Considering critical moments, co-authoring and active engagement in learning

ABSTRACT

Background

Within classroom research, there has long been agreement on the importance of dialogue and discussion for student learning. However, how the concept of knowledge influences classroom conversation needs further investigation, as this has key implications for students’ active participation.

Purpose

Our research sought to conceptualise the assumption of knowledge in standards-based curricula and explore some implications of teaching based on this kind of curriculum. To do this, we drew on a larger research project undertaken in Sweden, which involved a comparative classroom study.

Methods

Four natural science lessons were examined in terms of student’s opportunities to engage in the teaching content. The analytical framework was based on curriculum theory, the concepts of a lesson as a curriculum event, and students as co-authors of teaching content. We analysed two concepts of knowledge – social realism and transactional realism – in relation to an openness towards ‘critical moments’ during lessons, either noticed or unnoticed, and related them to the logics of curriculum and knowledge.

Findings

When framed by classroom teaching designed from knowledge criteria, students’ opportunities for acting as co-authors can become restricted, with critical moments overlooked because of a teaching focus necessarily limited by curriculum. Thus, opportunities for creating spaces to pay attention to students’ questions and reactions can be constrained.

Conclusions

Standards-based curricula, a concept of knowledge with a strong focus on subject-specific facts and ways of reasoning, together with high-stakes assessment, may lead to fewer openings for genuine discussion and student reflection. This highlights the need to leave larger spaces for teachers and students alike to influence content that engages students.

KEYWORDS:

• Classroom research
• concepts of knowledge
• co-authoring
• critical moments
• teaching
• curriculum theory

Introduction

In many jurisdictions internationally, increasingly prescriptive regional or national governance of education over recent decades has served to weaken the space for pedagogical autonomy (e.g. Bernstein 2000; G. Biesta and Mark 2013; Luke, Annette, and Katie 2013). In this paper, we are interested in investigating what such restricted pedagogical freedom might mean for students’ participation and the recontextualisation of knowledge in teaching situations. We draw on standards-based curricula and problematise the process of recontextualising standardised knowledge criteria in the arena of the classroom. Recontextualisation is regarded here as the process of moving and re-understanding a concept, such as prescribed knowledge criteria, from a state-regulated curriculum to the pedagogical arena in the classroom (Bernstein 2000). To explore how the pedagogical questions of ‘what’ and ‘how’ take shape in the classroom, concepts of curriculum, knowledge and classroom discourse become central.

Our study places classroom research within the framework of curriculum theory. This means that we are focused on classroom activities and the underlying assumptions and structures that shape the conditions for repertoires of ‘teaching talk’ and ‘learning talk’, and the interactional processes that follow (Alexander 2008, 110–112). Within classroom research, there has long been agreement on the importance of dialogue and discussion for student learning (Alexander 2008; Applebee 1996). Nevertheless, recitational approaches to teaching communication continue to be prevalent (e.g. Lyle 2008; Skidmore 2006; Wahlström 2018). Our particular interest in this paper lies in the consideration of how the meaning of the concept of knowledge can influence classroom conversations. We believe this is an important area of research, as it has implications for students’ opportunities for active participation and learning. Drawing on a larger research project undertaken in Sweden, which involved a comparative classroom study, we sought to conceptualise the assumption of knowledge in standards-based curricula and explore the implications that may stem from teaching based on this kind of curriculum. We contend that, within a standards-based curriculum, teaching may risk being narrowed towards meeting predefined grading criteria (Wahlström and Sundberg 2018). We argue, further, that these limitations might be partially overcome by paying greater attention to classroom discourse and its ‘critical moments’ (Schmidt, Wahlström, and Vetter 2022). However, before presenting our study in greater detail, we contextualise our work in terms of the notion of ‘critical moments’, standards-based curricula, and ideas about the ways in which curriculum and teaching are related.

Background

Research suggests that performance management and standards-based curricula tend to direct the collegial conversation towards how students should achieve their goals, rather than why it is important to achieve these particular goals (Wahlström and Sundberg 2018). The idea behind creating national, regional or state standards is to provide a common core of knowledge to all students. The standards are most often linked to national assessments, which means that the test data and standards together form a system against which the teaching is supposed to be adjusted (Null 2011). ‘Efficiency’ and ‘accountability’ are two key terms within this approach to the curriculum. Both terms are often strongly linked to the school and the teacher in the arena of the classroom, based on the assumption that the teacher is the main social factor responsible for the outcome of education. In this way, teachers and schools can be held accountable for students’ achievements (Schiro 2013). Although the standards are formulated within a structure of traditional school subjects, the functional and utilitarian aspects of knowledge may dominate (Deng and Allan 2008).

Embedded in a conversation about the purpose of schooling is exploring what it means, in teaching, to develop students’ habits of reflective thinking. Such habits are deeply linked to teaching content. However, it is also the case that, in the classroom, critical insights cannot always be planned beforehand. In the present study, we understand ‘critical situations’ as moments when critical comments or questions are raised by students when involved in a lesson. From our classroom studies, we were struck by how often teachers overlooked such moments, due to focusing necessarily on the priorities that have been prescribed for them, in curricula, in terms of important aspects to teach (Schmidt, Wahlström, and Vetter 2022). Here, the focus on critical situations is related to how ‘the critical’ can be understood within critical literacy and classroom research. Alexander (2008), for example, emphasised dialogues and discussions as crucial for students’ learning, because these forms of teacher-supported conversations can bolster students’ abilities to reflect critically on issues actualised in the teaching content. Reading and discussing texts in critically reflective ways relates to the field of critical literacy (e.g. Colin and McLaren 1993; Comber 2013; Janks 2010). Drawing on this area, it follows that teachers need to support students in learning to notice and examine issues of power within different texts, and use their existing experiences and new insights for discussions on the social implications embedded in the knowledge content. Janks (2010) argued that the ‘critical’ in critical literacy work means paying attention to the tension between the interdependent elements of power, access, diversity and design in texts.

There are two characteristics of curriculum theory that will be applied in the current study. The first is that the analysis captures one or more of three levels of the national school system: the institutional, the programmatic and the classroom. The second characteristic is that a curriculum theory perspective is typically interested in the question of knowledge, and what kind of knowledge is valued the most (Deng and Allan 2008). While the institutional arena represents the societal and cultural expression of social norms and public opinions at a general level, the programmatic arena is the place for the transformation of institutional understanding of education into formal curricula, regulations and guidelines issued by the government, or by national or regional school authorities. Finally, the classroom arena constitutes a space in which the national curriculum or knowledge standards are recontextualised into teaching by the teacher and students. In the current study, the focus is on the classroom, which, in a Swedish context, is linked to the programmatic level through the national curriculum for compulsory school.

The Swedish national curriculum for compulsory school is part of a transnational policy movement for prescribed standards in curriculum, as a way of setting clear goals and measuring students’ knowledge to ensure effective teaching. Curriculum standards are assumed to be necessary in a system that views schools as a place for producing student learning inspired by business logic to reach efficiency (Null 2011; Schiro 2013). A standards-based curriculum features strong alignments between the aims, content and knowledge criteria (standards) in each subject curriculum. In the Swedish example of a standards-based curriculum, the knowledge criteria in the subject curricula are closely linked to national tests in school years 3 (students aged 9; reading and mathematics), 6 (students aged 12; reading, mathematics and English) and 9 (students aged 15; reading, mathematics, English, one subject in social studies and one subject in science) (Sundberg and Wahlström 2012).

The Swedish curriculum includes an introductory part, which has overarching goals and guidelines for compulsory schooling, and a subsequent part that contains subject curricula for each school subject. In a somewhat simplified sense, it could be said that the first overarching part expresses what school is for (G. Biesta 2015), while the second part describes the standards of knowledge that each student should achieve in each school subject. In the present study, we are interested in the recontextualisation of curriculum content from the programmatic level to the pedagogical arena in the classroom, through enacted teaching discourse (Bernstein 2000).

Research context

The current article draws on a larger research project, conducted in Sweden between 2018 and 2021.¹ This was a comparative classroom study which included the collection of videotaped lessons from four different schools. Inspired by previous classroom studies related to curriculum research (Bellack et al. 1966; Hansen 2001; Jackson 1968/1990), the focus was on differences in versions of knowledge, curriculum and teaching and learning repertoires in high- and low-performing schools. It featured four in-depth case studies of classes (school year 8; students aged 14), and the data collection period covered one academic year. Each classroom observation consisted of 16 lessons. There were eight lessons per academic year in two subject areas, science and reading (Swedish), to allow for systematic comparisons. The study, thus, yielded 64 videotaped lessons evenly distributed over two semesters in two subjects. After every other recorded lesson, interviews were conducted with teachers, as well as with a group of students in each subject, which gave rise to 32 interviews with teachers and students. In addition, the principals of each of the participating schools were interviewed.

Conceptual frameworks

Two interdependent relationships were deemed particularly important for the entire research study, drawing on the work of Doyle (1992). In this respect, the first assumption was that it is not possible to draw any definite boundary between curriculum content and pedagogy. A second assumption was that teachers and students are interdependent actors in the formation of curriculum content at the classroom level.

From a curriculum theory perspective, pedagogy encompasses both the act of teaching and its related theories and debates. According to Alexander (2009, 4), pedagogy ‘is the discourse with which one needs to engage in order both to teach intelligently and make sense of teaching, for discourse and act are interdependent, and there can be no teaching without pedagogy or pedagogy without teaching’. Thus, teachers’ actions in teaching situations are influenced by their pedagogical intentions and their basic conception of knowledge, as well as by the guidelines of the curriculum. The curriculum also states that it is based on a certain view of knowledge. To emphasise the connection between the curriculum and the lesson content at the classroom level, the curriculum can be understood as a ‘curriculum event’ in classroom settings (Doyle 1992). Both curriculum and pedagogy involve transforming content into teaching and students’ knowledge. The concept of teaching as a curriculum event includes conceptualising why certain content is important, what it means to know that content and what goals are fulfilled when teaching certain content. Teaching is understood as a curriculum process that takes shape in encounters with students during lessons.

The teacher ‘authors’ the curriculum content orally, in writing or using visual media, to facilitate their students’ learning; meanwhile, students contribute to shaping the ‘texts’ through their participation. Unlike traditional authors, the teacher authors the text at the same time as it is ‘read’ by the students, leading to a dynamic transformation of curriculum content that places interpretation and knowledge at the centre of pedagogy. When students participate and act upon curriculum events, they become co-authors of the events and, hence, of the possible ‘text’ that is shaped in the classroom (Doyle 1992; Wahlström and Sundberg 2018). According to Doyle (1992), classroom communication between teachers and their students represents a negotiation process, in which students can either adopt a legitimising role as co-authors of the curriculum event or distance themselves by refraining from participating.

To conceptualise the teacher’s and students’ actions in the analysed lesson sequences in the next section, two knowledge concepts based on realism constitute the theoretical basis: social and transactional realism. The theoretical starting point is relevant for the analysis of the view of knowledge expressed in the teaching situations we examined: that is, what form of knowledge do the students encounter in the teaching situation?

The knowledge concept of social realism underpinning our study represents a social theory of how humans can achieve objective knowledge about the world. Social realism, as understood in our paper, acknowledges both the social and epistemological structures of knowledge (M. F. D. Young 2008). The search for objective truth always takes place in dialogue with others (i.e. the social), based on specialised knowledge within a research field (i.e. the realistic). Subject content is regarded as significant both because students’ learning must be related to learning about something, rather than to being viewed as a generic competence, and because subject content constitutes a relatively stable factor in school education (M. Young and Muller 2010). The content in different school subjects is closely linked to academic disciplines because of their scientific concepts and objectivity of knowledge. This knowledge is referred to as ‘powerful knowledge’ or ‘specialised knowledge’ (M. Young and Muller 2013, 231). The term powerful knowledge expresses the power of acquiring knowledge in order to participate in future work and social life. As specialised knowledge is potentially available to all students, the notion of powerful knowledge relates to democracy and the concept of social justice (Muller and Young 2019). Thus, social realism is interested in conditions for successful education, in terms of introducing students to subject knowledge and engaging ‘with the boundaries between subjects and between subject knowledge and a pupil’s everyday knowledge’ (M. Young 2021, 251).

The pragmatist view of knowledge that is central to the current study is the concept of experience developed by Dewey (1985, 1991, 2008). Dewey’s transactional realism means that there is no structural gap between human beings and their environment; thus, there is no ‘gap’ to overcome between the subject and object (G. J. J. Biesta 2010). Instead, the subject is acting (e.g. doing, communicating, thinking) in an existing world of physical and social objects and learns about the world from the experiences of one’s actions. The term ‘transaction’ refers to the reciprocal impact on the subject, who is acquiring new knowledge, and the object, which is attributed new meaning partly through this knowledge. Dewey’s concept of knowledge can be termed ‘transactional realism’ because humans develop knowledge from their encounter with a ‘real world’ that exists independently of humans’ knowledge about it (G. J. J. Biesta and Burbules 2003; Sleeper 2001; Westbrook 2005). The way people get to know the world is through their experiences of it, both through formal education and through experiences outside school (Dewey 2008).

There are similarities and differences between the concepts of social realism and transactional realism. Both recognise the social nature of knowledge, and that knowledge is fallible. However, in social realism, the concept of experience may be viewed as a subjective aspect of everyday knowledge that is separated from specialised knowledge. In transactional realism, the concept of experience can be understood as the way in which humans acquire knowledge about the world, both in terms of scientific knowledge and outside of research. Furthermore, while social realism is more closely related to the academic disciplines of curriculum content selection, transactional realism is characterised by an emphasis on societal and social aspects in the curriculum selection of content.

As a basis of knowledge, social realism appears more connected to what Deng and Allan (2008) term an academic rationalism approach to curriculum, in which academic disciplines are viewed as authoritative sources for curriculum content, whilst transactional realism connects to a curriculum approach of social reconstructionism (Deng and Allan 2008), which views social perspectives and common societal needs as an important basis for the curriculum. From a social reconstructionist perspective, school subjects become the means for deeper understanding and reflection in relation to societal challenges.

Purpose

In view of this research background, the study reported in this paper sought to conceptualise the assumption of knowledge in standards-based curricula and explore the implications of teaching based on this kind of curriculum. The research questions that guided the study were as follows: To what extent are students given opportunities to act as co-authors in standardised classroom teaching characterised by prescribed knowledge requirements?; How can we understand critical moments, noticed or unnoticed, as important expressions for the purpose of teaching and learning?; and How can these critical moments be linked to concepts of knowledge?

Method

Ethical considerations

The whole study, including the four lessons discussed in this current paper, was carried out in accordance with the general requirements for research ethics (Swedish Research Council 2017) regarding information, consent, confidentiality and data usage. The research project was ethically approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Board (Dnr 2018/108–31). For the project as a whole, participation was voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time by an individual teacher or student. All participants were informed about the research objectives and aims, and they were invited to sign a consent form indicating their willingness to participate in the study and to be recorded in the classroom. Since all students were minors, their parents were also informed about the research project and asked to sign consent forms, which they all completed. Pseudonyms were used for all participants. In this project involving minors, it was critical to pay thorough attention to ethics in all steps of the research process and, hence, during the research process and in relation to video recording. During and after the research project, continuous anonymity was ensured to both the participants and the schools, in accordance with the ethical requirements for the publishing and storage of data.

Data collection

As part of the larger study mentioned above, a total of eight eighth-grade lessons in the natural sciences were recorded in a lower secondary public school, which was situated in a medium-sized Swedish city. Drawing on statistics from the Swedish National Agency of Education, the school was performing over the average merit value.² The lessons were conducted in the Swedish language. Four of the lessons were selected and investigated more deeply regarding the students’ opportunities to act as co-authors. These lessons were specifically chosen as they covered issues considered particularly important for teenage students because these will affect their future lives: global warming, climate change, and questions of a sustainable energy supply. The observed teaching took place in an eighth-grade classroom, with 20 students aged 14 years. The lessons were video- and audio-recorded to examine classroom interaction and communication, along with the possible teaching and learning created. For this purpose, one video camera with a wide-angle lens and an external microphone was placed at the back of the classroom. The total recording time for the eight-lesson occasion was 11 hours, 22 minutes. For the four lessons analysed in depth in this study, the recording time covered about five hours.

Data analysis

The eight video- and audio-recorded science lessons constituted the first unit of analysis in this paper. All lessons were coded in relation to an established coding scheme (see Wahlström et al. 2019). The coding scheme was developed based on previous coding schemes used in classroom research by Alexander (2001) and Klette et al. (2005). As a second step, an analysis of the organisation, and the chosen content of the lesson, resulted in four selected lessons. For the third step, the teacher’s chosen repertoires for classroom teaching and learning were used to form the unit of analysis. At this stage, possible communication and interaction was the focus, while, in parallel, moments of possible co-authoring, including those noticed or unnoticed, were sought, exemplifying relationships between knowledge, curriculum and teaching. When analysing the recorded material of the four lessons, the focus was on the content and structure of each specific lesson: that is, the organisation (in terms of whole-class teaching, pair/group or individual work) and the possible classroom communication and interaction (in terms of elements of teachers’ speech, such as recitation, instruction, monologue and dialogue/discussion, as well as elements of the students’ speech, such as answering, commenting and adding perspectives through negotiation, arguing, etc.).

To address the research question about the extent to which the students were given opportunities to act as co-authors, we looked for moments in which possibilities of interaction and communication were connected to the students’ personal growth and knowledge creation (Doyle 1992). The four lessons were examined several times, and the parts in which the lessons’ organisation offered opportunities to open up participation to multiple voices were transcribed into text. The analysis of the different texts showed a similar pattern of communication across the four lessons. As part of the classroom interaction, we also looked for ‘critical moments’ (i.e. moments when students pay attention to critical aspects in teaching content and act upon them, no matter how small these signs might be). Such moments are not planned beforehand, but, rather, emerge through interactions in the environment constituted by the teacher, the students, the teaching content and physical objects (Schmidt, Wahlström, and Vetter 2022).

Findings and discussion

The analysis described above allowed us to gain insight into our guiding research questions. We were particularly interested in concepts of knowledge and classroom discourse, in terms of what ‘text’ the students had the opportunity to co-author (Doyle 1992). As is the case with any standards-based curriculum with predefined knowledge criteria that students are required to reach at a certain point in time, it is possible that teaching content could be entirely directed at these criteria. That is, because knowledge criteria need to be measurable, the teaching content may be characterised by knowledge that can be clearly evaluated and measured. In the following sections, we discuss the role of co-authors and ‘critical moments’ in teaching in relation to two examples from the analysed data. These particular excerpts were chosen because the content of the lessons, by its nature, had the potential to give rise to questions and reflections from students. All the transcribed, anonymised quotations that we have included have been translated from Swedish to English for the purposes of reporting in this paper.

The role of co-authors and critical moments in teaching

In the examples below, possible ‘moments of co-authoring’ in classroom teaching are evident. As noted above, these may be elements in the lesson where there is the potential for the lesson context to offer up opportunities for participation, which may or may not give rise to student co-authoring. Teaching was characterised by the teacher’s recitation to the entire class. Recitation denotes classroom communication, which involves question-and-answer sequences where the teacher makes systematic use of questions to explore students’ knowledge or to help them gain new knowledge (Wahlström et al. 2019). The classroom discourse of recitation was the case for all eight observed lessons. This particular set of recitations related to a wide range of subject content in the natural sciences: for example, acidification, radioactivity, nuclear power, X-ray emanation and the hydrocarbons included in various forms of fuel. A general pattern was that recitation was used interchangeably alongside various activities for the students; they were given opportunities to talk, write or act on the subject content, either individually or in interaction with peers. Sometimes, recitation was alternated with monologues, such as, for example, when students watched a film related to the teaching content. In line with this more general description, the examples of acidification and nuclear power are presented and discussed below, in terms of our analysis of the students’ opportunities to act as co-authors.

Teaching example 1: acidification

The teacher introduced the concept of acidification by saying, ‘One almost gets what acidification is about when listening to the word, don’t you think so?’ One student said, ‘Something has too high an acidity’. The teacher nodded and added, ‘Precisely’, asking the class, ‘What could be too acidic? What could that be?’ One student said ‘Lakes’, and another student said ‘Oceans’. The teacher wrote both answers on the whiteboard, while adding ‘Well, all waters’. Then, the teacher turned to the class, asking, ‘What is the reason for acidification? What could be the cause?’ The students talked to one another for some time, and then one student said, ‘It rains down to the water’. The teacher wrote this, and the other reasons for acidification suggested by the students or teacher, on the whiteboard. Connections were made by the teacher to local lakes situated not far from the school and how acidification is prevented in these waters. After this introduction, the students were urged to write individually in their notebooks about what they had learned about acidification. The teacher informed the students that they, according to the national curriculum, should be able to reason about how acidification impacts the environment. In relation to this latter information about knowledge criteria, one student asked if it would be in the test. The teacher responded that this would be the case.

All in all, the recitation on acidification, which involved information and questions from the teacher and shorter answers from the students, took 20 minutes. The teacher then moved from local lakes in Sweden to coral reefs in the oceans. The lesson’s focus was, thus, directed at circumstances far removed from the students’ everyday lives. The students watched a video clip about bleached coral reefs and how reefs are changing colour because of acidification. A sense of seriousness came forward in the video because it was made clear that processes of acidification are bad for coral reefs, and that this situation threatens their very existence. Directly after the video ended, the teacher said, ‘Now, you will get the opportunity to be somewhat more active’. The teacher handed out notes with various claims for the reasons for acidification, together with short- and long-term consequences for acidification and, finally, possible measures for preventing the negative consequences of acidification. The students were instructed to discuss these issues in groups. After 10 minutes, the students were again instructed to write down what they had learned about acidification. Documenting what they had learned was a common way of working for this class and a routine for preparing the students for the upcoming test, not as a basis for reflection but rather to emphasise aspects of an area within the subject that was valued as particularly important.

During the above sequence of classroom teaching and learning, the reasons for the process of acidification, as well as its consequences and possible measures for preventing acidification, were elucidated. The presented text, as it pertained to areas where the students could co-author meaning, did not tend to include emphasis on knowledge of the interacting organisms that make up the ecosystems of lakes and oceans or of how different ecosystems are connected to one another. Furthermore, references to how these ecosystems related to the students themselves as humans or to the students’ opinions and/or emotions on this matter were not apparent. For example, after the individual writing, there could have been opportunities for students to offer examples from their notes or discuss what they found compelling about the issue of acidification. Further, after the video clip, openings for reflections on this theme might have been a possibility, and, following group discussion, examples from the students’ notes could potentially have led to joint discussion in class. In this way, in the context of classroom discourse necessarily framed by a standards-based curriculum, it is interesting to note that the reasons for, and consequences of, acidification were separated from the larger, and more pressing, common challenges of the future, such as climate change and access to water, as undoubtedly crucial resources for humans.

Teaching example 2: nuclear power

The second example concerns the subject of nuclear power, and how argument texts about this can be designed in written form. Drawing on a previous lesson about this subject content, the students were encouraged to sum up, via individual writing in their notebooks, what they had previously learned about the atom bomb and/or nuclear power or how radioactivity is used for cancer treatment. The teacher reminded them that they were also supposed to write about how one of these issues had an impact on people’s living conditions from individual and societal perspectives. After 15 minutes of writing, the teacher drew the students’ attention to the instructions for assessing argumentative texts in the natural sciences in Grade 9. The teacher explained that these guidelines for assessment were produced by the national agency. One of the students asked, ‘Are they any good?’ The teacher answered that ‘they are very generalising’ and added that the guidelines were the same as those for the assessment of the national test in grade 9. The teacher said, ‘We are starting already’. Another student asked, ‘Is it complicated?’, and the teacher answered that the guidelines were written ‘in a way so that it will be possible for students to understand them’.

In accordance with the guidelines from the national agency, the students were informed that, in grade 9 on the national test, they must be able to reason about issues in the natural sciences in several stages; that is, about consequences and effects, which, in turn, lead to other consequences and effects with an impact on the environment and society in various ways that will deepen their reasoning. Next, the students were informed that they should be able to bring forward several perspectives in terms of advantages and disadvantages that will broaden their reasoning. Following the directions of the national agency regarding how to deepen and broaden argument texts, several scientific topics emerged. One such example concerned the diminishing rainforests and, hence, not nuclear power, which the previous lesson focused on. Instead, the example was about how to design and write an argument text concerning issues of carbon consumption and the greenhouse effect. Addressing the matter of several scientific options, one student asked, ‘Should it be just one text?’ The latter was confirmed by the teacher, who again explained that several stages and perspectives should be included when writing scientific argument texts. The students were then urged to write individually about the atom bomb and/or nuclear power or how radioactivity is used for cancer treatment. ‘Scrutinise yourself, challenge yourself’, the teacher said. ‘How many stages do you include in your text?’

After another 15 minutes, the students were instructed to share their texts with a peer, investigating how many stages and/or perspectives they managed to include. After this, the students were encouraged to share their arguments with the whole class, while the teacher summarised these on the whiteboard. Eventually, the teacher instructed them to focus on nuclear power stations and their impact on the environment, adding, ‘So everyone, now we help each other, a question like this could come on Monday’, referring to the upcoming test. In the entire class – and through dialogic recitation – the following text was authored, verbally and in written form:

Nuclear power stations do not let out carbon dioxide, providing access to the increase of clean energy and a smaller amount of the greenhouse effect that leads to an increase in global warming. On the other hand, radioactive waste leads to demands for secure safekeeping; if not, leakages will result.

The teacher assessed this co-authored text to be well developed regarding its reasoning, with at least two stages and two perspectives. After this, the teacher said, ‘Now we change focus’ and continued, ‘X-rays will be part of the test’. One student asked, ‘Can you show us the test?’ The teacher answered, ‘No, but in a way, you can say that I do that the whole time’ and continued, ‘Well, listen now!’

In this sequence of classroom teaching and learning, the students were invited to reflect on the knowledge aspects constructed by the national guidelines, in terms of deep and broad reasoning. The text that the students were able to co-author during this phase of the lesson had a strong resemblance to the text that the national guidance authored, through its directions regarding the assessment of the national tests, as well as the prescribed knowledge criteria in the curriculum. The focus was directed at the textual example from the national guidance, which contained information regarding the reduced area of rainforests in the world, not nuclear power. Thus, the teaching focus was on different aspects of argument from the perspective of assessment, rather than on the content itself, with the ‘how’, rather than the ‘what’, as most important. Later, the students’ possible knowledge dimensions and reflections regarding nuclear power were assessed, using the upcoming test. Drawing on the teacher’s response that the test was revealed to them all the time, the implication was that students should listen carefully to the classroom text authored by the teacher, using fairly rapid information about nuclear power and X-rays.

In this context, the students’ co-authoring of this text might be viewed as peripheral rather than central to the actual goal of the lesson: preparing students to answer questions in the upcoming test in a way that will result in the best possible grades in terms of subject knowledge. Through the teacher’s recitation, and repeated connections that were made towards the knowledge criteria in the subject curriculum, the students were made aware that they were going to be assessed on their performances, which was framed by classroom teaching that was designed from these criteria. The students’ possibilities to act as co-authors in the form of critical reflections on consequences for humans could be regarded as limited by the knowledge focus defined by the standards-based curriculum. In this way, according to the analysis, it was evident that the context did not emphasise opportunities for students to ask questions, listen to one another and, by that, share and compare differing views, thoughts or feelings in light of common concerns.

Further discussion

The examples above serve as illustrations of where there was potential for critical comments or questions to be raised by students, although this was not the case. How might that be? Whilst there may be, continuously, potential ‘critical moments’ in classrooms, the situation may not be conducive to allowing their development. Possible reasons for this inadvertency could include the strong framing of standards-based curricula, which may lead teachers necessarily to a focus on assessment details in the planning of each lesson. This may, for example, include checking off content and informing the students about the interpretation of different grading criteria. Such curriculum contexts can make it considerably more difficult for teachers to be sensitive to, or even notice, students’ needs for posing their own questions and critically reflecting on the current subject content based on the thoughts, arguments and feelings that the topic raises. From the teacher’s point of view, subject content is central, but, following the logic of predefined standards, the requirements of subject content for different steps in the grading criteria can become particularly important. In the selection of content, an interpretation of subject curriculum standards and benchmarks can become prioritised: that is, different objectives to be learned and different forms of knowledge, such as facts, understandings and skills.

The analysis of these examples has illuminated the ways in which a basic text of natural sciences can emanate from the perspective of assessment (Wahlström 2018), rather than being perceived as presenting an opportunity for students to participate in a conversation on shared societal issues based on the lesson content. Thus, the various consequences, ethical considerations and emotions that relate to the broader issues are masked. The presence of critical moments beneath the surface, potentially aroused by students’ questions, formed a pattern for the lessons. The overall lesson structure was part of a broader rationality reflective of the focus of teaching constrained within the framework of outcome- and standards-based subject curricula. An important insight that can be drawn more widely is that it is the structure and focus of subject curricula, rather than any individual teacher, that shapes this limited teaching focus (Wahlström 2022; Wahlström and Sundberg 2018). A standards-based curriculum may constrain potential for critical moments that tend to be unforeseeable in teaching.

It is necessary, too, to consider further how critical moments and students’ co-authoring are linked to concepts of knowledge. To emphasise the importance of the pedagogical responsibility of the teacher in the classroom for the selection of teaching content and for the formation of classroom discourse (Wahlström, Bossér, and Vogt 2023), the present study finds its theoretical point of departure in two concepts of knowledge related to two different curriculum traditions: social realism and transactional realism. Social realism fits well in a standards-based curriculum structured in school subjects, due to the close connection between social realism and academic disciplines with subject-specific concepts and abilities (M. Young 2021). However, in combination with a standards-based curriculum, social realism risks leading to predetermined and detailed teaching content, with constrained opportunities for teachers to take pedagogical responsibility for the broader democratic goals of schooling. These conditions, in turn, risk leading to fewer openings for genuine discussion and reflection for the students, because of structural restrictions regarding lesson time, teaching content and assessment criteria.

That is why it is helpful, we believe, to discuss social realism together with transactional realism. The latter concept of knowledge does not fit well in a system of strict, results-oriented approaches and predetermined measurable knowledge goals, due to its view of knowledge as a human’s accumulated and substantiated experience of the world. Like social realism, transactional realism emphasises the worth of scientific knowledge and the importance of students meeting teaching content in school that broadens and deepens their knowledge about the world. What a concept of knowledge as transactional realism contributes to, we argue, is the emphasis on students’ interest and critical reflections on the meaning and consequences of subject knowledge in relation to the development of society (Dewey 2008). The basis of transactional realism in communication leaves a theoretically grounded space for the teacher to choose content that concerns and engages the students, and for the students to contribute to the lesson text with their comments and reflections. Thus, the strength of transactional realism is the opportunity for students to be co-authors of the lesson text and open to moments of compelling and pressing questions. This presupposes a conscious stance on the part of the teacher to coordinate the students’ interest in the teaching content (G. Biesta 2014). By combining the strength of social realism, in terms of ‘powerful knowledge’, with the strength of transactional realism, in terms of reciprocal communication and interest in the common concerns of society, we argue that a combination of both knowledge concepts is needed in order to support efforts to educate the next generation to meet society’s challenges.

Limitations

The intention of this study was not to make any generalisations from the findings. Instead, the in-depth, qualitative analysis of rich data from this classroom study serves to offer insight and promote discussion. It considers the potential for students to engage with teaching content, in terms of the ‘critical moments’ that may arise in teaching, and the co-authoring of the teaching content, against the backdrop of a view of knowledge that may be presented by a standards-based curriculum and its accompanying teaching.

Conclusions

The present study sought to conceptualise the assumption of knowledge in standards-based curricula (Wahlström 2022) and explore some implications of teaching based on this kind of curriculum. To do this, we drew on a larger research project undertaken in Sweden, which involved a comparative classroom study. Our analysis and discussion draws attention to the ways in which teaching within this kind of curriculum framework may risk becoming narrowed towards meeting predefined grading criteria (Wahlström 2018; Wahlström and Sundberg 2018). In many jurisdictions internationally, national standards for subject curricula, followed by national tests, constitute a prominent factor that governs classroom teaching. This rationality forms a perspective on classroom activity that may be characterised by a necessarily constrained teaching focus and limited spaces for students to act as co-authors of a lesson text. Moreover, this conceptualisation of teaching towards prescribed requirements may reduce opportunities for teachers to observe ‘critical moments’ that can occur in the course of teaching, which can deepen the students’ knowledge and engagement. It is evident that the curriculum standards for compulsory school have influenced teaching repertoires (i.e. classroom discourse), the selection of content of teaching and the assessment of the students’ knowledge (Wahlström and Sundberg 2018). It is important to note that such limitations may be lessened by paying attention to classroom discourse and its ‘critical moments’ (Schmidt, Wahlström, and Vetter 2022). We argue for a shift in emphasis from achievements in knowledge standards to engaging in meaningful knowledge about matters of concern, without one necessarily excluding the other. By inviting students into discussions on matters of concern (Frank et al. 2022), broader educational goals can be achieved, in which measuring students’ knowledge against predetermined criteria forms a part, rather than the whole, of teaching and learning.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

The project was funded by the Vetenskapsrådet (Dnr: 2017-03501)

Notes

1. The research project Exploring the Elusive Gap: Equity and Knowledge Segregation in Teaching Processes was carried out from 2018 to 2021 and was financed by the Swedish Research Council [2017–03501]. For a full report, see Wahlström (2022).

2. When a school, based on statistics from the Swedish National Agency for Education, is defined as performing on the average, this means that many students reach the knowledge requirements just over the grade level of approved [E] but not the grade C.