Historielärares historier : Ämnesbiografi och ämnesförståelse hos gymnasielärare i historia

The overall aim of this study is to analyse history teachers’ understanding of the school subject history. The aim have also been to uncover what factors the history teachers say have affected their understanding of the school subject. Based on survey and interview methods, the question that this study deals with is: in the light of which general understanding of the school subject history, do the teachers make didactic choices on a daily basis? The first theme is biographical. The teachers’ life-history is taken into consideration and several factors in the teachers’ background and the school environment have been identified. It also seems as if the teachers’ understanding of the school subject goes from an elementary and searching approach to one that is more complex and convinced. The second theme is a more structural approach. The results shows three major orientations among the teachers’ general understanding namely, educational (bildung) orientation, critical orientation and identity orientation. Even though a main orientation can be seen among the teachers, an important result is also that the orientation is overall complex. At the most general level some patterns can be seen. First the connection between the teachers’ biography and their general understanding of the school subject. In the understanding of the school subject, it is also notable that teachers relate in different ways to history as science, history as identity and history from an ideological viewpoint. It is also possible to note some signs of change in the school subject history that follows a lager historiographical context.

Dokumentationens dilemman : Förskollärare samtalar om pedagogisk dokumentation

Abstract  Pedagogical documentation is a certain procedure for documenting that, in recent years, has been embraced in several Swedish preschools. Teachers document children’s actions and conversations usually by photos or video recordings. This documentation is to be used for a pedagogical purpose. However, studies and governmental inspections have shown that pedagogical documentation gives rise to many questions among preschool teachers. The purpose of this study is to gain insight into what is being expressed when preschool teachers discuss pedagogical documentation, focusing on themes of content and on the participants’ expressions of their points of view. The data is comprised of transcriptions from audio recordings of discussions conducted in a research circle. The participants are eight preschool teachers that met over the course of one year. Each meeting focused on the documentation provided by a different participant. In that way the contents of the discussions were framed by the teachers own questions and narratives. Theoretically, the study departs from Social Constructionism and Discursive Psychology. The preschool teachers’ utterances have been analyzed using concepts of interpretative repertoires and ideological dilemmas. The results show the main themes to be: Knowledge content in a preschool setting, children’s learning, the teacher’s role and implementation of pedagogical documentation. The participants’ joint position is that the knowledge content at the preschool level is defined by the curriculum for the preschool. Concerning children’s learning and the teacher’s role, two main standpoints are disclosed. Ideologically those standpoints derive from two opposing theories of education. Based on how the standpoints have been expressed I have called them ”predetermined learning” versus ”non-predetermined learning”. One main distinction between the standpoints is that predetermined learning emphasizes the results of learning, while non-predetermined learning emphasizes the processes of learning. The participants’ utterances show that teachers tend to subscribe to the idea that there is only one acceptable way of working with pedagogical documentation. This sometimes creates performance anxiety and feelings of not succeeding and has led to arguments advocating an alternate approach; pedagogical documentation can be done in many ways. The ideological dilemmas within the discourse can be perceived as resources by which the participants argue about knowledge, learning, teaching and about the implementation of pedagogical documentation.

Knowledge translation in Uganda : a qualitative study of Ugandan midwives' and managers' perceived relevance of the sub-elements of the context cornerstone in the PARIHS framework

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of the annual 3.3 million neonatal deaths could be averted if there was a high uptake of basic evidence-based practices. In order to overcome this 'know-do' gap, there is an urgent need for in-depth understanding of knowledge translation (KT). A major factor to consider in the successful translation of knowledge into practice is the influence of organizational context. A theoretical framework highlighting this process is Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS). However, research linked to this framework has almost exclusively been conducted in high-income countries. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the perceived relevance of the subelements of the organizational context cornerstone of the PARIHS framework, and also whether other factors in the organizational context were perceived to influence KT in a specific low-income setting. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in a district of Uganda, where focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews were conducted with midwives (n = 18) and managers (n = 5) within the catchment area of the general hospital. The interview guide was developed based on the context sub-elements in the PARIHS framework (receptive context, culture, leadership, and evaluation). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, followed by directed content analysis of the data. RESULTS: The sub-elements of organizational context in the PARIHS framework--i.e., receptive context, culture, leadership, and evaluation--also appear to be relevant in a low-income setting like Uganda, but there are additional factors to consider. Access to resources, commitment and informal payment, and community involvement were all perceived to play important roles for successful KT. CONCLUSIONS: In further development of the context assessment tool, assessing factors for successful implementation of evidence in low-income settings--resources, community involvement, and commitment and informal payment--should be considered for inclusion. For low-income settings, resources are of significant importance, and might be considered as a separate subelement of the PARIHS framework as a whole.