No abstract

I denna artikel undersöks kollegiala samtals potential att utveckla lärares literacyförståelse. Två samtal i den statliga fortbildningssatsningen Läslyftet analyseras. Inför samtalen har deltagarna läst artiklar om literacy, som ska diskuteras. I det första samtalet deltar en ämnesmässigt heterogen grupp gymnasielärare på ett yrkesprogram, medan en ämnesmässigt homogen grupp svensklärare från grundskolans senare år deltar i det andra samtalet. Båda samtalen leds av en handledare. Även om samtalen på en övergripande nivå kretsar kring fortbildningens innehåll saknas teck en på ny eller fördjupad literacyförståelse. Orsakerna kan vara flera. I det första samtalet saknas en delad bild av undervisningspraktiken. Istället framträder en tydlig skillnad mellan yrkesämnets muntliga kultur och övriga skolämnens skriftburna kultur, som tycks försvåra möjligheterna att göra literacy till ett gemensamt lärandeobjekt. Det finns också tecken på att artikeln som diskuteras är svårtillgänglig för vissa deltagare. I det andra samtalet har lärarna en delad bild av undervisningspraktiken och en gemensam syn på literacy. Artikelinnehållet görs till utgångspunkt för långa berättelserundor och erfarenhetsutbyte, men erbjuder varken ny kunskap eller nya perspektiv som kan utmana lärarnas förförståelse. Även handledarens roll antas ha betydelse för kunskapsbygget. Trots handledarnas förmodat epistemiska tillgång, förväntas de endast i liten utsträckning ta epistemiskt ansvar för fortbildningssatsningens literacyinnehåll. English abstract English title: Peer discussions as an arena for mutual knowledge building about literacy In this article two peer discussions on literacy issues within the professional development programme Boost for reading are analyzed. The groups of teachers taking part in the discussions differ – one is a heterogeneous group of upper secondary teachers, whereas the other is a more homogenous group of late primary and secondary teachers. From a professional learning perspective (Stoll et al., 2006; Talbert, 2010), we examine the mutual knowledge building processes taking place and what impact the teachers’ previous notions on literacy have. The peer discussions are led by a facilitator. Questions concerning the role of the facilitator are also raised. The role of the facilitator is complex and the two contexts require high and different demands on the facilitator handling the discussion. To facilitate knowledge building, taking the role as a moderator seems to be insufficient. Instead, the teachers are dependent upon the facilitator meditating the literacy issues as well as challenging prior knowledge.

During the period of 1994-2011 all programmes in Swedish upper secondary school comprised a set of core subjects with the aim to entail equity on the policy level. However, a division between programmes still prevailed on the school level, particularly in the core subject L1 Swedish. The main purpose of this study has been to explore how the teaching of writing in two academic and two vocational programmes differs, which writing repertoires are developed and how writing is assessed. The study is part of a longterm ethnography of writing in upper secondary school (Andersson Varga, 2014). The data produced during the two-year field study contain field notes from writing lessons, lesson observations and talks with four teachers, as well as recorded and transcribed, semi-structured teacher and student interviews, instructions on writing tasks, student texts and teachers' responses to student texts. This article focusses on the preparation for the National Test, the afforded assignments, the realisations of the student texts and the assessment. The teachers in the four programmes handle the national syllabus in relation to the students, resulting in four different curricula in the classroom. Thus, issues of inequity, disparities in curricula as well as different expectations on students, depending on programme, became obvious. To understand the processes of social reproduction, we use Bernstein's sociology of education (1996, 2000) and the concept of the pedagogic device and pedagogic identity. However, we also show one example of interruption (Singh, 2013) in one of the four classrooms. Thus, the main results demonstrate how one particular teacher brings about change to a group of working class girls.