English-medium instruction in Sweden : Perspectives and practices in two upper secondary schools

This thesis presents English-medium instruction (EMI) in the Swedish context, focusing on perspectives and practices in two schools. The research question is as follows: How and why is EMI offered, chosen, and practiced in the Swedish upper secondary school today? The aim is to explore the status of the educational option, the reasons for offering EMI to stakeholders, the stakeholders’ beliefs about and goals of EMI, and the implementation of EMI in the classroom. A survey of all upper secondary schools in Sweden was conducted to ascertain the spread of content teaching through a foreign language. The educational context was studied from an ecological perspective using methods based in linguistic ethnography. Language alternation, academic language, and language hierarchy were all considered. Interviews were analysed for content; and classroom language use was analysed for language choice and function. The concepts of affordance and scaffolding together with translanguaging were key. The de facto policies of the micro contexts of the schools were examined in light of the declared national policy of the macro context of Sweden. The results indicate that the option in Swedish schools has not increased, and also tends to only be EMI—not Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) or instruction through other languages. EMI is offered for prestige, an international profile, marketing potential and personal interest. EMI students are academically motivated and confident, and see the option as “fun”. 100% EMI in the lessons is not the goal or the practice. Translanguaging is abundant, but how language alternation is perceived as an affordance or not differs in the two schools. One focuses on how the languages are used while the other focuses on how much each language is used. In conclusion, the analysis suggests that a development of definitions and practices of EMI in Sweden is needed, especially in relation to language policy and language hierarchy.

Science is Primary - Children Thinking and Learning in theChemistry Laboratory

The goal of primary science education is to foster children’s interest, develop positive science attitudes and promote science process skills development. Learning by playing and discovering provides several opportunities for children to inquiry and understand science based on the first–hand experience. The current research was conducted in the children’s laboratory in Heureka, the Finnish science centre. Young children (aged 7 years) which came from 4 international schools did a set of chemistry experiments in the laboratory. From the results of the cognitive test, the pre-test, the post-test, supported by observation and interview, we could make the conclusion that children enjoyed studying in the laboratory. Chemistry science was interesting and fascinating for young children; no major gender differences were found between boys and girls learning in the science laboratory. Lab work not only encouraged children to explore and investigate science, but also stimulated children’s cognitive development.

Role of headmasters, teachers and supervisors in knowledge transfer about occupational health and safety to pupils in vocational education

Background Young people are at an increased risk for illness in working life. The authorities stipulate certain goals for training in occupational health and safety (OHS) in vocational schools. A previous study concluded that pupils in vocational education had limited knowledge in the prevention of health risks at work. The aim of the current study, therefore, was to study how OHS training is organized in school and in workplace-based learning (WPL).   Method The study design featured a qualitative approach, which included interviews with 12 headmasters, 20 teachers, and 20 supervisors at companies in which the pupils had their WPL. The study was conducted at 10 upper secondary schools, located in Central Sweden, that were graduating pupils in four vocational programs.   Result The interviews with headmasters, teachers, and supervisors indicate a staggered picture of how pupils are prepared for safe work. The headmasters generally give teachers the responsibility for how goals should be reached. Teaching is very much based on risk factors that are present in the workshops and on teachers’ own experiences and knowledge. The teaching during WPL also lacks the systematic training in OHS as well as in the traditional classroom environment.   Conclusion Teachers and supervisors did not plan the training in OHS in accordance with the provisions of systematic work environment management. Instead, the teachers based the training on their own experiences. Most of the supervisors did not get information from the schools as to what should be included when introducing OHS issues in WPL.