Managing performance demands: emotional aspects of doing grade policy in feedback practices

ABSTRACT

This article explores emotional aspects of national grade policies in Sweden as they are enacted in feedback practices at middle school level. Policy measures such as standardized testing and grades have over the last decades put emphasis on academic outcomes in Sweden. However, research suggests that this emphasis can impact students’ emotions and well-being. An interactionally oriented narrative approach and positioning analysis were used to identify and explore accounts concerning grades and emotions within development talks and grade conferences with students who received grades in Year 4, 5 or 6. The findings present three key aspects for how emotions are used and functions within the feedback practices. Various emotion categories serve as discursive resources to A. explain and justify grades, B. evaluate and negotiate ambition levels and C. balance and manage expectations. This suggests that grades are not merely managed as simple evaluations of students’ academic performance, but rather managed as emotionally significant for students. The findings illustrate the complexity of enacting grade policies in a middle-school context where the participants navigate multiple priorities, demands and values within the school setting while operating within a policy context that emphasise academic performance.

KEYWORDS:

• Grades
• policy enactment
• feedback
• emotions
• development talk

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. The curriculum has recently been revised (lgr22). One of the revisions are that the ‘knowledge requirements’ (kunskapskrav) now are called ’grade criteria’ (betygskriterier).

2. Note that the grade conferences were conducted between one student and their teachers, parents only participated the development talks.

3. Regionala etikprövningsnämnden i Linköping, 2018, dnr 2018/100–31.