Time on task in classrooms 1

Transcription

1 Draft, work in progress Time on task in classrooms 1 Project: Quality in Education. The Research Council of Norway 2 and Volda University College 3 Paper NERA 2009, Trondheim Peder Haug, Volda University College [email protected] Time on task here concerns how much time is spent on learning activities and how in school. The relationship between time and learning is strong, increasing time on task usually results in more learning (Øzerk, 2003). How pupils time is used in school will determine what they achieve. This paper deals with the research problem: How is time spent in school? Time on task can be studied at several levels. One is how much time is at disposal for each of the ten different school subjects in the national curricula. Every minute of school time is allocated to subject teaching and learning, stating how many lessons each school subject should have. A problem arises because The national curriculum also recommends that the pupils should have access to experiences other than those directly related to defined school subjects. Second, how much time is actually spent on particular subjects in practical teaching and how is another matter. The distribution of time in class, how much time is allocated to subject teaching and learning, and how much time is spent on other activities, such as other events, discipline, disturbance etc. does not necessarily match the intentions in the curriculum (Haug, 2006). Third, how much time the pupils actually spend on learning tasks and how is the most important matter (Alexander, 2001), being most crucial for learning according to recent and dominating learning theories (Säljö, 2000). Often pupils are not busy with the intended learning activities. Several observations studies register the obvious, that pupils also have their concentration elsewhere (Sahlström, 2008). This presentation will mainly deal with the second of these approaches to time on task, as registered by systematic observations in classes. This paper therefore informs about possibilities and opportunities for learning activities in school. Earlier research During the last ten years or so there has been a renewed interest in classroom research in Norway. The developments have been many and concern for instance kind of data, how to 1 Thanks to Kari Bachmann for constructive comments on the paper

2 collect, store and analyze data, theoretical perspectives on classroom activity and what problems research should go into. Internationally, activities in classrooms have been studied from the beginning of the 19 th century (Hoetker & Ahlbrandt, 1969). For a long time classroom behavior seems to have been stable and been resistant to change. These notions have been strongly challenged in recent research (Klette, 2007, 2003; Klette et al., 2008; Lindblad & Sahlström, 2000; Sahlström, 2008). Sahlström identifies three main patterns of teaching and learning in to-days classrooms (Sahlström, 1999). The most dominating has been and still seems to be that teachers teach collectively from front of class, mainly with instructions, questions and comments, while the pupils listen and answer questions. In the early research (up till the 1980 s) the collective teaching completely dominated. Then studies of the collective pattern established the IREstructure 4 and the rule of the 2/3 s. 5 Second, pupils work in small groups or individually with tasks (desk work). The tasks could be directly given in relation to the collective teaching or they could be found in the individual working plan. Recent research indicates that the amount of individual work is increasing at the expense of the collective teaching (Haug, 2006; Klette, 2007, 2003; Sahlström, 2008). The third pattern is a combination of the two, collective teaching and individual desk work referred to as loops (Ohna, Moen, & Nevøy, 2007) mixed lessons (Sahlström, 1999) or hybrids (Cuban, 1993). Recent Norwegian classroom research have identified several common characteristics of how teaching and learning are organized and practiced within these three patterns (Haug, 2008). There is a wide variation in how teaching and learning is organized and worked with in different classrooms, this is a main characteristic of school. There is a high level of activity, but in many classrooms the aims are diffuse. To be active seems to be more important than what the activity actually should lead to of learning results. The teachers have several places taken a withdrawn position, referred to as teacher indulgence (Dale, 2008). The teachers control and follow up of their pupils are weak. Much of the literature relate the question about quality in education to a classic discussion of teacher centered versus pupil centered activities in schools, also labeled as traditional and progressive ways of teaching (Alexander, 2001; Cuban, 2009). The approaches reflect different conceptions of learning. The notion is that the former emphasizes individual acquisition of knowledge and skills as transferable commodities and that the latter gives pupils a substantial freedom and a high degree of responsibility for learning. Progressive education activity oriented, permitting pupils to work independently or together in groups (ibid). This way of defining teaching and learning easily gives teacher centered education negative, and pupil centered education positive connotations. There are reasons to believe that 4 IRE: Initiation-respons-evaluation. 5 It is a 2/3 chance that someone talk in class, 2/3 of this time the teacher is talking, and in the rest the boys talk 2/3 of the time. 2

3 this dichotomy is too rude. Teacher centeredness need not be associated only with individual acquisition and transfer of knowledge. It could also be collective oriented with emphasis on fellowship and interaction between actors in the classroom, in agreement with central aspects of social-cultural theories of learning. This has been documented in interaction oriented research many times (Sahlström, 2008). And vice versa, as we have seen above, pupil activity does not necessarily result in extensive learning. In principle, all approaches to teaching and learning could function well, when varied and the conditions are right: I cannot go beyond saying that schools with sufficient resources and teachers fully knowledgeable in the content and skills they teach, armed with a broad repertoire of classroom practices drawn from different traditions of teaching, and the expertise to vary those practices with individual students and groups of students teachers who hug the middle have the best chance of succeeding with most students, most of the time. (Cuban, 2009, p ). The organization, implementation and understanding of teaching and learning has become more varied now than earlier. There are many reasons explaining why this is the case. Of importance are new perspectives on learning. Social constructivist perspectives now seem to dominate the notions of learning, being a clear shift of perspective. Learning is seen as a social and situational constructed practice. The socio-cultural orientation is a collective term applied on different kinds of studies of teaching and learning where time on task is only one out of several approaches (Salomon & Perkins, 1998). Developments in society have lead to changes in school, for instance the relations between pupils and teachers have become much more informal than before (Cuban, 2009). The formal structures and directions of school have been strongly deregulated and decentralized (Brown, Halsey, Lauder, & Wells, 1997). And not least, the methodology and the research methods used in classroom studies have been developed and changed (Sahlström, 2008). Use of technical devices in data collection is increasing. There also is a general trend within classroom research going from studying large to small and reduced observation materials (Sahlström, 2008). The KIO-study The main theoretical model behind the KIO-observations is the didactic triangle (Klafki, 2001; Westbury, 2000), studying what teachers do, what pupils do and what are the content of the activities to get a main and general picture of what goes on in classes. 6 The triangle makes it possible also to relate what goes on in teaching and learning to issues of importance outside the classrooms, such as state regulation, teacher education etc. When studying the activities etc within the didactic triangle, some aspects have been of special interest for this presentation, due to a recent discussion of adapted teaching. This discussion has set forward a possible contradiction between a broad view on adaptation, when the teaching is oriented around the fellowship of pupils and a narrow view on adaptation, accommodating the teaching according to each single individual pupil (Bachmann & Haug, 2006). 6 In the next phase of the project we will go closer into some more detailed aspects of what goes on in classes. 3

4 The KIO-study is interaction oriented, and is exceptional in the sense that the observations presented here have been taken continually each full day during a whole week. They cover every lesson and all subjects in 15 different classes (totally 45 classes) in the grades 3, 6, and 9 in that period of time. 7 The intention has been to map the total activities by registering how time is spent. The approach is inspired by Kirsti Klette s contribution in the evaluation of Reform 97 (Klette, 2003), and is a follow up on an earlier project (Haug, 2006), cf. also (Skorpen, 2009). This orientation differs from what has been most common in recent classroom research where analysis of small and limited observation material dominates (Sahlström, 2008). Data collections took place late autumn 2007 and winter In KIO 999 lessons 8 have been observed by using a structured observation scheme consisting of 64 different variables. Activities etc. have been registered each five minute. The lessons have a varying length (cf. figure no. 1), between 5 9 and 95 minutes, 637 of them lasts 45 minutes or less, mode value is 45 minutes (416 lections); 362 lessons vary between minutes, mode is 60 minutes (78 lectures). Average length of lessons is 52.1 minute and the observation material consists of five-minute periods. Figure no 1. Number of observed lessons and length of lessons in 5 minutes intervals. 7 Data have been registered manually by one observer in class. Classes move during a day. They have lessons outside, in different rooms within school and other places. Therefore we concluded that using technical devices (video, tape recorders etc.) would be too complicated. 8 A lesson has been defined according to how classes have been organized; a lesson is what is going on between two breaks. 9 The few short lessons (5 20 minutes) most often are introductions to and preparations for different kinds of activities, such as walks, projects, visits etc. 4

5 Results Collective and desk work activity To register what is going on in modern classrooms is a methodological challenge. To-day s classrooms are much more diverse than before. A complication is that due to deregulation, the concept of class in some schools no longer has any clear meaning. Pupils could be organized according to different rationalities, in small groups, big groups, mixed age groups etc. Classes also are organized to allow for a simultaneous differentiation of activities. Pupils in a class could be engaged in quite different contents and activities at the same time. Therefore many of the observation categories could not any longer be mutual exclusive, as they would have been earlier when classes were held together, as they were when the teacher dominated teaching from front of class and the rule of 2/3 was in effect. It is also of importance to note that time on task and activities vary, dependent upon how a situation is framed, what is seen as figure and as background. By reframing a situation, the notion about its meaning would change (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fish, 1974). This presentation consists of three different framings related to collective teaching and bench work. The first is the teacher s structuring of teaching and learning in class. 10 Second and third is what teachers and pupils actually do. Collective activity is introduced here to replace teacher dominated work in class, in accordance with what has come forward above. Desk work is the term used when pupils work individually or in small groups. These are fundamental activities in school, and can represent the basic dramaturgy of how the classroom activities are structured at any given time (table no. 1). Table no. 1 Teaching and learning activity Initial framing Teachers activity Classes activity Collective activity 50 % 36 % 37 % Deskwork 31 % 30 % 38 % Residual % 34 % 25 % Sum The lack of accordance with the different categories is striking. The initial framing is defined by the teacher, and by how the teacher structures his or her teaching. About half of the observations indicate collective activities, and one third desk work activities, as is within what have come forward in other studies. When we go into what the teachers and classes actually are engaged in collectively, the numbers change and become lower. Teachers teach and classes act collectively only about 1/3 10 This initial structure very often is introduced to the pupils when a lesson begins, or it can be read as a consequence of how the teacher constructs the work during the lesson. 11 Some of this residual is explained by teachers not being present (7 % of the observations), when they are totally inactive (8 % of the observations) when class and teacher are waiting (2 % of the observations), a main part of the routine situation are included here (totally 14 % of the observations) 5

6 of the observations. Then teachers present and instructs, pupils listen, they discuss together etc. Going into the data reveals that teachers and classes do not fully engage in collective activities at the same time, and that teachers part of the collective time are giving direct support to individual pupils working with tasks. The classes desk work activity is higher than teachers individual and group support (deskwork in the table). Data reveals that teachers and classes do not fully engage in desk work activities/individual support at the same time. Introducing another variable will explain this. The categories concerning pupils working with tasks sums up 47 % of the observations, exceeding the observed amount of desk work, independent upon framing. The most possible explanation of this contrast is that pupils work with tasks is partly a collective activity. This is also confirmed by data. The residuals also differ, 1/3 of teacher and ¼ of pupil activity are not accounted for within collective and desk activity. These discrepancies mean that there is no necessary close accordance between what the teachers do and what the pupils do. The frequencies of direct verbal interaction between actors in classes as in IRE has decreased, therefore teachers and pupils are no longer so dependent upon each other as they once were. Since teachers no longer ask so many questions, there are no answers to give, and teachers and pupils can concentrate on other matters. How research frame classroom activities therefore become of outmost importance. It seems no longer possible to deduce from teacher-activity to pupil-activity or vice versa. It goes both for teachers and classes that they teach and/or work individually, also when the other part acts opposite. Teachers can teach collectively while classes are engaged in desk work or teacher is oriented to desk work while classes act as a collective, or both. There are no clear differences between grades on these variables. These results indicate that the general trends in classroom activity have become blurred. This could be consequences of deregulation of how teaching has to be organized in schools. The national regulation of group size and maximum number of pupils in each class have been withdrawn, the juridical formulation now expresses that these matters should be reasonable. The organization of classes and groups can differ considerably, making it more difficult to construct a clear picture of what goes on and how time is used in classes. Another issue is that we have observed all activities in all subjects for a week. Many studies have been concentrated on a few subjects. That teaching of different subjects in school are organized and practiced differently (also see below) could also contribute to the ambiguities. Another conclusion from these data is that pupils activities in classrooms have become more frequent than what has come forward in some studies, and that teacher dominance has diminished. For instance (Sahlström, 1999, 2008) has argued for the same conclusion. This is also the result when we look into more detail what classes do (cf. table no. 3). When trying to establish what classes do, there is always some overlap between categories. No matter, table no 5 shows that pupil activity is a very strong characteristic in the observed classrooms, and that passive listening is not dominating. The passive listening to teacher makes a total of ¼ of 6

7 the activity. The rest (almost ¾ of the observations) at least gives opportunities for pupils in classes to engage in activities. Table no 3. Activity in class Doing tasks Listen to teacher Class discussion Moving Total 47 % 27 % 12 % 10 % 96 % A third consequence is that the amount of pupils work with tasks is more frequent than teachers giving individual support. Pupils often work in groups or individually with tasks without teacher support. Subject orientation Table no. 4 shows that the amount of subject orientation in classes sum up to 69 % of the observations. Subject orientation is registered when observers have been able to identify the subject or theme in teaching and/or learning. About 2/3 of the observations are directly connected to a school subject or a theme of school subjects, but with expected differences between grades. The non subject orientation is made up of three categories: waiting, routine situations (food, restrooms etc.) and disciplining. The table shows that 19 % of the observations have been registered as no subject orientation. Subject orientation increases when the pupils become older, and the non subject orientation decreases. The residual consists of situations being difficult to connect to school subjects, such as a walk, a theater performance, a concert, the morning ceremony etc. It is important to note that the residual category absolutely could be of substantial relevance. Table no. 4. Frequencies of subject orientation and no subject orientation Subject orientation No subject orientation Residual Grade 3 63 % 28 % 10 % Grade 6 67 % 21 % 13 % Grade 9 76 % 12 % 12 % Total 69 % 19 % 12 % Table no 5 decomposes the variable no subject orientation. The two elements waiting and disciplining are quite constant over grades, the one being of most importance is routine situations, being most frequent in lower grades, as expected. Table no 5. Decomposing No subject orientation Routine situations Waiting Disciplining Total Grade 3 23 % 3 % 2 % 28 % Grade 6 16 % 4 % 1 % 21 % Grade 9 6 % 5 % 1 % 12 % Variation Up till now the presentation of results mostly have concerned averages over classes and differences between grades. One aspect being of utmost relevance is the wide differences 7

8 between classes within grades in the amount of activities reported here (cf. figure no 2). The variables are among those presented earlier in the paper. As have been registered earlier (table no. 4), with increasing age, tasks and subject orientation increase. With increasing age no subject orientation decreases, while listening, discussion and moving are about the same. The differences between classes are striking for all the variables, with a 10 % - 35 % variation between the highest and lowest value. Figure no. 2. Pupil activity in relation to grades and classes, including average-, highest- and lowest value, percent of observations. 8

9 To illustrate an extreme, in one class in grade 9, subject orientation could take about 60 % of the time and no subject orientation about 20 %. In another class subject orientation could cover 85 % of the time and no subject orientation 5 %. The difference in subject orientation is ¼ of the time in school. Activity levels also differ even for single pupils (Figure no 3). We have observed six categories of pupils 12 : bilingual pupils, special education pupils, active pupils, passive pupils, restless pupils and ideal pupils. Figure no 3. Activity level for different pupils, percent of observations The results indicate that pupils meet the challenges in school differently. Pupils receiving special education, pupils being passive and pupils being restless are among the least active in task work. The amount of direct teacher support to each pupil reaches an average of 3 %, highest for pupils receiving special education and for restless pupils. For each pupil this is a low value, for all pupils in a class or group this adds up to becoming a high contribution in a teacher s perspective. As an illustration: an average of 3 % for each pupil during a lesson means that with 20 pupils, a teacher alone in class uses 60 % of the time on individual support, which is higher than what we have observed in the total material. 13 Individually pupil inactivity varies between different groups. In average inactivity is 9 %, and highest for bilingual and passive pupils. Task work activity for individual pupils is less frequent than for whole class observations (the average difference is about 17 %). The reason is that when observing individual pupils, it is easier to register if they actually are working with tasks, and not only have the opportunity. Lesson stage The next issue is to analyse if there are any systematic changes in activity during lessons. Table no. 6 presents six variables used to analyse these questions, and how they are distributed across short lessons (45 minutes and less) and long lessons (45 minutes and more). The variables are subject orientation, no subject orientation, collective activity, bench work, tasks and pupils receiving individual teacher support. 12 Teachers have informed about pupils. 13 In about ¼ of the observations there are more than one adult present in the observed classrooms. 9

10 Table no. 6. Short and long lessons subject no subject collective bench tasks teacher support Short lessons 67 % 19 % 41 % 33 % 44 % 27 % Long lessons 72 % 19 % 34 % 43 % 53 % 34 % All differences are significant, except no subject orientation. The long lessons contain more subject orientation, more bench work, more tasks, more individual teacher support and less collective activity than the short lessons. Figure no 4. Developments during short lessons, percent of observations. Figure no. 4 illustrates the distribution of variables on five minute lessons stages when lessons last for 45 minutes or less. Lessons lasting more than 45 minutes are illustrated in figure no. 5. Figure no. 4 indicates the developments across all lessons and all grades for the six variables. The observations have been taken in five minutes intervals. The patterns for the different grades are not identical, but they are much the same and with few exceptions. It takes time to get started in class. The first observation is done 1 minute after the lesson should have started. At that time subject orientation, bench work, whole class activity and individual teacher support score low, while no subject orientation is at its highest. It takes 5-10 minutes before subject orientation is high. There is a drop in activity from 30 minutes on. Peak activity both collectively, in bench work and tasks lasts for only between 15 and 20 minutes during a lesson of 45 minutes. There is a distinct pattern in the developments in collective orientation and bench work. Collective work is concentrated in the beginning of a lesson, bench work, tasks and individual teacher support increases after a while towards the end of lessons. This indicates a pattern here teacher introduces a subject matter, followed up with tasks for pupils to do. In figure no 5 the same variables are presented for lessons lasting minutes. The main patterns in lessons longer than 45 minutes are not very different from those for shorter lessons. Collective activity decreases with length of lesson and up till a certain point bench 10

11 work and tasks increases. The period for peak subject orientation is longer. As for the shorter lessons there is a drop in activity towards the end of lesson, especially from observation no. 17 and on. 14 Figure no 5. Developments during long lessons, percent of observations Each of the 999 lessons observed does not necessarily follow these patterns. What we get here is a script indicating a general trend in how lessons develop over time. The lessons often start with input from the teachers, thereafter the pupils are supposed to work with tasks individually or in smaller groups. The decline in collective activity towards the end of lessons could indicate that the collective summing up and going through what the pupils have worked with is partly missing. It could be that long lessons appear more effective when it comes to learning, than shorter lessons. There are better possibilities for subject orientation and pupil activity when the periods of activity are longer. Teacher support reaches a higher level, and lasts longer. Time to start and end a lesson seems to be about the same, independent upon length of lesson. If long lessons are more effective than shorter is of course depend on how and if pupils make use of the opportunities these situations represents. These data cannot answer if this is so. There are indications in other research that could shed at least some light on this issue. This research indicates that when there are long periods of individual task work and bench work, some pupils have difficulties, partly because of low teacher support. They do not become sufficiently involved in the tasks, and therefore misses many opportunities for learning (Klette, 2007; Sahlström, 1999). This issue is also illustrated in both figures above, where the line for individual teacher support is lower than those for bench work and tasks, and due to the short time each pupil will receive individual support. Another issue is what opportunities for learning the type of tasks the pupils are exposed to represent. Some studies documents that tasks promote activity but not learning. Doing without learning has early become a slogan for this (Haug, 2008). 14 The number of observations from no. 13 is low, and this can explain some of the variations. 11

12 Time on task and different subjects The last section of presentation of data from the KIO-project concerns the relations between different subjects and activities. The analysis is done according to variables already presented: collective work, desk work, tasks and individual teacher support. The results are presented in figure no 6. Figure no 6. Time on task in different subjects, percent of observations There are noticeable differences between the 10 school subjects when it comes to the variables presented. Tasks and teacher support dominate the subjects: art, food and health, Norwegian, mathematics and KRL: bench-work. In some other subjects collective work dominates: physical education and music. A third group is made up of natural studies, social studies and English, where there is a balance between collective and bench work. Seen in relation to the different grades there are some changes, especially in mathematics, KRL, natural science and English. In mathematics the amount of desk work and tasks increases in 9.th grade. KRL and English go from collective dominance in grade 3 to desk work dominance in grade 9. Discussion There is a wide variety in time on task in school. It seems to be dependent upon a whole range of variables such as teacher, framing, pupils, grade, class, length of lesson and subject. The variation concerns subject orientation, teachers and pupils activity, the extent of collective activity, bench work and tasks. The observation study clearly documents how complex teaching and learning in school has become. The differences between classes seem to be significant in many ways. What class or group a single pupil belongs to seems to be very important. This is no new knowledge. In for instance The Bergen project (Gjessing, 1988) concluded in the same line of thought. Some researchers have even claimed that because of such differences, we no longer have a unitary school for all in Norway (Birkemo, 2002; Imsen, 2003). The question is to what degree these differences can be explained as a consequence of pupil characteristics, and therefore is an outcome of 12

13 adaptation, or if these differences have other causes. These data cannot be used to give the answer, but can give an indication. There are classes and groups in the material showing low subject orientation, low teacher support, low collective orientation, low bench work and low task work. It is not probable that these conditions are due to adaptation. In relation to teacher and pupil centered activities in school, there are wide differences between classes. The most common pattern however, is a combination of both teacher and pupil orientation. Less than half of the collective orientation (less than 1/3 of the total activity) in classes is one-way communication from teacher to pupils. The interpretation here is that also collective orientation in classrooms gives opportunities for pupil activity, both as a class and individually. Sahlström s research supports this conclusion (Sahlström, 1999). About 2/3 of the observations here presented indicate activity-opportunities for pupils collectively, in groups or individually, with a wide variation between subjects. Traditional one way oriented teacher centered teaching, where transference of knowledge to passive pupils dominates, has weak conditions in the classrooms studied here. Instead, it is the opposite that dominate the possibilities for pupils. They are given many opportunities for activity. The activities are concentrated mostly on the pupil s corner in the didactic triangle, on the formal aspects of learning. Much learning activity seems to be dependent upon the pupils, their engagement in class interaction, bench work and work with tasks. From other studies we know that not all pupils benefit from this way of organizing education. It is a question if these results represent a varied and wide approach to teaching and learning, as seems to be how it should be (cf. Cuban, 2009). It could be discussed if the hybrid orientation as is a result Larry Cuban has presented in several studies is the case or if we here see one-sidedness in orientation around opportunities for pupil activity. I will argue that data reflect that pupil-centered ideas about learning in the total material have a very strong position, and even stronger than what has been the case in earlier Norwegian studies. It must be obvious that to be able to guide pupils more, teachers have to rely on different forms of collective support. Data indicate that the amount of formalized and organized adapted teaching is low. From this study individual work with tasks in itself is a means to adaptation, but pupils most often work with identical tasks, indicating a wide approach to adaptation. On the other hand, much of the activities is desk work, and could be in agreement with a narrow view on the matter. Then adaptation is done informally, dependent upon how each pupil carry out the tasks. This could have been based upon in an agreement between teacher, pupil and parents. No matter, the dependence upon pupils activity strains them with the responsibilities both for their own learning and for their own adapted education. 13

14 Literature Alexander, R. (2001). Culture & Pedagogy. International comparisons in primary education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Bachmann, K. E., & Haug, P. (2006). Forskning om tilpasset opplæring. Volda: Høgskulen i Volda. Birkemo, A. (2002). Læringsmiljø og utvikling. Oslo: Unipu skriftserier. Brown, P., Halsey, A. H., Lauder, H. & Wells, A. S. (1997). The Transformation of Education and Society: An introduction. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, B. P. & A. S. Wells (Eds.), Education. Culture, Economy and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cuban, L. (1993). How Teachers Taught. Constancy and Change in American Classrooms Sec. Ed. New York: Teacher College Press. Cuban, L. (2009). Hugging the Middle. How Teachers Teach in an Era of Testing and Accountability. New York: Teachers College Press. Dale, E. L. (2008). Fellesskolen - reproduksjon av sosial ulikhet. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag. Gjessing, H. J. (1988). Sammendrag, konklusjoner og drøfting i helhetsperspektiv. In H. J. Gjessing, H. D. Nygaard, R. Solheim & m.fl (Eds.), Bergen-prosjektet III Studier av barn med dysleksi og andre lærevansker. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Haug, P. (2008). Klasseromforsking. Kunnskapsstatus og konsekvensar for lærarrolla og lærarutdanning. Volda: Institutt for pedagogikk, Høgskulen i Volda. Haug, P. (Ed.). (2006). Begynnaropplæring og tilpassa undervisning. Bergen: Caspar Forlag. Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrandt, P. A. (1969). The Persistance of Recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2). Imsen, G. (2003). Skolemiljø, læringsmiljø og elevutbytte. En empirisk studie av grunnskolens 4., 7. og 10. trinn. Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag. Klafki, W. (2001). Dannelsesteori og didaktikk - nye studier. Århus: Klim. Klette, K. (2007). Bruk av arbeidsplaner i skolen - et hovedverktøy for å realisere tilpasset opplæring? Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift(4). Klette, K. (Ed.). (2003). Klasserommets praksisformer etter Reform 97. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, Det utdanningsvitenskapelige fakultetet og Norges forskningsråd. Klette, K., Lie, S., Ødegaard, M., Anmarkrud, Ø., Arnesen, N., Bergem, O.K. et Roe, A. (2008). PISA+: Lærings- og undervisningsstretagier i skolen. Oslo: Forskningsrådet. Program: Kunnskap, utdanning og læring - KUL. Lindblad, S. & Sahlström, F. (2000). Klasseromsforskning. En oversikt med fokus på interaktion og elever. In J. Bjerg (Ed.), Pædagogik - en grundbok til et fag, 2. utgave. København: Hans Retzles Forlag. Ohna, S. E., Moen, V. & Nevøy, A. (2007). Kollektiv inkluderende og individuelt tilpasset opplæring, en gyldig mulighet eller en foreldet drøm? Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 91(4). Sahlström, F. (1999). Up the Hill Backwards. On interactional constraints and affordances for equity-constitution in the classroom of Swedish comprehensive school.. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Sahlström, F. (2008). Från lärare til elever. Från undervisning til lärande. Utvecklingslinjer i svensk, nordisk och internationell klassrumsforskning. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådets rapportserie 9:2008. Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. In P. D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Reveiw of Research in Education no 23.. Washington DC.: American Educational Research Association. 14

15 Skorpen, L. B. (2009). Refleksjonar knytt til utvikling og bruk av observasjonsskjemaerfaringar frå to klasseromsforskingsprosjekt.. Volda: Høgskulen i Volda, notat 3/2009. Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturelt perspektiv. Stockholm: Prisma. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H. & Fish, R. (1974). Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: Norton. Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a Reflective Practice: What might Didaktik Teach Curriculum? In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a Reflective Practice. The German Didaktik Tradition. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Øzerk, K. (2003). Sampedagogikk. Vallset: Oplandske Bokforlag. 15