This article was downloaded by: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] On: 24 March 2010 Access details: Access Details:

[subscription number 920282265] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Teacher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713421837

Pupils' voices about citizenship education: comparative case studies in Finland, Sweden and England

Margareta Sandstrm Kjellin a; Jonas Stier a; Tanja Einarson a; Trevor Davies b;Tuula Asunta c a Mlardalen University, Vsters, Sweden b University of Reading, Institute of Education, Reading, UK c Jyvskyl University, Department of Teacher Education, Jyvskyl, Finland Online publication date: 24 March 2010

To cite this Article Sandstrm Kjellin, Margareta , Stier, Jonas , Einarson, Tanja , Davies, Trevor andAsunta, Tuula(2010)

'Pupils' voices about citizenship education: comparative case studies in Finland, Sweden and England', European Journal of Teacher Education, 33: 2, 201 218 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02619761003631823 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619761003631823

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

European Journal of Teacher Education Vol. 33, No. 2, May 2010, 201218

Pupils voices about citizenship education: comparative case studies in Finland, Sweden and England
Margareta Sandstrm Kjellina*, Jonas Stiera, Tanja Einarsona, Trevor Daviesb and Tuula Asuntac
a Mlardalen University, Vsters, Sweden; bUniversity of Reading, Institute of Education, Reading, UK; cJyvskyl University, Department of Teacher Education, Jyvskyl, Finland
margareta.sandstrom.kjellin@mdh.se Dr 0 200000May 2010 33 MargaretaSandstrm 2010 & Journal Original Article 0261-9768 Francis Ltd European Francis of Teacher 10.1080/02619761003631823(online) CETE_A_463691.sgm Kjellin Taylor and (print)/1469-5928 Education

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

The aim of the article is to present and discuss a study in which Finnish, English and Swedish pupils understanding of citizenship education with regard to: (a) political literacy; and (b) attitudes and values was explored. The study was a crossnational, multiple case study and data were collected through 18 focus group dialogues with 15-year-old pupils. Results showed that English pupils were much more well-informed about rights and responsibilities than their Nordic counterparts and also more skilled rhetorically, but appeared less accustomed to open and confident relationships with adults than the Swedish pupils. Finnish pupils did not seem to be encouraged to talk; instead they kept their thoughts and feelings to themselves. One conclusion, among others, was that the study illuminates conditions for the development of a so-called key competence i.e., interpersonal, intercultural, social and civic competence. Keywords: attitudes and values; citizenship education; cross-national case study; political literacy; pupils voices

Introduction The term citizenship evokes different interpretations and meanings in different European countries. In some countries a judicial relationship between the state and its citizens is emphasised whereas the social role of coexisting in society is emphasised in others. In both instances, Marshalls article Citizenship and social class (1949/ 1950) has exerted much influence on contemporary notions of citizenship. Also, in both instances, individuals must possess certain competencies to exercise their citizenship. In the Education and Training 2010 Work Programme, the European Commission singles out so called key competencies (for example, interpersonal, intercultural, social and civic competencies) that future Europeans need. Given this judgement, citizenship education plays a significant role that in turn highlights the need for more research in this field. Eurydice (2005) distinguishes between citizenship education aiming at developing: (i) political literacy; (ii) attitudes and values; and (iii) active pupil participation (see also Sandstrm Kjellin and Stier 2006). The political literacy and attitudes and values aspects of citizenship education serve to educate, enable and motivate European citizens to engage themselves in democratic dialogues on sustainable development and the future of society issues entangled with interpretations of individual moral and collective ethics to consider. This article focuses on the first two aspects of citizenship education, and in particular on the attitudes and values aspect. We
*Corresponding author. Email: margareta.sandstrom.kjellin@mdh.se
ISSN 0261-9768 print/ISSN 1469-5928 online 2010 Association for Teacher Education in Europe DOI: 10.1080/02619761003631823 http://www.informaworld.com

202

M. Sandstrm Kjellin et al.

consider it vital for future Europeans to be given the opportunity to participate in democratic dialogues that begin in school classrooms. Traditionally, values are mediated in school, whereas postmodern ethics demand that they are negotiated. The potential conflict between modern and postmodern ethics has been discussed by Baumann (1996), Nussbaum (1995) and Hedin (2001). In Sweden there is a body of research on fundamental values in school, attempting to link theory to practice (see Colnerud 2004; Orlenius 2001; Tornberg 2004). In England, the link between educational theory and practice has been driven more by economic theory than educational theory mediated by government. There is a dual focus on the needs of the individual learner and the efficiency of schools and educational systems (Crick 2007; Frazer 2007; Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF] 2006; Woodhead 2002; Haydon 1997; Mace 2001; Myers 2000; Kerr 2005). The Crick report (Crick 1998) lies at the heart of modern approaches to citizenship education in England. It emphasizes that citizenship education should foster respect for law, justice and democracy. Whilst in England it has been more common for citizenship education to be viewed in terms of structured curriculum components, traditional teaching methods and structured assessment, ideas of pupil voice have been rarely mentioned (Ireland et al. 2006). Research on pupils voice was a result of the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ruddock and Flutter (2000) argue that pupils voice is essential in citizenship education; the challenge is not the knowledge about citizenship that is the issue, but the experience of the principles of citizenship (79). This argumentation resembles that in Sweden, by, for example, Colnerud (2004), Orlenius (2001) and Tornberg (2004). However, these researchers connect their argumentation to the realization of the fundamental values stressed by the National Curriculum (Utbildningsdepartementet 1994), as democracy in the meaning of horizontal teacherpupil communication, whereas Ruddock and Flutter (2000), even if they mention democracy, connect their argumentation to the importance of listening to the pupils voice to school improvement. This may be a difference depending on the countries unique curricula. Below Erikssons (2007) categorisation of English, Finnish and Swedish curricula will be presented. Suutarinen (2002) as well as Brunell and Trmkangas (2002) have explored international citizenship education from a Finnish perspective. They found that Finnish pupils have more positive attitudes towards their own nation than Swedish or English pupils. On the other hand, compared to their Swedish or English peers, they believe there are limited possibilities to exert influence in school. Suutarinens study (2002) also showed that Finnish boys have much less positive attitudes towards immigrants than Swedish or English boys. Moreover, Torney-Purta et al. (2001), Colnerud and Thornberg (2003), Schweisfurth, Davies and Harber (2002) and Wilde (2005) offer international outlooks on citizenship education. Apart from these studies, we have not found any recent studies on the attitudes and values aspect of citizenship education, with respect to reflecting upon the nature of pupils classroom dialogue, and with comparisons of the situation in different countries. Against this background, this text is to be a contribution to the research field on citizenship education. It focuses on how pupil voice in citizenship education is dealt with in classrooms in Finland, Sweden and England. More specifically, from a comparative angle and using Colneruds (2004) typology of moral education, the aim is to explore Finnish, English and Swedish pupils understanding of citizenship

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

European Journal of Teacher Education

203

education with regard to: (i) political literacy; and (ii) attitudes and values. Research questions are: How does pupils talk contribute towards political literacy and subsequent performance? How do they talk about the development of critical thinking and certain attitudes and values with regard to citizenship issues? Can their citizenship education be described as moral instruction, moral conversation, or moral interaction? Finally, what is the tone of the pupils voices in the three countries when they discuss issues associated with citizenship education? Finnish, Swedish and English schools The attainment values systems associated with Finnish, Swedish and English schools differ. By the same token, Eriksson (2007) suggests that the three countries curricula differ in the degree of openness to the attitudes and values aspect of citizenship education. She sees Kellys (2005) curriculum theory models (i.e., the contentfocused, the result-focused and the process and development-focused curriculum) as appropriate for comparative analyses, although she does not consider Kellys distinctions to be fully compatible with Nordic curriculum theory tradition. The reason for this, according to Eriksson (2007), is that Kelly (2005) does not account for educational political matters to the same extent as the Nordic researchers. With roots in the late 1800s, content-focused curricula typically stipulate the body of knowledge schools should deliver to their pupils (Eriksson 2007). By doing so, they ensure cultural reproduction. Knowledge is seen as an external entity, located outside the pupil, obtained through memorising. Influenced by the predominant test tradition evolved from the 1930s, result-focused curricula proclaim overall educational goals can be divided into subordinate goals, which relate to the individual achievements of the pupils. Once again, curricular knowledge is seen as an external entity to be transmitted to pupils. Finally, process and development-focused curricula take embedded societal values into consideration (e.g., democracy, freedom and equality) (Eriksson 2007). These curricula stand in stark contrast with both the content-focused and the result-focused curricula. Instead, the development and potential of the individual child is stressed. Goals in such curricula concern, for example, aspects of democracy or sustainable development. Drawing from Eriksson (2007), the English curriculum is highly detailed and predominantly result-oriented, where goals reached can be ticked off. There is an inbuilt assumption that the achievements of pupils differ (and that some of them will not go very far). In addition, the English curriculum contains elements of content-focus. Domains are divided into sections that in turn are divided into subsections. Each subsection is precisely described and the development of technical skills prioritised. In comparison, the Finnish curriculum is contradictory (Eriksson 2007). Given its meta-cognitive passages (e.g., goals stipulating that pupils should be able to evaluate their own learning process), it can be described as process and development-focused. Yet, with much attention given to knowledge components, it is also content-focused. Stipulating minimum levels for the pupils knowledge development, it can be said to be result-focused. The reason for Kellys curriculum theory not being applicable to the Swedish curriculum (Eriksson 2007) is that it is not content-focused and only partly resultfocused (since classroom instruction is not organized on the basis of basic skills achievement). Nor does the Swedish curriculum focus on processes and child

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

204

M. Sandstrm Kjellin et al.

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

development. With this being said, a different model, accounting for goals stipulating direction but which are not necessarily hierarchical or quantitatively operationalised, is needed to describe the Swedish curriculum since it constructs knowledge as practice-bound and competence-focused. She concludes that whereas Finnish and English curricula consider knowledge to be hierarchic, decomposable and transferable, the Swedish curriculum sees knowledge as a content to be developed that possesses a communicative and reciprocal character. The Swedish National Curriculum strongly emphasises fundamental values (Utbildningsdepartementet 1994). For schools and teachers the educational task is to facilitate young peoples acquisition of these values, so they eventually become active citizens involved in the public debate on late modern society, sustainable development, democracy, etc. Thus, such fundamental values correspond to the attitudes and values aspect of the European idea of citizenship and pertain to the pupils moral education. Whereas citizenship constitutes an independent subject in English schools, fundamental values must permeate instruction in every subject in Swedish schools. Values and moral education Cultural values influence human attitudes and actions, consciously or subconsciously (dman 1998). Values are reproduced over generations via socialisation and enculturation processes (Durkheim 1956; Berger and Luckmann 1966), and are culturespecific (Bourdieu 1993). Additionally, a cultures value system and moral system are intricately interconnected. This means that values make up the basis for peoples personal morality. From this it follows that, as important socialisation agents, schoolteachers attitudes and actions are key vehicles in moral education. In the classroom, teachers constantly pass on desirable values, explicitly and implicitly. With respect to the level of verticality/horizontality1 in teacherpupil interaction patterns, Colneruds (2004) singles out three types of moral education i.e., moral instruction, moral conversation and moral interaction. Moral instruction means instructing pupils value-based rights and wrongs. It has to do with actions; such instruction is necessary for instance, when pupils harm themselves or each other. Moral instruction becomes problematic when instructions take the shape of language of force, scolding or violation, which typically lead to temporary adaptation. Another problem is that moral instruction can cause timely obedience. Moral conversation refers to joint teacherpupil explorations of moral problems originating in the classroom or in society as such. Colnerud sees moral conversations as essential for pupils ability to develop and formulate both their own and other peoples moral standpoints and perspectives. A problem with moral conversation stems from the asymmetrical teacherpupil relationship. Teachers must find a productive balance between a classroom situation where values are passed on to the pupils (and where they may not reflect upon them) and one where the pupils themselves are responsible for scrutinising and arguing for adoption of their values. Colnerud (1995) has found that Swedish teachers find it difficult to know the degree to which different opinions should be allowed in moral conversations. Therefore, she says, teachers must be able to articulate their personal standpoints on value issues as well as open up for investigations of different standpoints. Finally, moral interaction refers to teacherpupil interplay where the teacher treats pupils respectfully, and pupils feel that they are listened to and the teacher has

European Journal of Teacher Education

205

confidence in their abilities. More than in the other forms of moral education, nonverbal behaviour (e.g., mimics, body posture, proxemics) or prosodic cues (e.g., intonation, strength of voice, irony) come into play in moral interaction. However, since much of the implicit moral message is culturally embedded in respectful treatment, as it is experienced by the pupils, it is both hard to reflect upon and difficult to understand if there is not a common cultural frame of reference. Typically, in multicultural classes, embedded meanings in social interactions are taken-for-granted by some pupils, whereas they are incomprehensible to others. Other research shows that a shared class or ethnic background is favourable to teacherpupil interaction patterns, whereas differences in ethnocultural belonging complicate them (Heath 1983). Belonging to the same speech community provides a joint theory of speaking and cultural rules for speaking (Ogbu 1997).
Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

Method This is a cross-national, multiple case study. Comparative research sheds light upon our way of living and provides useful examples from other countries. It is recognised that analytical interpretations may be obscured by ethnocentrism and insufficient familiarity with conditions and culture of other countries, whereas homeblindness related to deep-rooted values and assumptions may obscure those of the home country. To compensate for this, a manual was constructed in advance and used when performing the focus group dialogues; results were analysed in collaboration with colleagues from the countries under investigation in the pre-analysis phase. In total, 92 15-year-old pupils served as study participants: 29 from Finland (17 boys and 12 girls), 34 from England (24 boys and 10 girls) and 32 from Sweden (19 boys and 13 girls). Informed consent was collected from study participants. They were informed that they could choose not to participate at all or to terminate their participation at any time in the study, and that confidentiality would be observed when reporting the study. Since the teenagers were 15 years old, written consent was not collected. The pupils and their parents were also informed about the studys purpose, method, etc. In each country, six focus group dialogues were conducted. Each group was made up of foursix pupils. Using the manual, study participants were asked if in class they talked about: (1) rights and responsibilities, (2) how to be and act in the classroom, (3) things that were important for them, and (4) how they behaved towards others at school (teachers, staff, visitors, fellow pupils). With the exception of providing clarifications and using probes, the researcher remained passive during the dialogue, thus allowing pupils to steer the conversation and speak as freely as possible. Variation in ethnocultural composition in schools in the three countries was accounted for, and study participants were sampled similarly in Sweden and England, selecting multicultural schools. Given the monoculturality of Finnish society (with the Helsinki-area as an exception), it was only possible to find a school with very few pupils of non-Finnish descent. Six focus groups from two classes were selected both considered as medium-performing (according to their teachers). In Sweden, two lowperforming, two medium and two well-performing classes were selected.2 In England, form tutor groups with ethnic diversity were selected. All three schools have a reputation of being well run and successful, and the focus groups were randomly selected, the consent to participate being one important criterion.

206

M. Sandstrm Kjellin et al.

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

The focus groups allowed for data collection by group interaction through an investigation of participants ideas and values (Wibeck 2000). One disadvantage of the method is that existing relationships between people may limit the validity. Participants were asked to validate their participation by completing a written evaluation following the dialogues, where they were asked to state the extent (completely/to some extent/not so much/not at all) to which they had stated their opinions in the conversation. Evaluations were then summarised quantitatively. In the summaries, for the sake of simplicity, the first two and the second two statements were joined. The focus group dialogues were conducted over a three-month period. Using the same manual, five researchers were responsible for data-collection (two in England and Sweden and one in Finland).3 The focus group dialogues lasted 2060 minutes, were tape-recorded, transcribed and translated. For the purposes of analysis, the focus of the transcriptions was the content of the pupils statements. Less detailed transcriptions therefore sufficed, since it was the rendering of the contents of the informants statements that was important, not a micro-level analysis (Wibeck 2000). However, the researchers documented their impressions of the dialogue sessions, accounting for prosodic cues, silence, apparent contradictions in statements, etc, in the conversations. The focus group dialogues were analysed qualitatively. The Swedish research group made a preliminary categorisation of data from all three countries using Colneruds distinction of three types of moral education. Thereafter, the researchers from England and Finland were given the opportunity to add comments and suggest changes. A final analysis was then completed by the authors. Results The pupils evaluations of their participation in the focus group dialogues were first summarised quantitatively, followed by an account of how familiar they were with the political literacy aspect of citizenship education.4 The extent to which pupils depict different types of value mediation (i.e., moral instruction, moral conversation and moral interaction) is thereafter described in addition to whether they initiated interaction with the focus group researchers in the dialogues or not. This is followed by examples of how the pupils retorts in the dialogues were categorised. Finally, summaries are made of how the tone of the group sounded when the teenagers were describing classroom communication in the dialogues. Taken together, the result is considered to constitute the pupils voices. Self-estimation of focus group dialogue participation Table 1 below shows that the self-estimated participation in the focus group dialogues was relatively high in the three national groups. Twenty-one per cent of English pupils claimed they did not state all their personal views because of a fear of embarrassing someone, whereas 8% of them said this was due to a feeling of group pressure. Comments like this was a good idea, interesting, enjoyable and helpful were made in the group. A few wrote that they were unhappy with the ways in which teachers were disrespectful or labelled pupils as bad. Amongst Finnish pupils, 3%, did not share all their views out of fear of embarrassing someone for 3% a feeling of group pressure was the reason for not

European Journal of Teacher Education

Table 1. Self-estimation of the focus group dialogue participation. England Have absolutely/to some extent brought forward their views Have not/not to a large extent brought forward their views 100 Finland 84 16

207

Sweden 84 16

doing so. A few said they were either unfamiliar with this or did not like it, whereas others meant it was fun or good. Moreover, 12% of Swedish pupils did not bring forward all their views because of fear of embarrassing someone, whereas for 12% of them a feeling of group pressure was the reason for not doing so. They made comments such as this was fun, very fun, interesting, good and important.
Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

Performance of political literacy English pupils seemed well-informed about their rights and responsibilities and there were many examples where they made statements such as:
It might have something to do with the country you come from [they have] different traditions and stuff, which means you have to do different things and you have different responsibilities like with just different ethnic background and stuff like that.

The focus group researcher asked many follow-up questions about the details surrounding rights and responsibilities. Swedish pupils seemed relatively uninformed about rights and responsibilities. Some were even completely unaware of the concepts of rights and responsibilities: I dont even know what it means or we only have classroom rules. The focus group researchers did not address many followup questions about this aspect of citizenship education. Moving on, Finnish pupils seemed not as well-informed as the English, but more than their Swedish counterparts. They provided more detailed examples of rights and responsibilities, for example, the right to common access or the responsibility to obey traffic rules. The focus group researcher posed few follow-up questions on such topics. Attitudes and values /value mediation In the focus group dialogues, the number of retorts was counted, accounting for how frequently values mediation in the classroom could be classified as moral instruction, moral conversation or moral interaction. Figures in Table 2 below denote the number of retorts in percentage in relation to the total number of retorts categorised.
Table 2. Distribution of retorts (%) for the type of values mediation. Moral instruction Finland England Sweden 50 57 56 Moral conversation 50 34 13 Moral interaction 0 9 31

208

M. Sandstrm Kjellin et al.

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

One can see that in all the groups, values mediated through moral instruction was a substantial part of the total number of categorised retorts. Yet, it must be noted that the total number of categorised retorts was almost the same in England and Sweden (102 retorts in England and 96 in Sweden), but in Finland only six retorts could be categorised. Thus, Finnish pupils were extremely taciturn. Also, moral conversation did not occur so much in Sweden (or in Finland, since the number of retorts in Finland was so low) as in England. The most significant difference, however, was in moral interaction, which was much more common in Sweden than in the other countries. Furthermore, there were examples of Swedish pupils trying to interact with the focus group researcher by asking questions such as: do you like to cook? who cooks in your family: you or your husband? or do you have any children? Some of them also explored the limits of what an unknown strange adult could be asked: for example: do you think it is wise to use condoms? Amongst English pupils, no examples of pupils trying to interact with the focus group researchers were found. Instead there were retorts suggesting that the pupils wanted to have more moral conversation/ interaction with their teachers. The most striking result amongst Finnish pupils was once again the lack of interaction and dialogue among the pupils, where they answered the questions in minimalist ways. Examples of categorisation There were many examples of retorts categorised as values mediated via moral instruction. An English pupil commented: If youre naughty they like tell you how to behave, whereas a Finnish pupil said: There has been some teaching of manners sometimes. Similarly, their Swedish counterpart said: If you step into the classroom with a box of sweets, the teacher may say what have we said about the rules? Additionally, there were examples of retorts categorised as values being mediated via moral conversation: We discuss right and wrong ways of behaving in citizenship [education] and compare religious beliefs, said one English pupil. In a Finnish pupils words: Sometimes we do talk about this during history or geography class. By the same token a Swedish pupil commented: It is sort of fun during social studies, because everybody will end up talking about the Second World War Like this Adolf Hitler get a pattern you know. Among the Finnish pupils, no retorts were found which can be categorised as values being mediated through moral interaction. Examples from England and Sweden were: The only people I talk to are people like the tutor and that is cause I know them really well and I can trust them that they wont tell anybody else (English pupil) and (about a teacher) She never assumes that anybody will do something bad on purpose (Swedish pupil). The tone of the pupils voices in Finland The tones of the voices of Finnish pupils as a whole were very similar, i.e., as groups they sounded very secure, self-confident but laconic, low-key (in two groups the pupils said only a few words), down-to-earth. Yet, the dialogue groups can be categorised as: (i) those where the tone of the pupils voices expressed obedience towards all others at school; (ii) those selectively indifferent to other staff than teachers; and (iii) those who were obedient towards teachers, but not towards other school staff (thus, selectively obedient).

European Journal of Teacher Education

209

All-obedient Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as all-obedient. These pupils were not very talkative and for this reason the conversations could not even be summarised. In one of the groups, it was said that in class there was not much talk about how to behave, they simply knew how to behave. They said for example [I am] friendly towards the cleaners or [I behave] similarly towards all. In the classroom, focus was more on norm-guided behaviour and interaction than discussing and scrutinising the norms per se in a democratic and open manner. Here power-distance became obvious; regardless of public policies and curricula, teachers and pupils are unequal classroom participants. Selectively indifferent Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as selectively indifferent. These pupils seemed down-to-earth and said that they occasionally brought up things that interested and evoked their curiosity in class. Yet, they had few experiences of fellow pupils or friends of immigrant descent. One of them said there are two immigrant students at the school, they are not much noticed, and they seemed uninterested or even indifferent to (but not condescending) towards other staff. Selectively obedient Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as selectively obedient. In the dialogues, these pupils typically talk about responsibilities in school such as the right to work in peace and obligation not to disturb others. [You have the] right to work in peace at school and [you have the] duty to let your classmates work without disturbing them. At the same time, duties were seldom discussed in class, and they claimed such issues were parental responsibilities. Whereas they to some degree revealed condescending attitudes towards other school staff, they were obedient towards their teachers. Additionally, they claimed that a limited number of pupils and teachers occasionally expressed racist attitudes.

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

The tone of the pupils voices in Sweden The tone of the voices of the Swedish dialogue groups was categorised as: (i) weak; (ii) content; or (iii) very loud.

Weak Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as weak. This is another way of reporting that these pupils seemed very contented, did not seem to have anything to be upset about and did not seem to expect classroom teacherpupil communication to be an important means of communicating. Pupils belonging to this group saw themselves as nice and well-educated. Being satisfied with things in school and all too aware of the fact that other pupils were not as well off as themselves, they talked about social injustices. They kept their teachers at arms length (and similarly the focus group researcher). Yet, they said that it would be possible to have closer

210

M. Sandstrm Kjellin et al.

personal relationships with teachers, but saw no point in this for their own part: It is something else if you havent got good relationship with your parents, then you might want to talk to the teacher instead. Sometimes, they conversed with the school cleaner and saw her as a very nice person: The lady who cleans the place here she is so nice we talk a lot with her. She gives us Thai sweets. In short, these pupils seemed happy with everything. Contented Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as contented. In this group, pupils were overall satisfied with their situation. Their only complaint pertained to the process of establishing school rules. For example, if they entered a lesson after a break and were in the process of finishing a conversation with a friend; rules do not allow them to do so, which they considered unfair. With embarrassment on their faces, they also claimed that some teachers did not dare to use the authority provided by their professional role to pursue behavioural norms in the classroom, i.e. to tell misbehaving pupils off. Albeit they occasionally talked to teachers about other things, such as a good goal in a football match; much time was spent discussing classroom rules. Overall, they characterised their relationship with teachers as good: We are nice to the teachers and they are nice to us. This is a good school. Very loud-voiced Two of the groups used a tone that was characterised as very loud. These pupils questioned their abilities, felt powerless and in despair. They dreaded adult life, and yet seemed very anxious that things would turn well for them: To make it at school thats what I think about all the time. Amongst teachers, other staff and pupils alike, their class was seen as troublesome and they said they had scared off several teachers. These pupils were disappointed that their teachers had abandoned them and blamed them for not taking the time to listen to them or supporting them enough. They criticised the fact that they were not invited to discussions on school rules. Much time was also spent discussing their sense of isolation and how they did not dare to contact other pupils. Instead they showed much concern for their gang: We are like pals; we treat each other as brothers you see! But others whats it called if not if they are mean or something then we will also be sort of mean. They worried about being out-distanced by other pupils and adult life in general and wanted good school reports: If you just get a good result you will get a good job. All in all, these pupils to a large extent seemed to view themselves as victims of an unfair system. The tone of the pupils voices in England The tones of the voices of the English pupils were categorised as: (i) weak; (ii) resigned; or (iii) bitter. Weak Three groups used a tone that was characterised as weak. As with the Swedish pupils that were characterised as having a weak tone, these pupils did not seem to expect

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

European Journal of Teacher Education

211

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

much from classroom teacherpupil communication. These pupils seemed wellbehaved and well-informed. They linked the concepts rights and responsibilities to different cultures, age groups, religions, etc, and were also able to link these differences to how they behave in front of people. They said that they were responsible for being good examples for the younger pupils, and that they were also responsible for weaker people, elderly people, etc. They also viewed it important not to annoy other people. Their theoretical knowledge, in particular of responsibilities, seemed very good. When it came to the classroom situation however, they said that they did not have the right to criticise teaching methods: otherwise you face consequences. They stated that there were differences between lessons with regard to how much you are allowed to speak out your opinions. In drama and creative subjects, they were allowed to speak more freely, but not in science lessons: it depends whether the lesson is like fact or opinion. They thought that it was good that there were limits to their freedom to criticise: its not fair to criticise or use too much of your own opinion because everybody has different ones so I think that its good that we have a certain amount of that. In one group, they talked about not disturbing other people early in the morning or late in the evening in the neighbourhood. They stressed the importance of the home for the way you behave and they connected good behaviour and following rules with the chance of getting a good job. In short, their practical experience in the classroom situation of rights and responsibilities seemed to imply mostly responsibilities. They mentioned that they wanted teachers to talk to them in a more friendly ways. They mentioned school rules in which boys and girls were treated differently and criticised that. They didnt seem to care much about other staff at the school even though they didnt give the impression of explicitly treating them badly.

Resigned Two groups used a tone that was characterised as resigned. These pupils seemed well-behaved and well-informed theoretically about rights and responsibilities, but when talking about their situation at school they seemed rather resigned. They talked a lot about rights and responsibilites (vividly encouraged by the focus group researcher): In America they have the right to speak and stuff like that, the right to freedom and stuff I dont think theres much over here. In comparison with the weak pupils voices these groups connected their theoretical rights more to the strict school rules. They said that they didnt feel they had the same rights as older people, since for example:
In shops and stuff they they have notices saying you cant have more than two children, schoolchildren, cause they dont trust us when its only a selected amount of people who like steal from shops, but we get stereotyped.

They talked about adults having low expectations of them and how it affected them. They wanted to behave badly to fulfil the low expectations. As to the situation in the classroom, they mentioned teachers collective punishments. They said that when the lesson concerned things that you have opinions on, it would be good to discuss them instead of writing excessively. It is often difficult to put down in writing. Their way of speaking gave the impression that they felt defenceless in relation to teachers. Teachers seemed to be allowed to treat them capriciously. As regards other

212

M. Sandstrm Kjellin et al.

school staff than teachers, they didnt seem very interested. However, one pupil said that you should respect others, irrespective of their background. They talked about teachers being unfair and treating pupils differently, punishing and forcing them to respond in certain ways. Examples of good teacher response were also given, He would sort of give you quite a lot of trust but if you broke the trust then you would be punished. Bitter One group used a tone which was characterised as bitter. These pupils also seemed well-behaving and rather well-informed, although not as explicitly as the others. When asked about rights and responsibilities, this group jumped quickly to what they were not allowed to do at school and said that they wanted teachers to listen to them more. They pointed out that teachers were unfair and picked favourites:
You get left out sometimes if youre not their favourite Because, say sometimes when a bad student is good, they get really, really, really good things done to them, but as soon as a good person does something a little bit wrong they are punished

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

There were some signs of this favouritism making the pupils become timeservers: It has really saved me I use favouritism, so I know its unfair. They also mentioned situations of bullying; one pupil told:
I got pushed in a shower with all my clothes on and that really, really did push my button, as they say and that kid hasnt left me alone cause I told the teacher and he thinks that I should have just left it and let him get away with it, why should I? He just pushed me in the shower, why should I let him get away with it? And all he got was a detention which was half-an-hour.

There were some examples of good teachers as well:

Theres one teacher which I can trust with anything my tutor, Miss C, like last year I had trouble at home and I just spoke to her about it and its like inside of me and I cant speak to anyone and I spoke to her and it was like gone, so its good that I have this one teacher, and Mr D is a good teacher too.

They said that some teachers had prejudices against certain pupils; they didnt give them the chance to prove that they were good. They didnt seem to respect the other staff at school as much as the teachers: when I know them better I decide what my degree of respect is going to be. They suggested an explanation as to why there was a difference in how they treated people: its a question of trust. To summarise, their bitterness seemed to be about teachers being unfair and bullying situations not being observed. Discussion In all three countries, the pupils self-estimated participation in the focus group dialogues was high. For English pupils it was 100%, which suggests a high motivation for this type of discussion. At the same time, their comments indicate that they did not feel respected by adults around them. With this said, the attitudes and values did not

European Journal of Teacher Education

213

materialise in teachers performance of the lessons, at least not according to their pupils. These pupils were better informed about rights and responsibilities than their Nordic counterparts. This is perhaps not surprising, given citizenships status as an independent subject in the English curriculum. An advantage of organising citizenship education in this way is that pupils become theoretically well-informed about rights and responsibilities as well as rhetorically skilled in talking about these issues. Turning to attitudes and values mediation, the higher figure for England compared to Sweden for moral conversation (Finland cannot be compared to the other two, since the number of retorts was so small) indicates that such instruction is given within the subject of citizenship. The higher figure for moral interaction for Sweden is likely explained by the presence of the attitudes and values aspect of citizenship education in the teachers attitude during all lessons. Also, the Swedish pupils wish to interact with the focus group researcher, suggests that they have an open and confident relation with adults something which may stimulate the development of key competence (i.e., interpersonal, intercultural, social and civic competences). By contrast, and even if they wanted to, English pupils seemed less accustomed to open and confident relationships with adults. Most likely this had negative implications for key competence development. Explanations for the absence of dialogue among Finnish pupils must be somewhat speculative. It is commonly assumed that Finnish culture is quieter than its English and Swedish counterparts. This, in conjunction with a larger classroom power distance (Suutarinen 2002; Trmkangas 2002), may serve as a tentative explanation. Support for this conclusion, however, must be sought in more research. The dialogues with Swedish pupils showed that teachers struggled to find a morally acceptable and productive balance between the encouragement of divergent opinions in the classroom (e.g. when Hitler was mentioned as a model). There were also problems in the moral interaction, more than likely due to circumstances and behavioural norms unknown or tacit to some pupils of non-Swedish descent (Colnerud 2004). The English pupils voices were classified as weak, resigned, or bitter. The resigned and bitter voices seem interesting to compare with the Swedish contented or very strong voices. It seems that the English participants had given up the prospect of being listened to by the adults, whereas the Swedish very strong pupils voices stressed how important they considered the adults to be for their development. Apart from not encouraging development of the key competence, this may also cause the problem of timely obedience, one of the problems with too severe moral instruction pointed out by Colnerud (2004). In fact, there were some signs of timeserving in the English groups. One of the pupils mentioned that she used favouritism for her own benefits. The Finnish pupils voices were highly similar in all dialogue groups. They were all laconic, quiet, categorised to different degrees as obedient or indifferent towards teachers and other staff. The fact that moral interaction did not occur at all raises doubts about the existence of key competences amongst these pupils. In two groups, it was clear that some Finnish pupils do not hold a positive attitude towards immigrants, a finding similar to Suutarinens (2002). The three countries national curricula leave more or less room for different aspects of citizenship education. According to Eriksson (2007) Kellys classification does not apply to the Swedish curriculum. The Swedish National Curriculums strong emphasis on fundamental values is a probable explanation for the focus on the attitudes and values aspect of citizenship education a conclusion for which this

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

214

M. Sandstrm Kjellin et al.

study found support. The results of this study supports Erikssons classification of the Swedish curriculum as process and development oriented, allowing for discussions on democracy. Although not aware of the theoretical implications, the Swedish teenagers were used to being treated democratically in classroom dialogues, thus negotiating values in accordance with postmodern ethics (Baumann 1996; Nussbaum 1995; Hedin 2001). This linkage to practice is the focus of many Swedish researchers (see Colnerud 2004; Orlenius 2001; Tornberg 2004). The research review relating to England (Crick 2007; Frazer 2007; Department for Children Schools and Families [DCSF] 2006; Woodhead 2002; Haydon 1997; Mace 2001; Myers 2000; Kerr 2005) shows that the focus in England is on the individual learner and on school efficiency. Eriksson (2007) views the English curriculum as predominantly result-oriented and content focused which does not leave much room for democratic classroom dialogue. Many pupils in the dialogues did not feel that they were met with respect by the teachers. In our study, we found that the rights and responsibilities aspect of citizenship education was presented as theoretical goals. However, this theoretical knowledge did not correspond to the practical classroom situation of teachers, probably not always showing respect for the pupils. The Finnish curriculum was described by Eriksson (2007) as contradictory. Results here show that none of the aspects of citizenship education were observed in practice or in theory. Instead, it seemed that being at school for these pupils meant adopting knowledge without questioning or discussing it, as if the knowledge is outside yourself. Suutarinen (2002) and Brunell and Trmkangas (2002) found that Finnish pupils do not view themselves as able to influence at school, something which may be one explanation to their very passive attitude. The focus group dialogues indicated that all the pupils were concerned with achieving good school results. English and Swedish pupils claimed that there is more focus on responsibilities than rights in school. Teaching rights and responsibilities are mainly a parental responsibility according to the Finnish. English and Finnish pupils came across as less empathetic to fellow pupils who were less well off (e.g., in terms of school results or background). Finnish and Swedish pupils possessed lower competences in political literacy than the English who had received a fair amount of theoretical citizenship instruction and hence were well-informed about rights and responsibilities. Swedish pupils were more exposed to the attitudes and values aspect of citizenship education than political literacy education. In the classroom however, English pupils did not think they were treated respectfully by their teachers. Instead, they said that teachers occasionally could be unfair and prone to punish pupils collectively if norms were violated. By contrast, their Swedish counterparts provided many examples of how the focus on attitudes and values characterised teachers everyday approach to pupils; something which was not the case for Finnish pupils. The latter did not seem to be encouraged to talk, but to keep personal thoughts and feelings to themselves. Against this background, English and Finnish pupils did not seem to have as good relationships as the Swedish pupils with nonpedagogical school staff. Finally, English and Swedish pupils were equally talkative in the interviews, whereas the Finnish were extremely taciturn. By the same token, English and Finnish pupils came across as strict, polite and respectful in the interaction with the focus group researcher, whereas the Swedish appeared relaxed, confident and familiar with highly horizontal communication with adults. The English participants also talked

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

European Journal of Teacher Education

215

more about showing respect and consideration for other people in general (e.g., not disturb people early in the morning or late in the evening). Conclusion In conclusion, there is a risk that (as pointed out by Orlenius 2001) childrens and young peoples lifestyles and ideas are belittled and viewed as results of imperfect value transmission, whereas the adults norms and worldviews have an aura of being unproblematic and are taken for granted. Orlenius (2001) found that young people are not uninterested in the adult world which was also found in the present study. By encouraging young people to express their inner thoughts and feelings and facilitate dialogue, their competences and interest in the world are stimulated. A school where teachers are genuinely interested in the views of the pupils is equally enriching for pupils and teachers. In contrast: if teachers in their everyday practice do not respect or listen to the ideas and opinions of their pupils but instrumentally superimpose values onto them, the prospect via education of developing morally aware, politically active and democratic citizens seems more difficult, if not utopian. Limitations As pointed out elsewhere it must be emphasised that, in particular due to the not exactly identical approaches that were made, in the three countries, to encourage conversations, this study has limitations. However, the results from this study seem interesting and indicate that the matter needs to be studied more closely. The studys value lies in that it probably sheds light on similarities and differences and contributes to a higher degree of understanding for the social reality in the different national contexts. A value of the study is also that if may raise the awareness of the fact that research results in qualitative studies in social sciences are always culture specific (Bryman 2002). Acknowledgements
The study was given financial support by The Faculty Board of Education at Mlardalen University, Mimer Bostads AB and the City of Vsters.

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

Notes
1. Horizontal communication means that the two parties are perceived as equal, and vertical

communication means that the relationship between the two is unequal. Any adultchild relation is by necessity to some extent vertical (Janson 2002); hence, provided by their institutionalised role, teachers have a posititional advantage compared to their pupils. Yet, by being omnipresent and receptive in classroom discussions teachers can allow for horizontal communication. 2. Note that classes are not streamed in Swedish schools. Rather, this school had different profiles where some of the studied groups were in a mathematics profile, and some in a football profile. 3. In focus group dialogue research it is stressed that dialogues ideally should be conducted by the same person. This was impossible in our case. But by familiarising the other researchers with the manual prior to data collection and involving them in the prenalaysis and the analysis phase this potential weakness was partly compensated for.

216

M. Sandstrm Kjellin et al.

4. Here it is only discerned whether they talked about what rights they have or what they

have the responsibilities to do.

Notes on contributors
Margareta Sandstrm Kjellin is an associate professor in education at Mlardalen University, Sweden. Her research field is citizenship education, the teacherpupil relationship and reading and writing difficulties. Jonas Stier is an associate professor in sociology at Mlardalen University. He has written several books in the field of intercultural communication and the internationalisation of higher education. Tanja Einarson is a research assistant at Mlardalen University.
Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

Trevor Davies is director of the International Centre for Studies in Education and Training at the Institute of Education, University of Reading, UK. His responsibilities include training teachers of science and technology and he has research interests that include supporting postgraduate students in areas related to creativity, global citizenship and education for sustainability. Associate professor Tuula Asunta works at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyvskyl, Finland. She has had a long career at the university as a trainer of teachers and has published about 150 papers.

References
Baumann, Z. 1996. Postmodern etik [Postmodern ethics]. Gteborg, Sweden: Bokfrlaget Daidalos. Bourdieu, P. 1993. Kultursociologiska texter. [Sociocultural texts]. Stockholm/Stehag: Brutus stlings bokfrlag Symposion. Brunell, V., and K. Trmkangas. 2002. Tulevaisuuden yhteiskunnan rakentajat: yhteiskunnallisen opetuksen tutkimus Suomen nkkulmasta. [The constructors of the future society: A social educational study from the Finnish point of view]. Jyvskyln yliopisto, koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Jyvskyl. Bryman, A. 2001. Samhllsvetenskapliga metoder [Methods in social sciences]. Malm, Sweden: Liber. Colnerud, G. 2004. Lrares moraliska praktik. Instruktion, konversation och interaktion [The teachers moral practice. Instruction, conversation and interaction; in Swedish]. In Skolans moraliska och demokratiska praktik. Vrdepedagogiska texter I, ed. G. Colnerud. Linkping: Linkpings universitet, IBV rapportserie. Colnerud, G., and R. Thornberg. 2003. Vrdepedagogik i internationell belysning [Values education from an international point of view]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes. Commission of the European Communities. 2005. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/ policies/2010/et2010en.html. Crick, B. 1998. Education for citizenship and the teaching democracy in schools: Final report of the advisory group on citizenship. London: QCA. Crick, B. 2007. Citizenship: The political and the democratic. British Journal of Educational Studies 55, no. 3: 23548. Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). 2007. Education, training and employment. http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ete/. Durkheim, E. 1956. Education and sociology. New York: Macmillan. Durkheim, E. 1992. Professional ethics and civic morals. London: Routledge. Eriksson, I. 2007. Ml fr alla Ml i grundskolans tidigare r. En granskning av mlsystemen i olika lnders lroplaner [Goals for all goals in the earlier compulsory school years. A review of the goal systems in different countries curricula]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes.

European Journal of Teacher Education

217

Eurydice. 2005. Citizenship education at school in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frazer, E. 2007. Depoliticising citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies 55, no. 3: 24963. Haydon, G. 1997. Teaching about values: A new approach. London: Cassell. Heath, S.B. 1983. Ways with words. Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hedin, C. 2001. Education to ethical evolution. The challenge of Montaignes opinions about virtue and maturity. Paper presented at the ISATT conference, in Faro, Portugal. Ireland, E., D. Kerr, J. Lopes, J. Nelson, and E. Cleaver. 2006. Active citizenship and young people: Opportunities, experiences and challenges in and beyond school citizenship education longitudinal study: Fourth annual report. Research Report RR732. DES 2006. Kerr, D. 2005. Englands teenagers fail the patriotic test; the lessons from Englands participation in the IEA Civic Education Study. In Political and citizenship education, ed. S. Wilde. Oxford: Symposium Books. Mace, J. 2001. Economic perspectives on values, culture and education: In Values, culture and education, ed. J. Cairns, D. Lawton, and R. Gardner. London; Stylus Publishing. Marshall, T.H. 1950. Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. May, T. 2001. Samhllsvetenskaplig forskning. [Research in social science]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. Myers, K. 2000. Whatever happened to equal opportunities in school: Gender equality initiatives in education. Buckingham: OUP. Nussbaum, M.C. 1995. Knslans skrpa, tankens inlevelse. Esser om etik och politik [The sharpness of feeling, the feeling of thought. Essays of ethics and politics]. Stockholm, Sweden: Brutus stlings Bokfrlag Symposion. dman, P.J. 1998. Kontrasternas spel [The play of contrasts]. Stockholm, Sweden: Prisma. Ogbu, J. 1997. Speech community, language identity and language. In Language and environment a cultural approach to education for minority and migrant students, ed. A. Sjgren. Botkyrka, Sweden: Mngkulturellt Centrum. Orlenius, K. 2001. Vrdegrunden finns den? [Fundamental values is there such a thing?]. Malm, Sweden: Runa. Ruddock, J., and J. Flutter. 2000. Pupil participation and pupil perspective: Carving a new order of experience. Cambridge Journal of Education 30, no. 1: 7589. Sandstrm Kjellin, M., and J. Stier. 2006. The school as an arena for citizenship education: Multi-competence acquisition, values, ideologies and social dynamics. Paper presented to the EERA-conference, September 1316, in Geneva. Sandstrm Kjellin, M., and J. Stier. 2007. Citizenship in the classroom: Transmitting and transforming transcultural values. Intercultural Education 19, no. 1: 4151. Schweisfurth, M., L. Davies, and C. Harber. 2002. Learning democracy and citizenship. International experiences. Oxford: Symposium Books. Skolverket. 2000. Med demokrati som uppdrag [Democracy as a mission]. Stockholm, Sweden: Liber. Suutarinen, S. 2000. Yhteiskunnallisen opetuksen asema Suomessa. Teoksessa S. Suutarinen (toim.) Nuoresta ptev kansalainen. Yhteiskunnallinen opetus Suomen peruskoulussa. IEA Civics Nuori kansalainen tutkimuksen julkaisuja I [The stage of social teaching in Finland]. Jyvskyln yliopisto: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. Tornberg, R. 2004. Att skilja p etik och etikett den domnteoretiska forskningen [To distinguish between ethics and etiquette the domain theoretical research; in Swedish]. In Skolans moraliska och demokratiska praktik. Vrdepedagogiska texter I, ed. G. Colnerud. Linkping, Sweden: Linkpings universitet, IBV rapportserie. Torney-Purta, J., R. Lehmann, H. Oswald, and W. Schulz. 2001. Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. The International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Amsterdam: IEA. Utbildningsdepartementet. 1994. Lroplan fr det obligatoriska skolvsendet, frskoleklassen och fritidshemmet [Curriculum for the compulsory educational system, nursery school and the day care centre]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes.

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010

218

M. Sandstrm Kjellin et al.

Utbildningsdepartementet. 2007. SOU 2007:28. Tydliga ml och kunskapskrav i grundskolan Frslag till nytt ml- och uppfljningssystem [Clear goals and knowledge claims in the compulsory school suggesting a new goal and follow-up system]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes. Wibeck, V. 2000. Fokusgrupper. Om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som underskningsmetod [Focus groups. About focused group interviews as a research method]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. Wilde, S. 2005. Political and citizenship education. International perspectives. Oxford: Symposium Books. Woodhead, C. 2002. Class war: The state of British education. London: Time Warner.

Downloaded By: [Kjellin, Margareta Sandstrm] At: 20:00 24 March 2010