The Impact of Classification and Framing in Entrepreneurial Education: Field Observations in Two Lower Secondary Schools

Abstract

This article's purpose is to examine, on the basis of Bernstein's theory of classification and framing, how teachers express the concept and content of entrepreneurship in classroom practices in two Swedish lower secondary schools. The study is part of a national school improvement program aiming to better understand, develop and encourage entrepreneurial education and learning. The broad perspective of entrepreneurial education is used in Swedish compulsory school and thereby in this study. In 2011 the curriculum was reversed, which meant, in addition to introducing entrepreneurship, adding focus on learning outcomes. The data sample is based on observation and field notes. The results show differences between the schools and subjects. The classification is strong in both schools, but the framing differs. Differences in framing are based on characteristics of individual teachers, and to some extent subjects, rather than schools. Together with other circumstances -such as teachers' views and knowledge, school organization and subject division -the task can be perceived as challenging.

From Entrepreneurship to Entrepreneurial Education in Lower Secondary School: Pedagogising by Means of the Pedagogic Device

“…Entrepreneurial education implies collaborative work among teachers (Diehl et al, 2015). In the findings, however, it is obvious that collaborative learning (Peltonen, 2014) and joint work among teachers are problems.…”

“…Different understandings and enactments may be due to individual teachers, and engagement, personal characteristics and perceptions of changes seem to be of importance (Diehl, Lindgren, & Leffler, 2015;Sagar, 2013). An attempt to define entrepreneurial teachers shows that they have good self-awareness, are relational and responsive and have strong motivation for their actions (Leffler, Lindster Norberg, Diehl, & Näsström, 2013).…”

“…He distinguishes between a collaborative culture-where the relationship between teachers is characterised by them tending to be spontaneous, voluntary, development-orientated, pervasive across time and space and unpredictable-and the features of a contrived collegiality-which is administratively regulated, compulsory, implementation-oriented, fixed in time and space and predictable. In many ways, this can be linked to Bernstein's (1975Bernstein's ( , 1996 concepts of integrated code, where "teachers are more likely to discuss and establish a shared approach based on their views of knowledge" and integrated code, which means strong isolation between subjects and thus weak relationships between teachers on educational issues (Diehl et al, 2015).…”

“…The interviews showed a rather joint view on the meaning of entrepreneurial education, but the observations revealed different practises. Much of this was due to individual teachers (Diehl et al, 2015), but different approaches could still be distinguished between the schools.…”

“…The insolation between subjects was strong, and the teachers mostly planned, performed and evaluated their own lessons (Diehl et al, 2015). However, individual teachers (primarily in school 1) handed over some control and power to the pupils (Deuchar, 2006), although "serving" them with fixed solutions and lectures (Svedberg, 2010) was still frequent (more so in school 2 than school 1).…”