Schools as environments for social learning—shaping mechanisms? Comparisons of smaller and larger rural schools in Norway

Abstract

This article analyses and compares the learning environment in smaller and bigger rural schools by focusing on the arenas of both formal and informal learning; the lessons and the recesses between. Relational patterns are both analysed using complete network data from 19 schools in four different municipalities in four Norwegian counties and by comparisons based on data from 80 pupil interviews. The analyses are replicated and followed up by comparison of schools in two additional municipalities. The smaller and bigger rural schools offer radically different learning environments. The aspects of individual and collective agency in learning, self-centrism, intimization, social exclusion, independence and control as part of everyday life in schools are analysed and discussed. Mechanisms shaping the differences in the learning environments are identified. Needs for further research are formulated.

Cooperative Learning in Science: Follow‐up from primary to high school

“…(Kvalsund, 2004). It was reported that pupils in rural schools in Northern Ireland had more extensive cross age and cross sex peer relationships that pupils in urban schools (Gallacher, 2005).…”

The moral construction of the good pupil embedded in school rules

“…The function of the hidden curriculum is social control, and has been identified variously as political socialization, inculcation of values, maintenance of class structure, training in obedience and docility, and so forth (Vallance, 1983). Thus, formal learning as well as informal learning take place in school (Kvalsund, 2004), and pupils learn a lot from their experiences of school rules (Cullingford, 1988;Johansson and Johansson, 2003). According to Merrett and Jones (1994), even if most schools have quite elaborate systems of rules, very little research has been conducted in order to investigate the nature of these systems.…”

Reviews of research in rural schools and their communities: Analytical perspectives and a new agenda

“…In addition, Finnish (e.g. Hult, Koliseva, Paakkinen, & Solala, 1982) and Norwegian case studies (Sanne, 2000;Rossvaer, 1998;Heggen, 1974), which without being explicit on theoretical perspectives take the villagers' cultural position as well as comparative perspectives on multiple case studies (Kvalsund, 1995(Kvalsund, , 2004 compares the development and use of structural rules in play during school breaks in smaller and bigger rural schools based on children's voices as embedded cases typically belong in Categories IIa and IIb, theories within a structuration perspective. These studies reveal the actions of local people, whether to bring about change, or in response to the effects of other actors' behaviour or structural developments.…”

“…Middle range theory Theory at the macro level we consider studies that can be placed in Categories I and IIa. Those in category I, drawing implicitly on social psychological and sociological theory, are the Finnish studies of the relationship between teachers and parents, children's action strategies towards the local community (Kalaoja, 1988a(Kalaoja, , 2001(Kalaoja, , 2002; see Kalaoja and Pietarinen, 2009) 3 and Norwegian research on pupils' social relationships in lessons and school breaks based on theories of social networks and self-identity (Kvalsund, 1995(Kvalsund, , 2004 developing structural rules of social interaction in lessons and games in play activities all instances of situated learning. In addition, Finnish (e.g.…”