THE TASK
as proposed by the teacher
After participating in lectures, team work and seminars, you should have a good basis for the written examination task in the form of a PM. A recommendation is that after each seminar you summarize your thoughts and comments in writing and use this to write your PM successively during the course. In a team/group work towards the end of the course, you have the opportunity to receive peer feedback on your draft examination assignment, which you can then rework and submit for examination.
The paper is the course’s largest examination task and in the final version must comprise a maximum of 10 pages of body text (A4, Times New Roman, 1 ½ line spacing). The PM must also have a cover page with your name and the name of the course. It should also have a table of contents and a reference list (which includes the literature you have actively used in the PM). The PM must consistently use applicable parts of the course literature. Instructions for referencing systems and formalities can be found in the document “To refer and cite according to the APA refencing method”.
The following headings and content must be included:
Introduction – a didactic question (approx. ½ page). You begin your PM by formulating a didactic question that you believe has been brought up to date by or within the course and that you intend to specifically address in the PM. It could, for example, be about a belief (a myth) about teaching that you want to problematize, an element of a learning perspective that you find particularly interesting, or a concrete teaching situation that you want to analyze using the course’s theories.
Write out and justify why your specific question is relevant and interesting based on the perspectives on learning and development that you encountered during the course.
You should then include the question as a common thread in the PM when you deal with the different themes/parts of the course in the following.
Different perspectives on learning and teaching (approx. 5 pages). When you apply a learning perspective to teaching, it can be described as putting on a pair of theoretical glasses that make you see certain things in teaching and learning, but which make other things invisible. With other glasses, you can focus on other things. In this part of the task, you choose two different perspectives on learning that you have encountered during the course and that interest you. (However, do not choose intersectional perspectives, they are dealt with separately in another part of the assignment).
• Justify why you have chosen these perspectives.
• Describe how learning and development can be viewed from these perspectives and what implications the perspectives have for teaching in practice,
and especially for the question you formulated in the introduction.
Throughout your presentation, try to be both nuanced and critical, i.e. highlight merits and problems with the different perspectives and try to take a stand yourself on issues that you find important.
Intersectional and intercultural perspectives on learning (sex/gender, class, ethnicity) (approx. 2 pages)
• What central questions about children’s and young people’s learning and development do these perspectives raise and in what ways can they have concrete significance for your teaching? Explain the main lines of the perspectives and give concrete examples.
• How can the perspectives help you understand your question?
Your own view of learning and development (approx. 1 ½ page) Describe your own view of learning and development based on the theories and perspectives that you have encountered during the course.
• Highlight in particular your view of teacher and student roles, the view of the relationship between teaching and learning and how you practically intend to teach to promote the learning and development of all children and young people.
Summary (approx. ½ page) Summarize in your own words the main tracks in your text and connect the summary with the question that you formulated in the introduction and that you continuously related to in your assignment. Describe and justify which themes and questions from the course you take with you to VFU and your professional life.
THE TOPIC/ WAY TO ANSWER THE TASK.
The question to explore:
HOW TO BEST USE HOMEWORK, THROUGH 2 LEARNING THEORIES AND PERSPECTIVES. i.e., when they render most learning and/or return on investment (i.e., why, for what, when, how to design them, and in particular when not to do give homework)?
Use cognitivism and constructivism, as the 2 learning theories you use.
WHY THIS QUESTION IS IMPORTANT AND/OR BACKGROUND: According to Gärdenfors (2010, Gärdenfors, P. (2010). Lusten att förstå. Om lärande på människans villkor. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur) most of the learning takes place outside of school and usually without teachers noticing what is being learned. In order to create a learning environment with functioning and efficient teaching, the school should study how informal learning takes place and how to maximize the return on investment of Homework
references to use? Whatever is relevant. But Ideally Swedish/ Nordic / Scandinavian authors. For examples, se the next pages in this document (see below)
FYI / reminders: INTERSECTIONAL LEARNING THEORY
Intersectionality is a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989. A scholar of law, critical race theory, and Black feminist thought, Crenshaw used intersectionality to explain the experiences of Black women who – because of the intersections of race, gender, and class – are exposed to exponential forms of marginalization and oppression. I
The idea of intersectionality has its origins in gender research (see e.g. de los Reyes & Mulinari, 2005).
The term has been derived from the English word intersection in the sense of hypermodern road crossing, i.e. a place where roads in different planes, levels and directions meet, cross or merge into each other. Through this metaphor, one wants to make visible how different factors in the background and environment of individuals become important for their identification, relationships and social positions.
The approach is used, among other things, in Anglo-Saxon feminist school and family research (see e.g. Hill Collins, 1998; McGahill, 1994).
Attempts to highlight intersectional perspectives in Swedish and Nordic school, child and family research can be noted in recent years (see e.g. Knudsen, forthcoming; Kahlin, 2008; Darvishpour, 2008; 2004; Gruber, 2007; Högdin, 2007; Stauneas, 2003).
REFERENCES TO USE?
Whatever is relevant.
But Ideally Swedish/ Nordic / Scandinavian authors. For examples
(1) Lindström, Lars & Lindberg, Viveca (Red.) (2005): Pedagogisk bedömning (s. 1-66, 111-
129 + ytterligare 100 sidor som väljs utifrån den åldersgrupp man kommer att möta under
vfu-perioden).
(2) Lindström, Gunnar & Pennlert, Lars Åke (2006): Undervisning i teori och praktik: en
introduktion i didaktik.
19
(3) *Molin, Lena (2006): Rum, frirum och moral. En studie av skolgeografins innehållsval,
(4) Uljens, Michael (red). (1997). Didaktik. Kap. 5-6.
(Referenslitteratur: *Roberts, Douglas (1998): “Analyzing School Science Courses: The
Concept of Companion Meaning.” ur Problems of Meaning in Science Curriculum [Se nedan
för utförlig litteraturlista]).
In Michael Uljens (ed)(1997), Didactics various authors discuss didactic theories and
research field. In this course, Ference Marton’s chapter ‘Towards a Pedagogy of Consciousness’ is read
(chapter 5) which deals with the research field “Phenomenography” and Tomas Englund’s chapter
‘Teaching as an offer of meaning’ (chapter 6) which assumes that teaching is a social
action that has consequences for what students learn. In the chapter, a review is made of
the rise of didactics and its various fields. Englund also deals with the concepts of knowledge content
and socialization content, typology and the concept of emphasis, and educational philosophies.
In Pedagogical assessment by Lindström & Lindberg (2005) the differences between
formative and summative assessment, observability and assessment criteria and
assessment basis. In Lindström & Pennlert’s Teaching in theory and practice: a
introduction to didactics from 2006 gives a detailed overview of the didactic field. This one
book is a good introduction to didactic analysis. In Lena Molin thesis Room, free room
and morality. A study of school geography’s content choice from 2006 brings up the concept of emphasis again
(cf. Roberts 1998), which is about the fact that there are different ways of approaching a subject. In Molin’s text
there is also a review of the development of didactics.
Alerby, Eva & Jórunn Elídóttir (2006): Lärandets konst: betraktelser av estetiska dimensioner
i lärandet. Lund : Studentlitteratur, s. 7 – 68, 78 – 120. (103 s.)
Jansdotter Samuelsson, Maria & Nordgren, Kenneth (red.) (2008): Betyg i teori och praktik.
Malmö: Gleerups Utbildning AB.
*Karlsson, Ove (2000): ”Praktikbaserad utvärdering i förskola och fritidshem.” I Utbildning
och Demokrati, 9(2), s. 87-107. 20 s. (Även i: Johansson, I. och Holmbäck Rolander, Ingrid
(Red.), Vägar till pedagogiken i förskola och fritidshem, s. 131-154. Stockholm: Liber.) (20s.)
(Asterisken betyder att texten finns i kurskompendiet.) OBS! Ersätter delar av Lindström &
Lindberg för inriktning mot yngre barn.)
Kumashiro, Kevin K. (2000). “Toward a Theory of Anti-Oppressive Education”. I Review of
Educational Research, Vol.70. Nr 1. s. 25-53. (28 s.)
Lindström, Lars & Lindberg, Viveca (Red.) (2005): Pedagogisk bedömning . Stockholm: HLS
förlag, s. 1-66, 111-129. Ytterligare 100 sidor väljer den studerande själv utifrån den
åldersgrupp man kommer att möta under vfu-perioden. (84 s.)
*Molin, Lena (2006): Rum, frirum och moral. En studie av skolgeografins innehållsval .
Geografiska Regionstudier, nr 69. Kulturgeografiska institutionen, Uppsala universitet, s. 52-
70. (18 s.)
Lindström, Gunnar & Pennlert, Lars Åke (2006): Undervisning i teori och praktik: en
introduktion i didaktik . 3. uppl. Umeå: Fundo förlag. (73 s.)
Uljens, Michael (red). (1997). Didaktik. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Kap. 5-6 (s. 98-140)
Länkar till läroplaner http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/468 och kursplaner
http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/2974.
Roberts, Douglas (1998): “Analyzing School Science Courses: The Concept of Companion
Meaning.” I Roberts, Douglas A. & Östman, Leif (eds.) Problems of Meaning in Science
Curriculum. New York and London: Teachers College Press, s. 5-12. (8 s.)
Hofvendahl, Johan (2006): “Noa har inga fel”: Om bristfokus i skolans utvecklingssamtal.” I
Utbildning och Demokrati 15 (3), s. 61-82. (20 s.)
Jansdotter Samuelsson, Maria & Nordgren, Kenneth (red.)(2008): Betyg i teori och praktik.
Malmö: Gleereups Utbildning AB. (100 s.)
Karlsson, Ove (2000): ”Praktikbaserad utvärdering i förskola och fritidshem.” I Utbildning
och Demokrati, 9(2), s. 87-107. 20 s. (Även i: Johansson, I. och Holmbäck Rolander, Ingrid
(Red.), Vägar till pedagogiken i förskola och fritidshem, s. 131-154. Stockholm: Liber.) (20
s.)
Lindström, Lars & Lindberg, Viveca (Red.) (2005): Pedagogisk bedömning. Stockholm: HLS
förlag, s. 1-66, 111-129. Ytterligare 100 sidor väljer den studerande själv utifrån den
åldersgrupp man kommer att möta under vfu-perioden. (84 s.)
Ahlberg, A. (2001). Lärande och delaktighet. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Ahlberg, A. (2013). Specialpedagogik i ideologi, teori och praktik – att bygga broar.
Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Alerby, E. (2000). Lärande – några betraktelser från olika horisonter. I E. Alerby, P.
Kansanen & T. Kroksmark (red.). Lära om lärande. Lund: Studentlitteratur
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carlgren, I. (1999). Pedagogiska verksamheter som miljöer för lärande. I I. Carlgren.
(Red.).
Miljöer för lärande (s. 9-29). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Carlgren, I. & Marton, F. (2001) Lärare av imorgon. Stockholm: Lärarförbundets
förlag. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, D.C Heath & Company.
Dewey, J. (2005). Individ, skola och samhälle. Falköping: Natur & Kultur.
Ellström, P-E. (1992). Kompetens, utbildning och lärande i arbetslivet – problem,
begrepp och teoretiska perspektiv. Stockholm: Publica.
Feurstein, R., Klein, P. & Tannenbaum; A. (1991). Mediated Learning Experience.
London: Freund.
Göransson, K. (2004). Barn som blir elever – om olikheter, undervisning och
inkludering. Stockholm: Stiftelsen ala.
Gärdenfors, P. (2010). Lusten att förstå. Om lärande på människans villkor. Stockholm:
Natur och Kultur.
Hattie, J. (2012). Synligt lärande för lärare. Stockholm: Natur och kultur.
Om lärande och undervsining November 2015. Revideriad juni 2022.
https://larportalen.skolverket.se 10 (11)
Hartman, S. (2003). John Dewey – om reflektivt lärande i skola och samhälle.
StockholmLibrary of Curriculum Studies, Vol 12, HLS Förlag.
Holmqvist, M. & Wennås Brante, E. (2011). What is discerned in teachers’ expressions
about planning? Similarities and differences between teachers from Sweden and Hong
Kong. Education Inquiry, 2011, Vol. 2(3) pp.497–514.
Hyltegren, G. Kroksmark, T. (1999). Läraren och läroplanen – kraven i 0-9-skolan. I T.
Kroksmark. (Red.). Didaktikens carpe diem (s. 174-217). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Hörnqvist, M-L. (2000). Att uppleva sig duktig – ett parallellt lärande.
I Alerby, E., Kansanen, P. & Kroksmark, T. (red.) (2000) Lära om lärande. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Kansanen, P. (2000). Kampen mellan vetenskap och lära, I Alerby, E., Kansanen, P. &
Kroksmark, T. (red.) (2000) Lära om lärande. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Klein, P. (1990). Formidlet laering. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Kroksmark, T. (2000). Didaktik och lärares yrkeskunskap. I E. Alerby, P. Kansanen &
T.
Kroksmark. (Red.). Lära om lärande. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Kroksmark, T. (2006). Innovativt lärande. Didaktisk Tidskrift, Vol.16, No.3, s. 7-22.
Kylén, G. (1986). Helhetsstruktur, helhetsdynamik och helhetsutveckling. Stockholm:
Stiftelsen ala.
Lindqvist, G. (red.).(1999). Vygotskij och skolan. Texter ur Lev Vygotskijs
pedagogiskpsykologi kommenterade som historia och aktualitet: Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Lo, M. L. & Pong, W. Y. (2005). Catering for individual differences: Building on
variation.In Lo; Pong & Pakey (2005). For each and everyone catering for individual
differences throug learning studies. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University press.
Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1986). Kognitiv inriktning vid inlärning. I F. Marton., D.
Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Red.). Hur vi lär. Stockholm: Rabén Prisma.
Orlenius, K. (2003). Värdegrunden – finns den? Stockholm: Runa Förlag.
Om lärande och undervsining November 2015. Revideriad juni 2022.
https://larportalen.skolverket.se 11 (11)
Skollagen (2010:800). https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/DokumentLagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800/ (hämtad 2015-
10-20)
Skolverket (2021). Läroplan för grundskolan 2022.
Skolverket (2021). Läroplan för grundsärskolan 2022.
Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Stockholm: Prisma.
Säljö, R. (2014). Den lärande människan – teoretiska traditioner. I Lundgren, U.P, Säljö,
R. & Liberg, C. (red.).(2014). Lärande Skola Bildning (s. 251-307). Stockholm: Natur
och Kultur.
Säljö, R. (2015). Lärande. En introduktion till perspektiv och metaforer. Malmö:
Gleerups utbildning AB.
Vygotskij, L. (1981). Psykologi och dialektik. (övers. L.C.Hydén.). Stockholm:
Nordsteds.
Vygotskij, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Wernberg, A. (2009). Lärandets objekt. Vad elever förväntas lära sig, vad görs möjligt
för dem att lära, och vad de faktiskt lär sig under lektionerna. Diss. Nr. 32. Umeå: Umeå
Universitet.
Fischbein, S. (2007). Specialpedagogik i ett historiskt perspektiv. I Reflektioner kring
specialpedagogik – sex professorer om forskningsområdet och forskningsfronterna (s
17-35). Vetenskapsrådet Rapport 5:2007.
Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive Perspectives in Psychology. In D. H.
Jonassen
(Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.
112-142). New York: Macmillan. Retrieved April 2006
