Teaching in the age of accountability: restrained by school culture?

Abstract

In this paper we explore how 'teaching communication' in the classroom is connected to school culture. In the age of accountability the outcome focus force to the forefront a 'blame game' which either blame students' achievements on the teachers and teacher education, or the students and their socioeconomic background. We argue that to succeed with teaching and learning is dependent on the school culture more than the single teacher or the students' background. School culture is understood as attitudes, communication, student focus and engagement. Teaching communication in this paper is studied as teachers' and students' talk about subject matter in whole-class teaching. We explore how different school cultures give students different opportunities to experience meaning from teaching communication. The perspective on meaning is derived from Bildung-centred didactics. By using qualitative comparative case method in Norwegian Lower Secondary schools we find three different types of 'teaching communication' typical for different school cultures: 'Dialogic teaching communication', 'storytelling teaching communication' and 'reproducing teaching communication'. The school culture with the 'dialogic' variant is characterised by trust and reciprocity, making students' experiencing meaning a possibility.

‘Sociability before individuality’: lesson structure in lower secondary classrooms

“…Outcome-oriented instruction is rather adapted and subordinated to the dominant discourse. When the expository-practice structure includes plenary IRE-sequences (Cazden, 1988) with predefined answers, an outcome-based reproductive line of thinking is indicated (Aasebø, Midtsundstad and Willbergh, 2017). But the interpretative dialogue is also strongly present, with a treatment of subject matter-topics that can be explained by progressivist and constructivist approaches to pedagogy.…”

“…'Plenary conversation' in the data comprises of conversations between teachers and students in wholeclass and is characterized as expository talk on subject matter. The term 'expository' is inspired by Alexander (2000) and denotes an explanation or interpretation of subject matter topics: the plenary conversation is sometimes IRE-structured; a conversation consisting of teacher-initiated questions, students' response and teacher evaluation (Cazden, 1988); and sometimes the questions are open-ended, and the conversation includes students' experiences, interpretations or opinions (Aasebø, Midtsundstad and Willbergh, 2017). We are aware that expository talk acknowledges students voices to varying degrees, see for example Aasebø, Midtsundstad and Willbergh (2017), but this will not be problematized in this study.…”

“…and sometimes interpretative and associative with open-ended questions. The interpretative conversation in the data can be characterised by being an open dialogue with possibilities for students to bring forth theirunderstanding, experiences, associations, reflections or applications of subject matter(Aasebø, Midtsundstad and Willbergh, 2017).…”

Bringing teaching back in: The Norwegian NOUThe school of the futurein light of the Allgemeine Didaktik theory of Wolfgang Klafki

“…General didactics, 'Allgemeine Didaktik' and Bildung theories, being German and Northern-European educational theories, are relatively unknown in the English-speaking world, but interest in it has been growing since the turn of the millennium (Aasebø, Midtsundstad & Willbergh, 2015;Deng, 2015a;Gundem & Hopmann, 1998;Hillen, Sturm & Willbergh (Eds. ), 2011;Hillen & Aprea, 2015;Hopmann, 2007;Kim, 2013;Krü ger, 2008;Menck, 2010;Meyer, 2007;Midtsundstad & Werler, 2011;Midtsundstad & Willbergh, 2010;Pikkarainen, 2011;Vásquez-Levy, 2002;Westbury, Hopmann & Riquarts, 2000;Willbergh, 2015Willbergh, , 2016.…”

“…On the macro level of curriculum making this means a critical editing of contemporary disciplinary knowledge in search of the elemental, using basic concepts that can serve to open the students to understanding the major challenges in contemporary society and formulating these as key questions of our time (Klafki, 2001a). Curriculum making is a normative effort and Klafki points out that these key questions must be revised and debated along with the ultimate goals of education, emancipation for all, formulated as the development of self-determination, co-determination and solidarity (Aasebø et al, 2015;Deng, 2015a;Klafki, 2000bKlafki, , 2001aWillbergh, 2015).…”