Practice before policy? Unpacking the black box of progressive teaching in Swedish secondary schools

ABSTRACT

The aim of the article is to deepen the knowledge of progressivism and how it was manifested in practice in Swedish secondary schools from a teacher perspective before it was prescribed in policy during the reforms of the 1950s. In the current educational debate, progressivism is blamed by some for being the root of a permissive style of education in decline that no longer provides any knowledge to students, and regarded by others as the starting point for the modern form of democratic schooling. The question we pursue is in what way progressive teaching practice existed before policy. We do that by investigating teacher narratives describing their own teaching practices found in a historical archive from 1946. Hence, rather than looking at the policy level as in most studies, we are unpacking the black box of progressive teaching. Through thematic analysis, we investigate 209 secondary teacher narratives from teachers of History, Biology and Mother tongue. We found that the theme of student participation was very frequently reported in 76% of the accounts, while student interaction (33%) and extended classroom (37%) were somewhat less reported. Hence, our study shows that progressive teaching existed in different ways before it appeared in policy.

KEYWORDS:

• Archive research
• curriculum reform
• progressive teaching practices
• secondary school teachers
• teacher narratives

Introduction

Progressivism as an education ideology has been studied worldwide and many studies have shown its impact on policy from a historical perspective (Depaepe, 2000; Englund, 1986; Labaree, 2005; Popkewitz, 2011; Reese, 2013; Wraga, 1999). More recent studies in Germany, Japan and Italy have further investigated school structures and politics of power regarding the spread of progressivism from America to elsewhere (Lamberti, 2002; Yamasaki & Kuno, 2018; White, 2018). International studies have concluded that the impact of progressivism is huge in most countries that have been influenced by western (American) democratic values after the Second World War (Popkewitz, 2006; Röhrs & Volker, 1995). The vast body of research confirming this development has been underpinned by studies at the policy or organizational level of the school system. However, it is also important to study the various levels of the curriculum. A significant part of previous research has focused on what can be called the societal level of a curriculum, which is the overarching aspects of knowledge and teaching that exist in society. Also, the more concrete formal curriculum has been subject to many studies. Our interest is rather in the enacted curriculum (Goodlad & Associates, 1979, pp. 54–58; Cunningham, 1988, pp. 2–3), even though we also will relate our findings to the other levels. The enacted curriculum refers to realized or practiced teaching. By studying this level, it is possible to gain new knowledge about teaching.

An increased concern has been whether progressive pedagogical ideas, in addition to the societal and formal curriculum levels, also were reflected in the enacted curriculum. Some scholars have addressed this problem in their writing as ‘The Black Box of Schooling’ (Braster et al., 2011; Cuban, 1993; Depaepe, 2000) due to the difficulties to outline and investigate what happened in the classrooms more than seven decades ago when the progressive ideas were spread over the world. How can we know what happened in the classrooms? Through studies of teaching practices, it is possible to better understand the interaction between teaching and societal change (Cunningham, 2001). In this study, we attempt to gain such knowledge about what happened in the classroom by looking at how the teachers involved at the time described it. We investigate archive material from 1946, where teachers describe their progressive teaching practices before progressivism was officially included in the curriculum. This material offers a unique snapshot of what happened in Swedish secondary classrooms from about 1930 to 1946.

Progressivism is also debated in today’s school debate. Teaching based on progressive education, or reform pedagogy, is in many contexts blamed for what is sometimes seen as education in decline, or conversely perceived as the starting point for the modern democratic form of schooling (Evans, 2012). Hence, it is very important to shed light on the historical roots of progressive teaching. Was it developed by the teachers themselves as a response to their own needs, or was it introduced as an imposed decree in the national curriculum? This polarized educational debate is especially vivid in Sweden where it has raged ever since the road to democratic education was presented in a seminal government report, called 1946 års skolkommission (SOU, 1948:27) . A central aspect emphasized in the report was the need for teaching based on progressive education methods focusing on pupils’ interests and activities. The report describes the teaching at the time as ‘medieval’ and teacher-centred (SOU, 1948:27, p. 2).

In Swedish research and debate, the importance of the 1948 report for the breakthrough of ‘state progressivism’ and a more pupil-centred and democratic education is often underscored (cf. Englund, 1986, pp. 309–310; Broady, 1993, p. 358). Many debaters also regard the current crisis in education as the result of a progressive methodology imposed on unwilling teachers by ideologically motivated reformers (see, e.g., Enkvist, 2016; Heller Sahlgren & Sanandaji, 2019). Albeit from different positions, researchers and debaters share the view that a radical change in conceptions of education and the pupil took place as a result of the School Commission report. This shared view is problematic, since it involves conclusions about how teaching was carried out prior to 1948 based on government reports and later curricula rather than teachers’ actual practice. Altogether, this may lead to a conception of a ‘top down’ spread of progressivism that we find problematic. Instead of a one-way, top-down process, the dissemination of progressive ideas should be seen as a form of interaction between different agents and curricular levels. We also assume that an enacted curriculum is not a monolithic unit, but rather is characterized by diversity and variability (Franklin, 1999; Goodson, 1995, p. 184; Kliebard, 2004, pp. 288–289; Cunningham, 2001; Lundgren, 1989, p. 21).

In connection with the School Commission’s work, the investigators working for the School Commission realized that they needed more information. Practicing teachers were sent abroad to gain experience about other education systems, for example, in the USA, where curricula and teacher union journals were collected. The School Commission also ordered empirically based research and compilations of studies by leading Swedish researchers. In addition, they saw the need for an inventory of teachers’ practical experiences of progressivism and issued a call in 1946 to teachers working in all parts of Sweden to submit accounts of their teaching practice. These teacher accounts constitute the empirical material of this article. The material provides access to the teachers’ own voices and a unique insight into their professional perspective and praxis. We claim that the material gives us the possibility to open and further investigate ‘The Black Box of Schooling’.

This article aims to deepen knowledge of secondary school teachers’ teaching before the great postwar reforms took place. Previous studies have primarily highlighted elementary schools, and the results of these studies have been described as ‘elementary school progressivism’ (Hartman et al., 2005, p. 32; Englund, 1986, p. 112). We broaden the image of Swedish progressivism by centring on secondary school teachers.

This article is mainly a contribution to the research tradition in which practical experience is considered a means to broaden, deepen, and theorize knowledge of teaching and, not least from a historical perspective, deepen our knowledge of ‘The Black Box of Schooling’. Specifically, the focus of this article is on teaching practices in various subjects outlined in the form of a historical record of teachers’ experiences, which may also provide important information about the conditions of teaching and changes in education over time (Ball et al., 2012; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996; Lindblad, 1994).

Background and theoretical framework

Progressivism is a broad, international and complex phenomenon. In both Swedish and international debates on teaching, a number of more or less synonymous terms are used, for instance, ‘New Education’, ‘reform pedagogy’, ‘child centered education’, and ‘activity-oriented education’ (Cf. Cuban, 1993; Tisdall, 2020).

Some common aspects are usually emphasized within what we will from now on label as progressivism. Progressivism usually stood for a certain idea regarding the relationship between school and society; that schools should change in accordance with societal change. Additionally, progressivism usually promoted the view that the educational system should be characterized by a democratic approach, and that all citizens should have the right to education irrespective of class and gender. Furthermore, progressivism tended to view the child as an independent, active and learning subject, while also dependent on interaction with the surrounding world in the process of learning. This has influenced the view of how teaching should be organized and implemented in several countries (Popkewitz, 2006, pp. 22–25; Hansen et al., 2008, pp 440–443; Osterman & Brating., 2019).

Even if American progressivism and Dewey (1966/1916) are often referred to, the movement is also a European phenomenon with influential figures such as Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Fröbel and Kerschensteiner as pioneers of a more pupil-centred and activity-based pedagogical tradition (Arfwedson, 2000; Darling & Nordenbo, 2008; Röhrs & Volker, 1995). The international character of progressivism and the extensive transnational exchange of ideas via travels, conferences and text distribution have also been noted by, for example, Popkewitz (2006). More or less all continents were involved, although the USA can be regarded as a kind of progressive node through prominent representatives and prestigious institutions such as the Teachers College of Columbia University (White, 2018; Yamasaki & Kuno, 2018).

Even though progressivism as an educational idea consists of some ideal-typical basic features, different orientations have been identified. The orientation most commonly associated with progressivism is the so-called pedagogical progressivism, which is concerned with teaching methods based on pupils’ interests, activities and opportunities to have an influence on the teaching (Labaree, 2005).

Another orientation relates to the progressive movements in the USA and England in the 20th century, which were primarily interested in the best ways to adjust curricular structure and content to children’s development. The emphasis was on changing the structure and organization of schools and curricula in order to promote the development of students into competent citizens, while at the same time such modern curricula were thought to strengthen societal development. Schools should be controlled by scientifically produced curricula in which tests and clear objectives would make teaching practices more efficient. Students’ natural and intuitive interests took a backseat in this orientation, and criticism was directed against overtly romantic views of children and schools (Tisdall, 2020, pp. 25–45; Franklin, 1999; Kliebard, 2004, pp. 76–93). Labaree (2005) calls this orientation ‘administrative progressivism’, taking as his point of departure Kliebard (2004) and his discussion of ‘the social effiency perspective’. According to Labaree (2005), this administrative perspective on progressivism came to dominate the development in the USA.

However, since we are primarily interested in how progressive ideas on teaching were realized by teachers in Sweden in the 1940s (that is, the enacted or taught curriculum), our point of departure is the more ‘pedagogical’ perspective on progressivism. Furthermore, perspectives from the research on history of education and research on progressivism in practice have inspired the analysis (e.g., Callan & White, 2000; Cuban, 1993; Zilversmith, 1993). Central to our study is Cuban’s classic work on the character of progressivism, titled How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms (Cuban, 1993) which analyses how policy impacts on practice (Kliebard, 2004, p. 216; Reese, 2013, p. 330; Hansen et al., 2008, pp. 440–441; Depaepe, 2000, p. 34). Cuban’s analysis shows that progressivism had its breakthrough in the USA in the inter-war period, but that the pedagogical perspective on progressivism never came to dominate the teaching practices. It is also clear that the teaching was seldom only student-centred; rather, teaching was characterized by a mixture of methods and approaches. The impact of progressivism was less at high school and most noticeable in English and social studies subjects. Labaree (2005) notes that in the USA, progressivism was more important in policy than in practice. The breakthrough of progressivism in other countries such as England and Belgium is reminiscent of the process that Cuban identifies. Even though progressivism was well established as an idea, its impact on teaching practices was limited (Tisdall, 2020, pp. 125–131; 219–220; Depaepe, 2000, p. 246).

In his analysis Cuban (1993) presents a model of ideal-typical teaching practices with a division that should be seen as a continuum between two poles that seldom exist other than as ideal types. In the category of teacher-centred practice, the teacher decides on the organization and content of teaching with a focus on transmitting traditional subject content. The teacher is the most active person in the classroom, which is sharply demarcated from society at large. The counterpole is student-centred and adapted to the demands and expectations of modern democratic society. The traditional subjects have a subordinated position, and current problem areas that the students identify as important serve as starting points for teaching. The surroundings are also important for schools, students and the teaching practice. Students’ influence on content and methods is crucial as well as their activity and interaction with each other. In addition, teaching should be marked by the notion of an extended classroom where students have the opportunity to work individually or together outside of the regular classroom.

Cuban’s empirical material, which consists of photos, inspectors’ accounts, and principals’ and teachers’ accounts of the impact of progressivism in USA, makes it possible to relate teaching practices to the physical environment of the classroom. His study includes the conditions for progressive teaching as well as its implementation. His analysis has, however, been criticized for lacking attention to the dimension of power (Depaepe, 2000, pp. 35–36). Depaepe also criticizes the material, for instance, the inspection accounts, for only indirectly touching on ‘The Black box of Schooling’. An aspect discussed, but neither problematized nor theorized, is how to explain change in relation to teaching practices. Cuban’s aim, however, is not to explain why a certain practice is what it is, but to describe it and its links to progressivism. Since our study is a history of education analysis of teaching practices, Cuban offers relevant analytical tools, which also allow for a comparison between the USA and Sweden. Cuban, as well as Cunningham (2001), and Tisdall (2020), also provide us with the opportunity to better understand the dissemination of progressivism, since they have taken an interest in the interplay between teaching practices and societal context.

The framework consists of indicators in the practice relating to aspects of progressivism. The indicators used by Cuban are, among others, self-activity and collaboration, students’ opportunity to influence the planning and implementation of teaching and classroom layouts enabling student active methods. Inspired by these indicators, we have created our own analytical criteria, slightly adapted to the Swedish context and the character of the material (see the methods section for details). Cuban emphasizes that teaching is a complex phenomenon, which often includes different methodological approaches at the same time. The point of indicators is that they can provide a picture of how teaching was conducted and serve as a means to study change over time.

The Swedish context

To a great extent, Sweden can be seen as part of the Western modernization project initiated at the turn of the last century. In particular, the period after the 1930s was marked by radical modernization ideas, featuring, for instance, progressive proposals in housing and social politics. Proactive reformists were, among others, the well-known and controversial couple Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, usually labelled ‘social engineers’ (Jackson, 1990). They also linked the modernization of society with progressive education politics (Myrdal & Myrdal, 1934). Sweden also exemplifies how representatives and institutions with progressive ideals were soon recruited to international progressive networks, and Gunnar and Alva Myrdal had extensive contacts in USA (Myrdal & Myrdal, 1941).

However, the overarching societal level of progressive ideas only partly provides understanding of the development of progressivism in Swedish schools. The thoughts articulated by Kliebard (2004) and Cunningham (1988) about how teaching practices and curricula change necessitate emphasizing the studies of the presence of progressivism in Sweden before 1945. Indeed, previous research has identified some themes and practices that are of relevance for this paper.

What can best be described as networks of progressive teachers developed around girls’ schools and private secondary schools in Stockholm, Uppsala, and Gothenburg in the first decades of the 20th century. Around these schools, there were networks of persons who contributed to the dissemination of progressivism. Individual teachers, such as Ester Boman, who later authored a book about teaching, reformist politicians like Fridtjuv Berg, and intellectuals and academics such as Ellen Key and Carl Grimberg were connected to these settings (Broady & Ullman, 2001; Rantatalo, 2002, pp. 58–59; Astrand & Kollen, 1985, pp. 12–24; Edlund, 2002; Göteborgs högre samskola, 1911; Cf. Claesson, 2017).

Progressivism was not just an urban phenomenon in Sweden; just like in England, there were schools outside the big cities that worked as important nodes for progressivism. The rurally located Tyringe Boarding School is a good example of the role of networks for the dissemination of progressive teaching, since Ester Boman was the driving force behind the school. Tyringe Boarding School, just like many others within the progressive movement, became part of an internationalized circulation of pedagogical knowledge, inspired by what was occurring in the USA (Hägglund, 2001, pp. 150–152, Tisdall, 1–2). Alongside such networks, other arenas and institutions were also important. Regarding the dissemination of knowledge about how progressive teaching could and should be implemented, pedagogical journals were an example of such an arena (Cf. Cunningham, 1988, pp. 109–115)

Long before the School Commission’s report (and the Myrdal texts), journals repeatedly wrote about European progressive methods. The secondary school teacher Gustav Ageberg, for instance, described how progressive teaching could be implemented in the journal Skola och Samhälle (Ageberg, 1922). In 1930, the Mother tongue teacher Helge Gullberg (1931) published an article on progressive instruction in Mother tongue in the same journal, and a few years later there was an article by the secondary school teacher Ernst Söderlund (1935), describing teaching with progressive elements. (For more examples of teachers sharing ideas of progressivism, see Skola och Samhälle 1920 and Pedagogisk Tidskrift [Journal of Pedagogy]1929).

Furthermore, international research on education has shown the importance of different kinds of associations, such as trade unions and general pedagogical associations (Cunningham, 1988, pp. 91–102) for the dissemination of progressivism. In Sweden, previous research has also shown the importance of elementary teacher trade unions for the breakthrough of progressivism during the first half of the 20th century. In addition, pedagogical associations became an arena for progressive ideas (Rantatalo, 2002, pp. 57–64).

The interwar period in Sweden also saw a discussion on reformation of the ‘parallel school system’. The system consisted of a 7-year elementary school for ‘workers and farmers’ and a secondary school for the bourgeoisie (somewhat simplified), that seemed obsolete to many people. The reformists advocated a comprehensive system in which all citizens irrespective of background would attend the same schools. The idea of the reform was that education should keep up with societal developments. The parallel school system reinforced the structure of social class, which was not compatible with an equal society, the reformists argued. Similar to other countries such as Japan, Italy, and Germany, school reforms were linked to the role of education in the democratization of society (Lamberti, 2002, Yamasaki & Kuno; 2018; White, 2018). Even if the various national contexts and historical experiences differed greatly, the norm of democracy was strong, especially after 1945. However, if education was to play a part in this process, many claimed that teaching practice must also be democratized, not least in Sweden (Richardson, 1978; White, 2018).

Under the direction of the above-mentioned Alva Myrdal, a major government investigation was started, which eventually led to the abolition of the parallel school system and the introduction of a more student-centred methodology (Richardsson, 1983). The 1946 School Commission’s report emphasized the need to get rid of ‘the old authoritarian pedagogy’ with which education was imbued, according to the Commission. This was seen as an essential measure if education was to foster democratic citizens (SOU, 1948:27).

As has been mentioned, educational developments in the late 1940s tend to be viewed as a significant break with previous policy, in contemporary investigations (from the 1940s) as well as present-day debates and research. This notion of a break is somewhat validated by looking at the statutes that regulated teaching practices. In the curriculum that regulated teaching before the 1950s it is clear that students should show teachers ‘esteem’ and ‘obedience’. At the start of the school day, students should arrive ‘properly dressed’ and ‘pay attention to order and good manners’. The day was started with common morning prayers, which students were expected to participate in with ‘calm’ and ‘attention’ (SFS 1928:412, p. 1334). The authority of the school and the emphasis on transmission of traditional values were very pronounced. Furthermore, knowledge by memory and ‘secure and definite knowledge’ were considered central (SFS 1928:412, p. 1332).

Thus, the dominant characteristic of Swedish schools was a teacher-centred and traditional pedagogy. But at the same time, the general curriculum also included passages that emphasized student-centred activities. Secondary school should not only promote knowledge by memory, but also students’ inclination to engage in work, self-activation, and cooperation (SFS 1928:412, p. 1332).

In the specific syllabuses, there were passages in Biology where ‘excursion’ as a method was emphasized, and furthermore, knowledge should be developed through the student’s own observations (SFS 1928:252, p. 621, 648). These aspects can be connected to progressive ideas such as student participation and seeing the school surroundings as an extended classroom. In Swedish (L1), the foundation was part learning about literary history, part language development. The description of the content included passages mainly with connections to student participation, since discussions and individual presentations, among other activities, were emphasized as part of the teaching content (SFS 1928:252, p. 617, 641). In History, the aim was to provide the students with knowledge of Swedish and general history. The content was to a large extent based on narratives of Swedish and general history, according to the syllabus. However, the teaching was also expected to develop the historical perspective taking of the students (SFS 1928:252, p. 619, 658).

Swedish was one of the subjects with the most teaching time allotted in secondary school, although the actual allotment varied depending on what class one studied. For instance, during the first year of secondary school, a student had six Swedish lessons a week, while the number of lessons for History was three and for Biology two (SFS 1928:252, p. 614). Thus, the subjects were considered central in the secondary schools. Furthermore, they are relevant for this study since they represent different subject traditions; language, history, and natural science.

The aim of the article is thus to deepen the knowledge of the spread of progressivism and how it is manifested in practice in Swedish secondary schools from a teacher perspective. We investigate in what different ways progressive education was expressed as enacted curriculum in Swedish secondary schools before ‘state progressivism’ was introduced after 1948 in Sweden. In other words, did practice exist before policy?

Methods and analysis

In this study, we apply thematic analysis to the teacher accounts archived at the Swedish National Archive to identify and describe how progressive teaching in Sweden was practiced before it became official policy. Below, we describe the data material, selections made, and the analysis procedure.

Data material and selection

This study is based on archive material consisting of letters written by teachers responding to a call from the School Commission in 1946. The material has not been used in major research studies before. As described above, the School Commission’s role was to propose a reformation of education in Sweden in a more modern and progressive direction. To this end, the School Commission collected teachers’ accounts of their work to make an inventory of ongoing progressive teaching practices in Sweden. When the School Commission’s report was completed, the teachers’ accounts were archived at the Swedish National Archive in Stockholm and have since remained there untouched. The material comprises letters from a total of 850 teachers. The letters are averaging around four pages. The longest letter is 38 pages and the shortest half a page. The letters describe, for instance, how group work can be organized, how teaching can be individualized, and how students can be allowed to assess their own assignments.

Letters from 600 teachers refer to the 7-year elementary school in which students were taught by the same teacher in all subjects. The remaining letters are written by 250 from the non-compulsory education system and continuation schools (SOU, 1948:27, p. 83).

Because of the size of the material, it was first delimited to the secondary schools. A reason for this was that previous studies have focused primarily on compulsory elementary schools (Hartman et al., 2005), while secondary schools are virtually unresearched in relation to progressivism. A future study will explore the elementary school teachers’ accounts, which may provide material for comparisons.

The second selection made was to identify accounts of the teaching of History, Biology and Mother Tongue (from now on labelled as the school subject Swedish), as these subjects represent the three educational domains of social studies, natural science and language. We identified 209 teachers in these subjects (from the total 250). Some of the teachers have submitted accounts of several subjects, which means that there are 247 accounts from 209 teachers of the three subjects, distributed as follows: Biology 39, History 81, and Swedish 127. Among the teachers who stated their sex, there were 114 men and 75 women. Their educational level was generally high. The common university qualification among the teachers was a Master’s degree and 23, including two women, had a doctoral degree, and one was associate professor (‘docent’). Unfortunately, the archive material does not provide a systematic description of the teachers’ background, but only what they themselves have voluntarily written in their submitted letters. Where known, we refer to the teachers by their authentic names and residence in the results section. Quotes from the accounts was translated by the authors.

From a socioeconomic perspective, we can see a broad distribution of schools in the material. Traditional schools in larger cities and university cities are for example, represented through teachers at the schools of Södra Latin in Stockholm and Katedralskolan in Uppsala, as well as prestigious upper-class boarding schools such as Sigtunaskolan Humanistiska läroverket and Lundsbergs boarding school. In addition, there are schools in lower middle-class environments, such as Eksjö Högre Allmänna läroverk and Strängnäs Högre Allmänna läroverk. A number of teachers teaching at non-urban secondary schools have also submitted descriptions, for instance, from Molkoms samrealskola.

To sum up, the submitted accounts make up a broad representation from schools in Sweden (see Figure 1 for geographical distribution) that match the population distribution in the country. Teachers from schools in cities, university cities, and towns are represented in proportion to their demographic weight. We claim that the teacher accounts are largely representative of Sweden’s secondary school teachers in the 1940s in terms of geographical distribution and form of education. From the major cities, Stockholm and Gothenburg, 31 and 27 accounts were submitted respectively. In addition, the 209 teachers constitute a significant share of the total number of secondary school teachers at the time. According to Statistisk årsbok för Sverige (Swedish Statistical Yearbook), there were 2 700 secondary school teachers in 1945 (Statistisk årsbok för Sverige, 1950 table 265). This means that around 7–9 % of Sweden’s secondary school teachers at the time are part of this study.

Figure 1. Map of the geographical distribution of participating schools in the study

Data analysis

To start with, all teacher accounts were copied at the archive and data transferred to digital files stored in a database. The selection was made from this file and resulted in letters from 209 teachers containing 247 accounts related to the school subjects Biology, History, and Swedish.

To identify the aspects of progressive teaching in the teachers’ accounts, thematic analysis was used (Cohen et al., 2011). We adopted a realist approach to identify and analyse the participating teachers’ descriptions and experiences of progressive teaching. To this end, we based our categorization and thematization on the semantic level of the data, that is, the explicit utterances of the teachers (Boyatzis, 1998). Further, the analysis was theoretically driven in the sense that we used the theoretical framework of progressive teaching as a map for the coding (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The overriding starting point for the analysis was primarily Cuban’s (1993) categorization of progressive teaching, as discussed in the background section. The methodology used largely followed Braun and Clarke’s methods description of different phases (2006, pp. 86–93), and is further detailed below.

In the first phase of the analysis, all authors read the accounts to get familiar with the material. In the second phase, the first author read the material several times to identify codes of progressive teaching in the material. These codes were, as earlier mentioned, inspired by Cuban’s (1993) categorization of progressivism. On the basis of the readings, continuous adjustments were made to adapt the codes to the material and the Swedish context. In the third step, an initial template of codes for categorization of the material was created. The template also included comments, describing and exemplifying the distinguishing features of each code. At a calibration meeting with all co-authors, the categories were tested in relation to six teacher accounts (two from each subject), which had all been analysed separately and independently before the meeting. The categories and comments were subsequently revised on the basis of the test analyses. In phase three, one of the authors tested the created themes on the whole material on the basis of the identified codes, such as individual work, group work, textbooks and other teaching material.

In the fourth and last phase, the categories were subsumed into three overarching themes: student participation, student interaction and extended classroom. Below, the three identified themes relating to progressive teaching are outlined:

• Student participation This category includes elements of student activity in the form of group work, individual work, discussion, and presentation.

• Student interaction This category includes aspects of student influence, that is, when students were allowed to have a say regarding teaching content and methods.

• Extended classroom This category includes examples of teacher and students leaving the physical classroom to take advantage of local resources, such as museums, nature, workplaces, or social institutions.

In addition to the thematic analysis, the background data and context that could be gleaned from the teacher accounts were documented and categorized. This category was called Respondents’ context and type of material, and the information yielded concerned place, school, type of school, teachers’ educational background, and the scope of the letter and the time span of the account, if stated. These data were only used to interpret the results.

When presenting the analysis of the data material, we first report on the number and frequency of teacher accounts that display the different themes to give an idea of the aspects of progressive teaching that appeared most often in the accounts. Then we present excerpts of the themes from the accounts and teachers’ justifications for their teaching to deepen the understanding of how teachers implemented progressive teaching, how they reflected on what progressivism is, and their reasons for their teaching practice. In the concluding discussion, we relate results to the policy level and previous research on how the dissemination of progressivism can be understood. Note that when we refer to progressivism in the teacher accounts, we refer to indicators or examples of progressive teaching, and the existence of such examples in an account does not necessarily mean that the teacher who wrote it would embrace all aspects of progressivism. In this respect, we share Cuban’s view that few teachers subscribed to the whole progressive package in all respects and at all times. The starting point is rather that teachers may have used different approaches and strategies depending on context.

Results

Progressivism in the teachers’ professional practices is first presented at the aggregate level. Then follows a qualitative description of individual examples from the teachers’ accounts. In total, the result shows that 76% of the accounts indicated student participation in the form of individual study, presentations, discussions and/or group work. Student interaction was indicated in 33% of accounts through student participation in planning and/or influence on the content and organization of teaching, and 37 % of the accounts described excursions and visits at various workplaces such as museums, courts, and local institutions as examples of the extended classroom.

Table 1 shows the distribution of teachers between the school subjects: Biology (16%), Swedish (51%) and History (33%). The table also shows the number and frequency of the themes (student participation, student interaction and extended classroom) in relation to the school subject accounts. In all three subjects, more than 70% of the teachers mentioned student participation as the most frequent activity, which is also most frequent irrespective of subject. There is a greater difference in the other two categories. Biology shows 5 % compared to Swedish 44 % for student interaction. The difference is greatest regarding extended classrooms as 79 % of biology teachers, while 25 % and 36 % respectively of the other subject teachers, mentioned this category.

Table 1. Distribution of progressive themes in the different school subjects

Subject Frequency (per cent of total accounts, n= 247)	Student participation Frequency (per cent of total accounts per subject)	Student interaction Frequency (per cent of total accounts per subject)	Extended classroom Frequency (per cent of total accounts per subject)
Biology 39 (16)	28 (72)	2 (5)	31 (79)
Swedish 127 (51)	101 (79)	56 (44)	32 (25)
History 81 (33)	59 (72)	24 (29)	30 (37)

Note: The percentage represented in brackets within the three subjects is estimated in relation to the total number of accounts in each subject. Source: Riksarkivet, Skolkommissionen 1986 –1952, F1: 17, 18, 19, 20.

Student participation

It is clear from the accounts that student participation is the aspect of progressivism that has had the greatest impact and also seems to have occurred in a variety of forms. Our material includes 188 accounts where instances of student participation are present, which corresponds to nearly 80% of teachers, with a preponderance of Swedish teachers, reporting on student participation activities in their teaching practice. A frequently reported activity was ‘individual work’, which may involve a student checking the class homework in history instead of the teacher (Forslund, Arvika, F1:18) or independently structuring and completing a major project, lasting several weeks, in Swedish (Rudberg, Göteborg F1:18). A teacher of lower grade students reported that each student had a chequered workbook. The teacher wrote:

Pictures they find in newspapers relating to topics studied are pasted into it with a caption. Students make drawings of Stone Age graves, for instance, Viking boats, Roman and Gothic churches, Doric and Ionic pillars, etc or draw fantasy pictures of exciting events. (Bosson-Nordbö, Skellefteå, F1:18)

Student activities inviting students to engage in conversation or discussion with the teacher about specific teaching content, for example, after a film or in connection with a study visit, were also frequent elements in the accounts. At one school (Sigtunaskolan Humanistiska läroverket), parts of history teaching were in the form of study circle teaching in which discussion was a central method. Discussions were based on content treated in school. The Viking age, for instance, could be discussed in terms of fiction by writers such as Frans G Bengtsson and Esaias Tegnér (Arnoldsson, Östersund, F1:18). One teacher (Bosson-Nordbö, Skellefteå, F1:18) reported that she usually tried to ‘get a discussion going’ by referring to different scientific views of a phenomenon or a person of interest to as many as possible to stimulate students to take part in the discussion. The discussion could also be based on current events on what a teacher described as ‘more general or topical issues such as the circumstances that lead to war in our time, or current politics as manifested in the press’.

Another common method based on student participation is group work in the classroom. Often group work was combined with individual tasks in Swedish, for example, (Tegner, Malmö, F1:20). It was clear from the material that teachers had a conscious pedagogical intention with group work: students were expected to collaborate and thus gain deeper understanding. A teacher in History claimed that the ambition was to ‘get students used to 1) collaborating in the proper way, 2) reading more extensive books than the textbook, 3) giving an account of something in a coherent way without the support of the teacher’s questions.’ In the lesson, the teacher divided students into groups of three, telling them what chapters to focus on. Then, the teacher added that ‘he let the groups, as far as possible, choose what they want to work with’ (Rudberg, Göteborg, F1:18).

The teacher accounts also include group work taking place in nature as well as the classroom (Hansson, Kalmar, F1:19) and indications that students could influence the composition of groups which is also an indicator of progressivism (Cuban, 1993).

Apparently, group work as a method dates back to the 1930s. Bjarne Beckman at Strängnäs secondary school reported learning about progressive methods at the beginning of his career from the Swedish promoter of progressive education Ester Boman. He was later to implement the ideas in history teaching, for instance, and his students did group work on Gustav II Adolf already in the 1930s (Beckman, Strängnäs, F1:17).

Student interaction

The teachers’ accounts give fairly ample descriptions of student influence. In relation to the different subjects, it is primarily in Swedish that half of the texts highlight aspects that can be understood as opportunities for students to influence the organization or content of teaching. Around one fourth of History accounts describe student influence, while only 5 % of Biology accounts explicitly describe student influence.

The accounts give examples of teachers letting students influence and choose what they want to work with. One teacher of Biology described that students doing group work in health education jointly decided on ‘what social institutions were relevant to treat’ and that ‘each group could then pick among the tasks’ (Karlsson, Göteborg, F1:19). Also in History there were examples of students choosing content. One teacher described how the students ‘may choose a task they would like to engage with’ (Unknown, Södertälje F1:18). In Swedish, a teacher let students ‘every week arrange a so called entertainment period, when they recited poems, short stories, or put on a skit they had written themselves’ (Unknown, Unknown, F1:17). In Swedish and History, student influence could also mean that students chose questions for a quiz.

In addition, the teacher accounts contain rich and detailed descriptions of how students were given opportunities to influence the organization of teaching. A biology teacher divided the class on excursions into ‘patrols of four students in each, who were given the task to walk from one place to another/ … /on as many different routes as possible’ (Hansson, Kalmar, F1:19). The aim was for the students to collect as much material as possible for the next lesson. In the account of a teacher of Swedish, there is a detailed description of how teaching was reorganized into a study circle on the students’ initiative:

The study circle came about totally on the students’ initiative, the headmaster provided a room and a radio at the school and the teacher of Swedish (also class teacher) was, at their request, a member of the circle and attended all meetings. (Lindström, Göteborg, F1:17)

A history teacher mentioned that the study of History has ‘been pursued according to the so-called Arbetsskolemetoden [a learning by doing method]’, which involved the following:

The teacher and the class have agreed that a certain section should be dealt with thoroughly on a certain day./ … /During the work on a section, one or several of the students have given short ‘lectures’ clarifying especially important phenomena. Usually, the students have requested to give a ‘lecture’, and therefore special interests have been done justice. (Eeg-Olofsson, Ängby/Riksby, F1:18)

The teacher also reflected in his account on how this organization influenced the distribution of tasks in the classroom. ‘During the work in progress,’ he writes, ‘the teacher’s direct contribution after giving and commenting on the assignment, was to answer questions. When the same question recurred more than twice, the teacher gathered the class and gave an explanation.’

In relation to student interaction, some scepticism can be discerned among some teachers. A teacher of Swedish expressed that ”students usually may choose a topic at will” in composition exams but that the ”result has not always been satisfactory, since average and weak students tend to choose topics that are too easy (e.g., My summer vacation).” (Bengtsson, Östersund, F1:17). The same teacher also mentioned that in a discussion about teaching methods, ”a request was made by students for lectures followed by an exam like the routine at university and colleges.” However, it is made clear that the teacher was not convinced of the usefulness of this organizational principle. As the teacher expressed it: ‘As the lecture format hardly provides opportunity for students’ self-activity, I did not grant their wish.’

While our material on the whole displays ample examples of how students were offered influence, not least through discussions with teachers in the classroom, the teachers’ accounts also demonstrate resistance to student influence on content and methods. A history teacher also suggested that students themselves were not always keen on changes:

For many years, I have asked myself if it would be possible to find a different form of history lessons than the traditional one. I have also discussed this matter with mature students. The strange thing is that it seems that my students still think that they get the most out of the ’traditional’ method. However, I would like to add that I at least try to vary it as much as possible. (Hennings, Stockholm, F1:18)

In sum, the teachers’ accounts show that classroom teaching at the time of collection involved negotiations on progressive aspects of content as well as organization in relation to student influence.

Extended classroom

A further indicator that teaching had a progressivist element (Cuban, 1993) is shown in the teachers’ accounts of how the local community was used as a ‘resource’. Of the 247 accounts, 93 included references to teaching activities in the local community as a teaching resource, that is, 37% of the accounts. As a result, this aspect was not the most prominent dimension of progressive content. There was, however, considerable variation and the biology teachers used local surroundings to a greater extent (79%), than history teachers (36%). Only 25% of teachers of Swedish made use of pedagogical resources in the local community. The reason for the difference is the natural science tradition of excursions. A teacher (Mellbin, Härnösand, F1:19) noted that ‘when migratory birds arrived, excursions were made early in the mornings to test if students would recognise the bird calls that they have listened to in winter term lessons.’ Another biology teacher (Almstedt, Arvidsjaur, F1:19) argued that biology teaching should be conducted ‘in seasons when living study material is available. Students learn to make observations in nature and collect samples of plants and animals for educational needs.’ So-called school gardens were also a common resource. A teacher (Linnell, Stockholm, F1:19) pointed out the following:

The school garden is also used in a suitable season and weather as a classroom. The headmaster has arranged for bench seating for a whole class. It is extremely important to get material directly from the living plant when teaching about plant organs.

In this context it is fair to ask if the biology teachers’ emphasis on the natural environment was a result of the implementation of progressivism or an older teaching tradition in Biology linked to the science method of studying and documenting natural phenomena. A definite answer is not to be found in our material but it is probably a combination of the two. Aspects of the curriculum may also have inspired teaching. What we can safely say is that the teachers interpreted progressivism as including excursions and school gardens. It is also interesting to note that we can see several cases where teachers associated outdoor activities with social background factors, and that the authentic experience was deemed so important that teachers wanted to ensure that all students had this opportunity. As a teacher (Fast, Härnösand, F1:19) wrote:

In the last years, we have arranged a trip to the mountains for the school-leaving class or the next two classes together. The aim was that all girls irrespective of financial means would be able to participate in such a trip, and we succeeded.

Generally, the local community is seen as a pedagogical resource by teachers in all categories. Visits were made to municipal institutions, memorial sites and museums, and there are recurring examples of visits to public institutions such as courts and city councils in social study-related history teaching. Also institutions directly linked to history and cultural heritage were visited. A teacher (Rosén, Kristianstad, F1:19) employed at a school near a major city in the south of Sweden, confirmed that ”the relative vicinity to Lund and Malmö has been used for study visits to institutions and museums annually. Even Svalöv was visited.” Another teacher (Arnoldsson, Kalmar, F1:18) mentioned that he had:

taken a class to a modern art exhibition. This seemed appropriate, as the school did not have art history on the schedule and the average secondary school student needs to have their aesthetic interest and sense stimulated.

From a progressivist perspective, it is interesting to note that so many teachers in the material referred explicitly to the importance of students’ chances to discover and understand society and their surroundings and that leaving the classroom was therefore necessary. In an account written by a Gothenburg teacher of History, it is clear that many different institutions were visited such as the church council, the city council, the court, and other public services such as elderly care homes, kindergartens, and local community centres. For culture and art studies, ‘various museums were visited.’ The purpose of such study visits was that ‘the students get important knowledge of local ancient and other historical monuments.’ There are also examples of teachers who thought that students should understand how society is constructed politically and socially. A teacher (Skön, Göteborg, F1:18) claimed that students had ‘insufficient knowledge of socio-political factors and the general political situation’ and that take-home essay assignments in the form of group work had been ‘one way among many to remedy this lack of knowledge.’ He also advocated that students should collect material through interviews and noted that an ‘interview with a person involved in social or political activities—for instance, the chairman of the poverty relief committee or a municipal officer of some kind—is extremely suitable.’

A teacher of Swedish (Rönnerholm, Karlskrona, F1:20) used the local community as a source of inspiration for essay writing. In preparation for an essay, it can be

very suitable to visit the railway station and study life there on a Saturday morning or afternoon, preferably with a notebook in which to take down facts, what it looks like in some places in the area, study how different people react in the same situation, for example, when in a hurry.

Students were thus not only supposed to observe but also to write about and report on their ‘discoveries’ in society and interpret an environment analytically. The following quotation from a teacher of Swedish (Lilie, Göteborg, F1:17) combines the progressive methods that many accounts display (student activity, student influence, and local community as a resource) in the same task:

In the first two classes I send out a ‘patrol’ on excursion every week. (The rest of the class engages in essay writing). They choose their own destination – visit the harbour, the railway station, a factory etc. After about one and a half hours, they return and can use the rest of the double period to elaborate on their observations. … // … In the next period (usually the following day) they give a presentation to the class on their experiences.

Generally, we can see that the progressivist aspect of using the local community as a resource has not been a predominant element other than in Biology. In the case of biology, we see the result more as a subject tradition of nature observations than as a method informed by progressive ideas. However, the local community aspect includes a great many social resources, in relation to which we can see that the teachers have clearly adapted their teaching practice to meet the demands of progressivism. In History teaching it was mentioned that study visits had become more common in social studies. School gardens were mentioned in terms of authentic experience, which is directly linked to progressive views on education. Many teachers of all three subjects justified their use of the local community as a teaching resource in terms of experience or insight not easily attained in the classroom, and this motive, more than the activity as such, is evidence that progressivism was practised in secondary schools before the national curricula and policy documents were changed.

Discussion

Our study of teachers’ descriptions of progressive teaching in the 1940s has to a certain extent opened the lid of ‘The Black Box of Schooling’, as teachers’ narratives about teaching contribute to our understanding of the dissemination of progressivism (Braster et al., 2011; Cunningham, 2001). Our findings show that progressive elements were practiced/enacted in Swedish secondary schools before the national reforms, albeit with variations between teachers and subjects, and that there was a broad approach to teaching which can be defined as progressive. In relation to previous research in Sweden, which has greatly emphasized ‘elementary school progressivism’(Hartman et al., 2005, p. 32; Englund, 1986, p. 112), we can point to a widespread occurrence of progressively oriented teaching practices in secondary schools of different types. Like Cuban (1993) and Tisdall (2020), we can also see that Swedish teachers in this material seldom applied just one teaching strategy. On the contrary, they overall demonstrate, on the whole, a broad array of teaching strategies, which also include teacher-centred methods such as lectures, homework, and homework quizzes.

The most prominent indicator of progressivism (Cuban, 1993) that we found is the category student participation. In our material, this indicator is represented by individual study, where the students were responsible for the design and implementation of different components, but also by group work, and students’ opportunities to discuss in the classroom, and assess their classmates’ presentations and essays. Even if the students were given the opportunity to choose what to study in Swedish and History, the subject content was seldom questioned.

The choices were rather made within a traditional and established ‘canon’ of themes intrinsic to the school subjects.The frequent practice of student-active methods in the teachers’ accounts, however, suggests that the dissolution of teacher-centred teaching and the introduction of a so called ‘woolly pedagogy’ is a much older tradition in Swedish secondary schools, going back to before ‘state progressivism’ was introduced. Nevertheless, passages in the curriculum with a progressivist approach must also have influenced teaching practices. In particular, the extensive use of the surrounding society as a teaching resource by biology teachers, and the use of individual work by teachers of Swedish, can be seen as examples of this.

It is also relatively clear that the progressive practices were chosen by the professionals themselves and not imposed by university pedagogues or politicians as often suggested (cf. Evans, 2012). This fact strengthens our findings in relation to the factor ”student interaction”, which means that students could influence the teaching, and ‘extended classroom’, which relates to how the teachers used the local community as a pedagogical resource. Just like the indicator student participation, student interaction is most notable in the subject Swedish regarding the organization of teaching and content. It is to be noted that few biology teachers mentioned student interaction, although this group used local environments in their teaching. In part, this teaching strategy can also be linked to established subject-specific traditions, such as biology excursions and history visits to historical monuments.

To conclude, our findings show that the impact of progressivism was already noticeable before the collection of material in 1946, and that praxis preceded the major policy reforms in the 1950s-1960s. Let us also, in this context, point out that the teachers’ accounts display a historical perspective on their teaching since they described their classroom practice several years back in time, sometimes as far back as the 1920s and 1930s. Admittedly, there was social pressure for change at the time that teachers had to address, but also, as we have shown, examples of knowledge dissemination within the teaching profession regarding progressive methodology, as teachers shared their experiences of progressivism in many contexts already in the 1920s, primarily in journals. It is true that there were also references in the teachers’ accounts to a general ‘domestic’ progressive teaching tradition (see specifically Bjarne Beckman’s description in the results section). Knowledge of progressive teaching was something that the teachers themselves shared in pedagogical journals early on (Samuelsson, 2019). Moreover, there was a dissemination of progressive ideas in Sweden through the networks established around private secondary schools (c.f Broady & Ullman, 2001; Claesson, 2017), and similarly to the situation in England, various forms of media also contributed to the dissemination of progressivism (Cunningham, 1988, pp. 105–113). In this study we have been able to show that the activities of these networks could influence classroom teaching practices (the ‘enacted curriculum’). Several of the teachers in our material had earlier taught at progressive secondary schools such as Gothenburg higher co-educational school and Whitlock co-educational school (see for instance, the teacher Beth Hennings) and in that way come into contact with progressivism. Our examples show the importance of different forums, for the dissemination of progressivism, and that interaction between these forums occurred.

In Swedish education politics, there are different—relatively polarised—views of how and when progressivism entered the schools (Enkvist, 2016; Enkvist & Henrekson, 2017). Our findings show that it is not easy to ascertain that the reforms involved a radical break and changed teaching practices. It is rather a case of the Commission responding to a practice already established, for instance, in terms of organizing teaching in the form of group work, as described above by Bjarne Beckman, albeit not yet the dominant practice in Swedish secondary education (Beckman, 1933). Studies of the growth of progressivism in other countries such as England, Japan and Italy have also emphasized the importance of domestic experience for the democratization of teaching (Tisdall, 2020; White, 2018). In Japan and Germany, progressivism was commonly practised in what can be described as ‘experiment schools’ (Yamasaki & Kuno, 2018; Lamberti, 2002), which was not the only case in Sweden, where the impact of progressivism in practice involved individual teachers in traditional secondary schools.

In relation to other research, such as Cuban’s (1993) study of inspection material and the analysis of teacher journals by Depaepe (2000), our study of teachers’ own descriptions of their teaching enabled us to get close to the classroom and open the ‘Black box of schooling’. Admittedly, we do not know what type of teachers chose to respond to the call to submit accounts. However, the respondent rate is high (around 7–9 % of all secondary school teachers in Sweden) and the presence of progressive elements is apparent in their descriptions of their teaching practice, thus enhancing our view of the early impact of progressivism in Sweden before it was turned into policy.

Previous studies in Sweden have to a great extent emphasized that there was a radical shift as a result of the Commission’s report (see e.g., Englund, 1986). We consider this to be an expression of a modern historiography of Swedish education policy, in which both advocates and opponents of the reforms have been driven by the need to stress the break from the ‘old school’ (see, e.g., Arvidson, 1948; Enkvist, 2016). But we also see the description of the shift after the report as a result of the focus of previous studies on empirical material at the policy rather than the teaching level (or the enacted curriculum).

In summary previous international research has largely investigated the spread of progressivism through studies of schools or cities that had a progressive reform agenda. Unlike this research, the teachers studied here were mainly active in what can be characterized as traditional educational institutions, rather than schools with a pronounced interest in progressive reform. This study shows that individual teachers applied progressive teaching practice in traditional school environments, before policy, which deepens our understanding of the spread and impact of progressivism.

Sources

Skolkommissionen 1946-1952

SFS 1928, svensk författningssamling

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council, dnr 2017-03646; Vetenskapsrådet [dnr 2017-03646.].

Notes on contributors

Johan Samuelsson

Johan Samuelsson is Associate professor (docent) in history at Karlstad University, Sweden, e-mail: [email protected]. His research interests are history of education, curriculum history, progressive education and teaching and learning in history. 

Niklas Gericke

Niklas Gericke is professor in science education at Karlstad University, Sweden, and visiting professor at NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, e-mail: [email protected]. His research interest includes teaching and learning in biology and sustainability education with a focus on the transformation of knowledge and enactment of teaching in the classroom. 

Christina Olin-Scheller

Christina Olin-Scheller is professor of Educational Studies and of Contemporary Literatur at Karlstad University, Sweden, e-mail: [email protected]. Her interests are reading instruction and literacy in relation to digital devices in and out of classrooms. 

Åsa Melin

Åsa Melin is a PhD student in history at Karlstad University, Sweden, e-mail: [email protected]. Her interest is history of education, political reforms and the local level in relation to the state.