning i undervisningssammanhang: En privilegieringsanalys2008In: Utbildning och Demokrati, ISSN 1102-6472, E-ISSN 2001-7316, Vol. 17, no 3, p. 47-68Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The use of artefacts is a central part of many human activities. In education, for example, people use them to deal with didactic problems otherwise not possible to solve. However, even though often taken for granted and not explicitly thought of in most practices, the use of artefacts is not given beforehand. In fact, they are constituted in sociocultural contexts where different agents, including the users, may have contributed. Consequently, this is an issue possible to discuss and debate. The aim of this article is to describe an approach in studies of how the use of artefacts is constituted in educational settings. Examples from video recorded classroom situations illustrate how artefacts contribute to meaning making in practice. It is also argued that there is a need for further studies and discussions about the use of artefacts in education.

  • 4.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Att synliggöra det förgivettagna2014In: Lärande i handling: En pragmatisk didaktik / [ed] Britt Jakobsson, Iann Lundegård & Per-Olof Wickman, Lund: Studentlitteratur AB, 2014, p. 119-128-Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 5.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education.
    Bilder av Internet: En studie av IT som verktyg för meningsskapande2001In: Utbildning och Demokrati, ISSN 1102-6472, E-ISSN 2001-7316, Vol. 10, no 1, p. 7-27Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 6.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Didaktik och ämnesdidaktik: Exemplet Uppsala universitet2016Report (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 7.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Educational content, teaching strategies and learning: Part of the symposium Sharing ideas for passionate, radical and innovative approaches to didactics (part II): Theory, subject and content2014Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 8.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Evaluation of didactics, education and teacher education programs: Reflections on the new system for quality assurance2015Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The contemporary Swedish system for quality assurance of higher education has been strongly criticized. The main critique has been that it only focuses on a measurement of the results and that it has been difficult to use in the development of higher education. The government´s answer to this critique has been that the question on development of education – and hence the development of its prerequisites and processes – is owned by the universities themselves. However, from 2016 and on the system will be changed. A suggestion for how this will be designed and organized will be presented in December 2014. In this presentation, I will discuss and compare the contemporary system with the suggestion for a new one. The presentation will start in a difference between two visions often formulated in the discussion about quality assurance systems. On the one hand, some stress that the research should be assessed and discussed between colleagues. On the other hand, there are those who demand that quality must be measured by "objective" measures. The presentation will focus especially on the evaluation of Didactics, Education and Teacher Education.

  • 9.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Habits, customs and purposes: On the use of information technology in science education2004Conference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 10.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    IT-användning i ett didaktiskt perspektiv2003Conference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 11.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education.
    Learning and Artefacts: On the Use of Information Technology in Educational Settings2005Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The aim of this thesis is to develop and apply an empirical approach that can be used in studies of the relationship between different expectations of, and actual use of, information technology in educational settings. The studies focus on meanings of artefacts shaped in people's talk about and/or use of technology.

    The aim is based on the twofold ambition to (1) develop an approach that opens the way for empirical investigations on the usage of technology and (2) to make a contribution to research about computers in education. I show how an approach based on a sociocultural perspective on learning, specified by inspiration from a sociotechnical perspective on artefacts, generates new questions about the usage of technology and its influence on learning and socialisation. Furthermore, I show how discourse analyses, inspired by the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein, can be used in studies of educational processes.

    The thesis consists of five case studies. In the first study I examine the rhetoric on information technology during the years 1994-1998 (Paper I). In the three following cases I analyse video-recorded conversation between children using computers in science education (Papers II-IV). In the light of the results from the first four studies I return in the fifth to the rhetoric on technology. In that paper different expectations on the usage of technology in education and on the technology users, expressed in the curricula for the Swedish compulsory school during the years 1962-1998, are clarified and discussed (Paper V).

    The results of the thesis show that expectations are central parts of human action and that different expectations may result in different kinds of practices. The historical studies show that it is in no way obvious for what purposes artefacts are to be used in educational settings, or who is to decide on this issue.

    List of papers
    1. Vi och våra goda kunskaper: Om (natur)vetenskaplig rationalitet och talet om IT i undervisningen
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Vi och våra goda kunskaper: Om (natur)vetenskaplig rationalitet och talet om IT i undervisningen
    1998 (Swedish)In: Utbildning och Demokrati, ISSN 1102-6472, E-ISSN 2001-7316, Vol. 7, no 3, p. 61-76Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    National Category
    Educational Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-92954 (URN)
    Available from: 2005-04-22 Created: 2005-04-22 Last updated: 2017-12-14Bibliographically approved
    2. Bilder av Internet: En studie av IT som verktyg för meningsskapande
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Bilder av Internet: En studie av IT som verktyg för meningsskapande
    2001 (Swedish)In: Utbildning och Demokrati, ISSN 1102-6472, E-ISSN 2001-7316, Vol. 10, no 1, p. 7-27Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    National Category
    Educational Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-92955 (URN)
    Available from: 2005-04-22 Created: 2005-04-22 Last updated: 2017-12-14Bibliographically approved
    3. Undervisning och/eller underhållning
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Undervisning och/eller underhållning
    2002 (Swedish)In: Utmaningar och e-frestelser: IT och skolans lärkultur, Stockholm: Prisma , 2002, p. 77-96Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    Stockholm: Prisma, 2002
    National Category
    Educational Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-92956 (URN)91-518-4028-6 (ISBN)
    Available from: 2005-04-22 Created: 2005-04-22 Last updated: 2012-09-28Bibliographically approved
    4. Privileging and Artifacts: On the use of information technology in science education
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Privileging and Artifacts: On the use of information technology in science education
    2006 (English)In: Interchange, ISSN 0826-4805, E-ISSN 1573-1790, Vol. 37, no 3, p. 225-250Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    The aim of this paper is to develop an approach that can be used in addressing the issue of the use of information technology and its importance in human meaning making. By using a combination of Wittgenstein’s work method, a sociocultural perspective on learning, and a sociotechnical perspective on artifacts a specific focus for analyses was discerned: the relation between the use-of-technology in meaning-making on one hand and the circumstances for this meaning-making on the other hand. The conversations of six groups of children, who worked with an assignment, that required that they doubted information they encountered, were video recorded and analyzed. The analyses were done in three interrelated steps. (a) The students use-of-technology in meaning making, (b) the meaning patterns that the students encounter on the web, and (c) students’ intentions and habits. Our findings show that, while the mode of reinforcement of the texts used by the students may have provided little opportunity for doubt or learning how to doubt, the students’ habits and intentions with their work determined the result of the interaction, namely copying information from the web. Taking our point of departure in this empirical illustration we discuss theoretical and methodological questions concerning the understanding of the use of information technology in educational settings.

    Keywords
    Information technology, artifact, education, meaning-making, language game, Wittgenstein, privileging, doubt, sociocultural, sociotechnical
    National Category
    Educational Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-92957 (URN)10.1007/s10780-006-9002-z (DOI)
    Available from: 2005-04-22 Created: 2005-04-22 Last updated: 2017-12-14Bibliographically approved
    5. Teknikretorik i utbildningspolitik: En historisk fallstudie
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Teknikretorik i utbildningspolitik: En historisk fallstudie
    2006 (Swedish)In: Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, ISSN 1401-6788, E-ISSN 2001-3345, Vol. 11, no 1, p. 21-39Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Keywords
    IT, informationsteknik, tekniska hjälpmedel, läroplaner, skolpolitik, utbildningspolitik
    National Category
    Educational Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-92958 (URN)
    Available from: 2005-04-22 Created: 2005-04-22 Last updated: 2017-12-14Bibliographically approved
  • 12.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    No-didaktisk forskning2003Conference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 13.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Pedagogikutbildningarna och lärarutbildningarna: Pedagogikens och didaktikens förändrade förhållanden2014Conference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 14.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Privileging in action: On the use of information technology in science education2005Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 15.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Quality and relevance?: On the use of bibliometric studies in the evaluation and planning of didactical research2014Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The aim of this presentation is to analyse and discuss the use of bibliometric analyses in evaluation and planning of didactical research.

    The presentation is based on a case study of “the norweigian model” and the results are discussed in relation to one of the ambitions within the didactical research community; to make knowledge contributions within the scientific field as well as to the professionals (C.f. Hudson & Meyer 2011).

    The study of the use of bibliometric studies in the evaluation and planning of didactical research identify three main challenges:

    (1)     In the case study, the ratio between the number of scientific publications (level 1 and level 2) and the total amount of publication is 31% (Nordgren 2011). The discussion of the use of bibliometric analyses for decisions about the allocation of research funds is focused on scientific publications, which may lead to a decrease of publications written for other audiences.

    (2)     A benchmark on 25% publications on level 2 (as decided at Uppsala University) may actually lead to a decrease of the total number of scientific publications.

    (3)     The bibliometic analyses says something about the result of the reseachers’ work, but nothing about the research process or its preconditions.

    The presentation highlights the need of further discussions about different models for research evaluation, planning and publication.

    References

    Nordgren, Joseph (Ed.)(2012). Quality and renewal 2011. An overall evaluation of research at Uppsala University 2010/2011. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

    Hudson, Brian & Meyer, Meinert A. (Eds.)(2011). Beyond fragmentation: didactics, learning and teaching in Europe. Opladen : Budrich, Barbara, 2011

  • 16.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Taking Teacher Education Seriously: Notes from a visit at Vassar College 20082009Report (Other academic)
  • 17.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Teaching and Learning in Science Education: Part of the symposium Bildung – instruction/éducation as part of subject teaching and learning (part 2)2014Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 18.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Teaching traditions and learning: A comparative didactic approach2016Conference paper (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.

  • 19.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Teaching traditions and learning in physical education and science education: A double symposium at ECER 20152015Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Within institutionalised educational activities one of, if not the, most important factor for students’ learning is the teacher’s manner of teaching. In this symposium we will present the framework and some of the results from a project where we are identifying teaching traditions – manners of teaching that many teachers use – within science education and physical education and analysing the pros and cons of each of the traditions regarding learning. In other words, the project focuses on the institutional dimension of learning, by identifying limits and possibilities for learning offered by different teaching traditions. The results of this research will then, from the perspective of cooperative engineering (Sensevy et al 2013), be tested in use together with practicing teachers in order to evaluate their potential for helping teachers cope with important didactic choices in planning, realizing and evaluating their teaching.

    The project builds on a comparative didactics approach (Caillot 2007; Mercier, Schubauer-Leoni & Sensevy 2002) in 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.

    Teaching is only possible through the process of inclusion and exclusion of content (Englund 1986). The term privileging, coined by Wertsch (1998), explicate the fact that also the learning process includes choices (cf. Almqvist & Östman 2006). The term draws attention to the fact that participants in the learning process valuate and judge certain artefacts, meetings, questions, and so forth, as reasonable and fruitful, while others, though fully conceivable, are ignored or disregarded.

    The privileging that takes place during meaning-making directs learning in a certain direction and toward certain content (i.e. Wickman & Östman 2002) and is limited by the institutional "boundaries" in which knowledge, teaching and learning unfold. Focusing on the didactical aspects of education, we search for the connections between selective traditions (cf. Östman 1996, Quennerstedt 2006), teachers’ manners of teaching (cf. Lundqvist et al 2012) and students’ privileging (cf. Almqvist & Östman 2006). These three concepts deal with the fact that activities as education, teaching and learning are constituted by selection of content and teaching strategies.

    In our analyses we are interested to find out what role encounters with the teacher has for students’ privileging and learning. Especially we are interested to find out which role the manner of teaching has for students’ learning of habits of privileging and what effect certain habits have for the learning outcome. The learning of specific habits of privileging is occurring in the interplay between students’ earlier knowledge and experiences, the interaction with peers and the manners of teaching (Lundqvist et al 2012).

    Studies in comparative didactics may be productive in that they contribute with knowledge about different ways of the teaching and learning of specific subject content (Caillot 2007). The differences and similarities identified in the studies will help to describe teaching learning in each school subject more precisely and thereby generate new knowledge about different school subjects. In order to maximize the finding of different teaching traditions we make i) investigations in four subjects – physics, chemistry, biology and physical education and health – in Sweden, France and Switzerland and ii) comparative investigations within these four subjects between the three countries and iii) comparative investigation between these four subjects and between countries.

    ReferencesAlmqvist, J., Östman, L. (2006). Privileging and Artifacts: On the use of information technology in science education. Interchange, 37(3): 225-250Caillot, M. (2007). The Building of a New Academic Field: the case of French didactiques. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 125-130.Englund, T. (1986). Curriculum as a political problem. Changing educational conceptions, with special reference to citizenship education. Lund: Studentlitteratur/Chartwell-Bratt.Lundqvist, E., Almqvist, J., & Östman, L. (2012). Institutional traditions in teachers’ manners of teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(1), 111-127.Mercier, A., Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., & Sensevy, Gérard. (2002). Vers une didactique comparée. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 141(Numéro thématique), 5-16.Quennerstedt, M.  (2006). Att lära sig hälsa. Örebro Studies in Education 15.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), 1031-1043Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, Oxford University Press. Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86; 601-623.Östman, L. (1996). Discourse, discursive meanings and socialization in chemistry education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28 (1); 37-55.

  • 20.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Teknik i text och samtal: Ett diskursanalytiskt angreppssätt2003In: Erfarenhet och situation i handling: en rapport från projektet Lärande i naturvetenskap och teknik, Uppsala: Pedagogiska institutionen,Uppsala universitet , 2003, p. 71-87Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 21.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Undervisning och/eller underhållning2002In: Utmaningar och e-frestelser.: IT och skolans lärkultur., Stockholm: Prisma , 2002, p. 77-96Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 22.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Teacher Training.
    Utbildningsforskning för lärare: forskning med relevans för lärarutbildningen bedriven vid Uppsala universitet 1990-19951997Collection (editor) (Other academic)
  • 23.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Utvärderingar av forskning inom det pedagogiska fältet – kriterier, kvalitet och användbarhet2014Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 24.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education.
    Vi och våra goda kunskaper: Om (natur)vetenskaplig rationalitet och talet om IT i undervisningen1998In: Utbildning och Demokrati, ISSN 1102-6472, E-ISSN 2001-7316, Vol. 7, no 3, p. 61-76Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 25.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Bjork, Christopher
    McCloskey, Erin
    Liberal Arts and Teacher Education2009Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this paper, we will compare different discourses about teacher education as expressed by students, departments and alumnae/i at liberal arts colleges in USA, with two contemporary texts about teacher education in Sweden. The studies show (1) that the decision to become a teacher is an active choice made by these students during their time at the college, (2) that education programs in liberal arts institutions in USA stress that teacher education should be intellectually demanding with strong connection between theory and practice, and have a critical focus, and (3) that the graduates found student teaching, the relationships they had with professors and their fieldwork experiences to have had a dramatic impact on their success as teachers. Liberal arts colleges are a central part of the educational system in USA. They provide undergraduate studies in various areas and are often characterized by high ambitions and aims concerning good practices of education. Compared to teacher education in Sweden this is very interesting because it seems as the same issues concerning teaching and research are being discussed in both places.

  • 26.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Brickhouse, Nancy
    University of Delaware.
    Lederman, Judith S
    Illinois Institute of Technology.
    Lederman, Norman
    Illinois Institute of Technology.
    Ligozat, Florence
    University of Geneva.
    Östman, Leif
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Sadler, Troy
    University of Florida.
    Wickman, Per-Olof
    Stockholms universitet.
    Zeidler, Dana
    University of South Florida.
    Exploring themes of scientific literacy2009Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 27.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Eriksson, Eva-Lotta
    Hedfors, Margarita
    Jonsson, Lars-Erik
    Lindström, Kjell
    Verktyg som förändrar: en rapport om 48 skolors arbete med IT i undervisningen1999Report (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 28.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Hamza, Karim
    Stockholms universitet.
    Olin, Anette
    Göteborgs universitet.
    Didactical Investigations for Professional Development2016Conference paper (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.

  • 29.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Jansson, Anders
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Teacher Training.
    Kunskapssyn och IT-användning: Utvärdering av projektets två första år.1999Report (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 30.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Kronlid, David
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Quennerstedt, Mikael
    Hälsovetenskapliga institutionen, Örebro universitet.
    Öhman, Johan
    Pedagogiska institutionen, Örebro universitet.
    Öhman, Marie
    Hälsovetenskapliga institutionen, Örebro universitet.
    Östman, Leif
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Pragmatiska studier av meningsskapande2008In: Utbildning och Demokrati, ISSN 1102-6472, E-ISSN 2001-7316, Vol. 17, no 3, p. 11-24Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The overall aim of the article is to present a pragmatic approach for studies of meaning-making used in the articles of this issue. The approach, which is developed within the SMEDgroup (Studies of Meaning-making in Educational Discourses), mainly builds on the writings of John Dewey, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Michel Foucault. A common ambition for the researchers in SMED is to enable studies and discussions on questions concerning how meanings are made in people’s actions. Another ambition is to carry out these studies beyond assumptions of dualism, essentialism, causality and determinism. In this perspective learning and socialization are viewed in a communicative perspective. We argue in the article that our approach makes it possible, and important, to study meaning-making in action in different kinds of educational practices.

  • 31.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Kronlid, David
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Quennerstedt, Mikael
    Örebro universitet.
    Öhman, Johan
    Örebro universitet.
    Öhman, Marie
    Örebro universitet.
    Östman, Leif
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Tema: Didaktiska undersökningar2008In: Utbildning och Demokrati, ISSN 1102-6472, E-ISSN 2001-7316, Vol. 17, no 3, p. 5-10Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 32.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Lidar, Malena
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Sex år av lärande: Några resultat från LärNoT-projektetConference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 33.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Lidar, Malena
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education.
    Situations and artefactsConference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    During the last decades, researchers from a cognitive science tradition respectively a sociocultural perspective on learning have been discussing students’ mental models of the earth. In the study reported here, we elaborate questions discussed in this debate in relation to meaning making in educational settings. The aim is to develop and use an approach for analysing the role of earlier experiences in students’ meaning-making processes. In video recordings of twenty pairs of 8-11 year olds, we study what they discern as relevant questions, information etc. and what they re-actualise when answering questions. In their work, the children had access to various artefacts, as globes or maps. The analyses take point of departure in pragmatism and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s works. The results show that some of the problems that children have according to previous research do not appear as problems in our material. For example, that people can live on the other side of the earth is not problematic. They rather discuss where the other side is located. Also, our analyses illustrate that the meaning of artefacts is constituted within people’s actions. Differences between our and previous findings can be understood as differences between the situations that the children are working in.

  • 34.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Lidar, Malena
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Vad man kan lära sig av att studera elevers samtal om/i naturvetenskap: Några resultat från sex års forskning i LärNoT-projektet2005Conference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 35.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Lidar, Malena
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Lundqvist, Eva
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Regler i praktikenConference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 36.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Lidar, Malena
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Lundqvist, Eva
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Teaching content and national tests in Science Education2014Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 37.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Lidar, Malena
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Lundqvist, Eva
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    What content is assessed in the Swedish national tests in biology, chemistry and physics?2013Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    All students in year nine in the Swedish compulsory school take a national test in biology, physics or chemistry. The ambition of these tests, which were given for the first time as late as in the spring semester 2009 is to measure the Swedish students’ knowledge in science, but also to provide an aid in teachers’ development of their teaching in order to support equal and fair assessment and grading. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss the content of the national tests in biology, physics and chemistry. The paper highlights and discusses similarities and differences between the three subject tests carried out 2009-2012. The study presented in the paper has clarified five categories of content.The analysis shows that a student, to pass the tests, need to show evidence that he or she can answer correctly on questions about (a) scientific concepts, models theories, (b) the scientific ways of thinking about the world and (c) the scientific method. For higher grades, however, the students need to be able to give correct answers on questions about (d) the use of science in relation to everyday problems and also (e) the use of science in relation to political and moral issues. In the paper we discuss what the privileging of content measured can lead to in teachers’ planning of teaching and for the assessment of students’ knowledge, but also in relation to prerequisites for students’ participation in decision making where scientific knowledge is a central part of the problem at hand.

  • 38.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Education. Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Lidegran, Ida
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Teacher Training.
    Lundqvist, Eva
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Inspelningspraktik, teknik och forskningsetik2003In: Erfarenhet och situation i handling: en rapport från projektet Lärande i naturvetenskap och teknik, Uppsala: Pedagogiska institutionen, Uppsala universitet , 2003, p. 119-131Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 39.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Ligozat, Florence
    University of Geneva.
    Comparing, Combining and Fostering Conceptual Frameworks in Didactics: Double symposium at ECER in Dublin, August 22-262016Conference paper (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.

  • 40.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Lundqvist, Eva
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    De nationella provens innehåll: Vilken scientific literacy mäts i NO-proven2013In: Scientific literacy: Teori och praktik / [ed] Eva Lundqvist, Roger Säljö och Leif Östman, Malmö: Gleerups Utbildning AB, 2013, 1, p. 101-117Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Sedan vårterminen 2009 skriver svenska elever i årskurs 9 i grundskolan nationella prov i biologi, fysik och kemi, en reform som är tänkt att bland annat påverka likvärdig och rättvis bedömning och lärares sätt att välja innehåll, undervisa och genomföra bedömning av elevers kunskaper. I detta kapitel är syftet att analysera och diskutera vilka kunskapsinnehåll som proven mäter, d.v.s. vilken scientific literacy som mäts. Kapitlet ämnar också belysa likheter och skillnader mellan vilka kunskaper som bedöms i de tre olika proven, i biologi, fysik respektive kemi. Resultatet visar att för att bli godkänd på proven behöver eleverna kunskaper om naturvetenskapens begrepp, modeller och teorier och om naturvetenskapens vardagstillämpningar i relation till samhälleliga och tekniska problem. Detta innebär samtidigt att för att klara godkänt på provet behöver eleverna inte visa kunskaper om hur naturvetenskapliga frågor relaterar till frågor om politik, moral och etik.

  • 41.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Lundqvist, Eva
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Scientific Literacy and the New National Tests2012Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    All students in year nine in the Swedish compulsory school take a national test in biology, physics or chemistry. The ambition of these tests, which were given for the first time as late as spring 2009, is to measure the Swedish students’ knowledge in science, but also to provide an aid in teachers’ development of their teaching and to promote student learning. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss what knowledge the national tests in biology, physics and chemistry measure – and what knowledge is not measured - what kind of scientific literacy is assessed by tests. The paper highlights similarities and differences between the three subject tests. The analysis shows that a student, to pass the tests, need to show evidence that she has two kinds of knowledge: (1) scientific knowledge (scientific concepts, models, methods) and (2) applied knowledge (in relation to mundane and technical problems). This also shows that knowledge about the use of science in relation to political and moral issues are not required to pass the tests. The paper discusses what the privileging of the scientific literacy measured can lead to in teachers’ planning of teaching and for students’ prerequisites for learning and socialization.

  • 42.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Meckbach, Jane
    Gymnastik. och idrottshögskolan.
    Öhman, Marie
    Örebro universtiet.
    Quennerstedt, Mikael
    Örebro universitet.
    How wii teach physical education and health2016In: SAGE Open, ISSN 2158-2440, E-ISSN 2158-2440, Vol. 6, no 4, p. 1-8Article in journal (Refereed)
    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.

  • 43.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Meckbach, Jane
    Gymnastik- och idrottshögskolan.
    Öhman, Marie
    Örebro universitet.
    Quennerstedt, Mikael
    Örebro universitet.
    How wii teach Physical Education and Health: Contribution to the symposium Learning and active video gaming in school2014Conference paper (Refereed)
  • 44.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Orpwood, Graham
    University of London.
    Swedish National Tests in Year 6 Science: Analysis and Review2014Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A new curriculum and assessment system for Year 6 science has been implemented in Swedish schools during the 2011-2012 school year.  Along with a revised curriculum in biology, physics and chemistry, national tests have been developed and were administered for the first time in spring 2013.  The five-year research project, from which this paper is drawn, is designed to analyse the curriculum objectives, grading criteria and the national tests and to investigate how the overall changes to assessment and grading affects the teaching of science at the Year 6 level.

    The new tests and grades are based on statements of aims and content for Years 4-6 Biology, Physics and Chemistry  (Curriculum for the Compulsory School, Preschool class and the Recreation Centre, 2011, pp. 105-149).  The analysis of the curriculum and the national tests reported in this paper is focussed mainly on the curriculum aims, which are set out, for each science subject, in three groups corresponding to three general purposes of science education:

    • To develop the ability to participate meaningfully in discussions of ways in which science, technology and society inter-relate (Group A)
    • To develop the ability to conduct scientific investigations (Group B)
    • To develop a good understanding of scientific concepts models, and theories (Group C)

    The tests follow the structure of these three groups of aims and our analysis will trace the relationships among the statements of aim in the curriculum, the questions and tasks the students are expected to undertake, and the grading schemes to be used by the teachers in evaluating the students’ work.  While, in general, the tests appear to be both innovative and very faithful to the curriculum, the challenges of evaluating students’ responses to complex questions and tasks raise both practical grading problems for schools and interesting questions for further consideration by researchers.   The paper, therefore, concludes with some commentary on these questions and seeks to situate them in the broader context of curriculum and assessment in science education.

  • 45.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Orpwood, Graham
    University College, London.
    Lundqvist, Eva
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Lidar, Malena
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Analysing validity: The case of Swedish national tests in year 6 scienceIn: Assessment in education: Principles, Policy & Practice, ISSN 0969-594X, E-ISSN 1465-329XArticle in journal (Refereed)
  • 46.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Quennerstedt, Mikael
    Örebro universitet.
    Is there (any)body in science education?2015Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In debates about learning, the discussion often centres on how to explore the relation between body and mind. In a pragmatic perspective on learning, however, it is not possible to envision an ontological distinction between body and mind. (Hodkinson et al 2007; Quennerstedt et al 2011). From this perspective, it is also central to study how people use artefacts in different practices (Almqvist & Östman 2006; Quennerstedt et al 2012). Studies of embodied learning are central in research on physical education (PE), a school subject seen as an important location through which bodies are constructed (e.g. Evans et al 2004). In contrast, the embodied aspects of learning are regarded as a somewhat novel perspective on learning in other areas of research on didactics. With notable exceptions (e.g. Arvola Orlander & Wickman, 2010) little attention has for example been paid to embodied learning in studies of science education (SE). Given these differences between the subject didactics of PE and SE respectively, and given this specific research gap in SE, the purpose of this article is to explore and discuss embodied aspects of learning in SE by using the specific insights from PE and thus employing a comparative didactic approach. By comparing video recordings of physical education lessons, we have studied the role of the body in meaning making processes in science education. The results show that the body is used and constituted in different ways in the analysed situations and how the participants use artefacts in order to do things in a way that would not otherwise be possible. Furthermore, we argue that the comparative approach developed in the paper, together with the results of the study, can be used by teachers in their discussions about teaching in relation to different educational objectives and content.

    References

    Almqvist, J. & Östman, L (2006). Privileging and artifacts: On the use of information technology in science education. Interchange, 37(3).Arvola Orlander, A. & Wickman, P. O. (2010). Bodily experiences in secondary school biology. Cultural Studies of Science Education (6), 569-594Evans, J., Davies, B. Wright, J. (2004) Body knowledge and control. Studies in the sociology of physical education and health. Routledge. Hodkinson, P., Biesta, G. James, D. (2007) Understanding learning cultures. Educational Review, 59(4), 415-427.Quennerstedt, M., Öhman, J., & Öhman, M. (2011). Investigating learning in physical education—a transactional approach. Sport, education and society, 16(2), 159-177.Quennerstedt, M., Almqvist, J., Öhman, M. (2012). Keep your eye on the ball: Investigating artifacts-in-use in physical education. Interchange, 42(3), 287-305.

  • 47.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Quennerstedt, Mikael
    Örebro universitet.
    Is there (any)body in science education?2015In: Interchange, ISSN 0826-4805, E-ISSN 1573-1790, Vol. 46, no 4, p. 439-453Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this article we develop and use a comparative approach for studies of the role of the body in meaning making processes in science education (SE). In debates about learning, the discussion often centres on how to explore the relation between body and mind. For example, many studies either focus on changes of bodily behaviour or on changes of people’s conceptions and ideas. In a pragmatic perspective on learning it is not possible to envision an ontological distinction between body and mind. By comparing video recordings of physical education lessons, we have studied the role of the body in meaning making processes in SE. The results show that the body is used and constituted in different ways in the analysed situations and how the participants use artefacts in order to do things in a way that would not otherwise be possible. Furthermore, we argue that the comparative approach developed in the article, together with the results of the study, can be used by teachers in their discussions about teaching in relation to different educational objectives and content.

  • 48.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education.
    Quennerstedt, Mikael
    Örebro universitet.
    Is there (any)body in science education?2015In: Interchange, ISSN 0826-4805, E-ISSN 1573-1790, Vol. 46, no 4, p. 439-453Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In this article we develop and use a comparative approach for studies of the role of the body in meaning making processes in science education (SE). In debates about learning, the discussion often centres on how to explore the relation between body and mind. For example, many studies either focus on changes of bodily behaviour or on changes of people’s conceptions and ideas. In a pragmatic perspective on learning it is not possible to envision an ontological distinction between body and mind. By comparing video recordings of physical education lessons, we have studied the role of the body in meaning making processes in SE. The results show that the body is used and constituted in different ways in the analysed situations and how the participants use artefacts in order to do things in a way that would not otherwise be possible. Furthermore, we argue that the comparative approach developed in the article, together with the results of the study, can be used by teachers in their discussions about teaching in relation to different educational objectives and content.

  • 49.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Quennerstedt, Mikael
    Hälsovetenskapliga institutionen, Örebro uiversitet.
    Öhman, Johan
    Pedagogiska institutionen, Örebro uiversitet.
    Öhman, Marie
    Hälsovetenskapliga institutionen, Örebro uiversitet.
    Östman, Leif
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Pragmatic investigations -Studies of meaning making in educational discourses: Contribution to the NERA congress, March 6-9 in Copenhagen, Denmark2008Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The overall aim of this paper is to present and discuss a pragmatic approach for studies of meaning making in different educational practices. The approach – built on a framework developed within the SMEDgroup (Studies of Meaning making in Educational Discourses) at the universities of Uppsala and Örebro – is illustrated in a number of empirical studies. The main point of departure in the studies is taken in pragmatic curriculum theory and sociocultural perspectives on learning, and is inspired mainly by John Dewey, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Michel Foucault. A special focus is directed to communication practices and content selection within Physical education, Environmental education and Science education. A common ambition is to offer a language that enables studies and discussions on questions concerning how meanings are made in people’s actions. Another ambition is to make these investigations beyond assumptions of dualisms, essentialism, causality and determinism. In this perspective learning and socialisation is viewed in communicative perspective. Therefore, many of the studies are built on video recorded classroom conversations, but also on analysis of various kinds of written texts. We argue in the paper that this approach makes it possible to study meaning making – learning and socialisation – in different kinds of educational practices.

  • 50.
    Almqvist, Jonas
    et al.
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Westlin, Anders
    Uppsala University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Curriculum Studies.
    Socialisation and artefacts – a sociotechnical perspectiveConference paper (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
    Abstract [en]

    The relationship between individuals, technology and society increasingly attracts attention within different fields of research. For example, the focus on the interplay between man and technologies has given new and valuable perspectives on how sociocultural patterns penetrate human action. However, there is still much to do in educational research in relation to the ongoing discussion about the politics of technology. In this paper we will especially focus on the ethical and the political dimensions of technology within educational contexts. Taking the point of departure in our previous research on curricula, textbooks and videorecorded classroom situations, it is shown how a sociotechnical perspective can be used to give a deeper understanding of the relation between artefacts, human action and meaning making in educational settings.

12 1 - 50 of 91
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf