Pedagogic Discourses in the Swedish Primary Teacher Education Programme From a Subject Perspective

ABSTRACT

This study directs attention to the ways in which pre-service teachers’ knowledge base are constructed in and through the examination practice in the various subjects of the Primary teacher education programme in Sweden. The empirical material consists of policy material (course plans, study guides and examination tasks). The results show differences between the pedagogic discourses, in the various subjects, concerning examination forms, what is examined in terms of content, and which generic competencies are given importance in and through the examinations. Finally, the result shows that pedagogic discourse primarily shape the primary teacher students into a horizontal discourse, which can make it difficult for them to handle complex teaching situations in their future professional lives.

KEYWORDS:

• Primary teacher education
• pedagogic discourses
• knowledge base
• vertical and horizontal discourses

Introduction

In recent years, increasing focus has been directed at teachers’ knowledge base, at teacher quality, and how “good” teachers should be educated, in Sweden as well as internationally. This attention has been brought about for example by the research of several distinguished scholars in educational science who argue that teacher quality has a substantial effect on pupils’ learning and results (Darling-Hammond, 2000, 2017; Schleicher, 2016).

The quest for making the Swedish education system competitive internationally was one of the main incentives for the total reforming of the Swedish education system in the early 2000s (Ringarp & Waldow, 2016). Part of the change was a new teacher education, with the aim of educating teachers who can fulfil the political intentions of a competitive education system. The Swedish Government Official Report stated that every category of teacher requires specific knowledge with respect to the work done in the different subjects and age groups (Ministry of Education, 2008). In that way, the new teacher education policy and practice involved a shift in that the former Swedish teacher education programme was consolidated and integrated with the aim to unite teachers in their knowledge base (Beach et al., 2014). The Primary teacher education programme (PTE-programme) is the teacher education programme that has been affected the most by the teacher education reform. In earlier studies of this programme, results show that the two specializations, towards the grades K-3 and 4-6, have developed not only different examination cultures but also different pedagogic discourses (Sjöberg, 2018a). Similarly, studies show that the PTE-programme has the greatest focus on classroom management knowledge and competencies (primarily subject didactics) in which the primary school curriculum is a central focus (Sjöberg, 2018b), and finally that in the PTE-programme there are several different subcultures, each with their own pedagogic discourses (Player Koro & Sjöberg, 2018). Based upon earlier results, showing that there are differences and subcultures within the PTE-programme, this study will focus on possible differences between the various subjects in the programme, due to different discourses and traditions. To study the pedagogic discourses of teacher education, its content and what knowledge is assessed is important, not least today with the increasing political focus, nationally and internationally.

This study’s methodological approach is grounded in Bernstein’s theory of how the knowledge base is constructed through pedagogic discourses (Bernstein, 2000). The assumption is that the pedagogic discourses in the PTE-programme are an integration of discourses and subject concepts based on policy, academic as well as professional and subject disciplinary traditions (Ongstad, 2006).

The study is based upon the following research questions:

• Which pedagogic discourses are constructed in the various subjects in the PTE-programme in relation to the choice of content and the form of examination?

• Which knowledge and competencies are legitimatized as part of a primary teacher’s knowledge base?

The Swedish Primary Education Programme

The PTE-programme is a four-year programme preparing for a vocational qualification. The programme has three specializations, with the intention to provide the three categories of primary school teacher with the specific knowledge and competencies that correspond to the knowledge base for each respective category.¹ The programme is regulated by the Higher Education Ordinance (1993, p. 100), established by the government, determining 28 overall learning outcomes and the scope of programme and the various subjects in the programme. The programme is comprised of a common core of educational science, placement, degree projects,² and the teaching subjects Swedish, mathematics, English, social studies and the sciences. No learning outcomes regarding the various subjects or subject syllabus rationales are stated in the Higher Education Ordinance. Every university is free to construct the PTE-programme (syllabus, educational organization etc) out of the regulations in the Higher Education Ordinance.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study follows Bernstein’s theoretical tradition and is based upon an interest in the way education and education policy function as parts of a pedagogic device – in other words, the way policy is transformed into practice. According to Bernstein (2000) this transformation process is in no way value-free; it is instead created and recreated through discursive conflicts (cf. Singh, 2002; Singh et al., 2013). These discursive value conflicts influence both the way reforms are formulated and the way they are transformed and re-contextualized for pedagogical practice. In relation to this study, the discursive value conflicts appear in the formulation practice of the policy text at the national level as well as at the university level, where the policy text is transformed into programme syllabus, course plans, study guides, and finally into examination tasks.

Bernstein calls the content that defines how education is constructed and shaped pedagogic discourse. The way these pedagogic discourses are manifested in examination tasks and practices of the various subjects is influenced not only by education policy, but also by traditions, conceptions, and values that have been developed through both academic disciplines and professional contexts (cf. Ongstad, 2006). The aspect of professional context is important according to teacher education since teacher educators to a high degree have own professional experience from compulsory education.

According to Bernstein the pedagogic discourses express the “what” and “how” of the programme, in which the instructional discourse is manifested in the content and the knowledge that is made legitimate (the “what”-aspect). The regulative discourse operates at two levels: through a relatively concrete how-perspective in the programme, and through a more general discourse of the teacher education’s role in society (Bernstein, 2000, 2003). These two concepts are imbedded in each other and operate through a common pedagogic discourse (Bernstein, 2000).

The pedagogic discourse is also connected to other concepts in Bernstein’s toolbox. In relation to the instructional discourse the concepts Trivium and Quadrivium are used in the study. Bernstein defines Trivium-knowledge as general teaching skills grounded in disciplines like sociology, psychology, pedagogy, educational science, etc. Quadrivium-knowledge is about subject knowledge related to the subjects that the future teacher will be teaching. The subject area of didactics can be viewed as a hybrid of the two other areas and has grown to be a third area of knowledge, seen as more and more important for pre-service teachers’ knowledge base.

As mentioned earlier, Bernstein (1999) highlights the pedagogic discourses related to the knowledge and competencies that a teacher has and develops throughout the teacher education programme. Knowledge associated with a horizontal discourse is identified by its practical character; it is context-dependent and based upon everyday language. Knowledge associated with a vertical discourse is, in contrast, based upon more scientific rationality, is not dependent on context, and uses a specialized syntax. Many researchers, Zeichner (2010), Beach and Bagley (2012), Hordern and Tatto (2018), Wågsås Afdal and Spernes (2018), Alvunger and Wahlström (2018), Jedemark (2019) and others, assert that knowledge associated with a vertical discourse is very important for a teacher’s knowledge base, and provides the teaching profession and individual teachers with a robust, scientific methodology and analytical abilities that help them make well-grounded decisions about teaching and education, both inside and outside the classroom.

Research on Teachers’ Knowledge Base

Since the discourse of educational competitiveness today dominates the educational discussion, both the political and the scholarly debate over teacher quality and professionalism have increased (Biesta, 2011; Hordern & Tatto, 2018; Tatto, 2006). One sees this in the various conceptualizations of teachers’ professional knowledge base, for example. One of the earlier and more well-known theoreticians is Shulman (1986), who developed the theory that teachers’ knowledge base can be defined as content knowledge, curriculum knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Shulman’s theory about teacher knowledge has later branched out in different directions (for example Deng, 2018; Hwang et al., 2018).

Bernstein (1999, 2000) offers another way of conceptualizing teachers’ knowledge base and ties these types of knowledge to the teacher education programmes, since he claims that teacher education is central to the development of teachers’ knowledge base. Winch et al. (2015), Tatto (2006) and Hordern and Tatto (2018) make use of Bernstein’s notions of vertical and horizontal discourses in their attempt to understand the development of teachers’ knowledge base. They identify three discourses – a “craft discourse”, a “technical discourse”, and a “professional endeavour discourse” – and assert that the current emphasis given to this issue by educational policy and the media above all focuses on the first two discourses. They claim that the “craft discourse” reduces teacher education programmes to the notion that pre-service teachers should primarily learn from emulating experienced teachers’ work, which clearly makes teachers’ knowledge base dependent upon context and can be understood as a horizontal, common-sense discourse (situated understanding). The “technical discourse” refers to the notion that teachers’ knowledge base should be grounded in research, but with a focus on research into “best practice” or research into “what works” in the classroom (know-how). The third conception, “professional endeavour”, combines the three aspects of knowledge: situated understanding, technical know-how and critical reflection. Based on this discourse, education programmes should strive to make teachers research literate so that they can make their own informed evaluations and decisions in complex, unforeseen pedagogical situations. This conception is also most similar to the knowledge discourse that Bernstein (1999) calls vertical discourse.

However, several recently published studies show a development which paradoxically points to the pedagogical situation having become much more complex and demanding, while at the same time the conversation about what is required of teachers and their knowledge base is more and more about a sort of managerial professionalism or technical discourse in which the teacher’s most important task seems to be teaching predetermined knowledge and competencies, thereby satisfying political goals (Ben-Peretz & Flores, 2018; Deng, 2018).

Research on Teacher Education in Sweden and Scandinavia

The current Swedish teacher education curriculum was implemented in 2011 and is a part of the larger reform of the Swedish school system that was carried out after the change in government in 2006. Earlier, Sweden was seen as a progressive nation with respect to educational issues, but after the drop in PISA results at the beginning of the century vigorous political grounds for transforming the teacher education curriculum developed (Ringarp & Waldow, 2016). In addition to specifying various categories of teacher and their respective knowledge bases, a need to strengthen subject theory content, as well as didactics and methodology, was also set out (Ministry of Education, 2008). This development is in line with the discourse of neoliberal politics (Garm & Karlsen, 2004). Reeves (2018) asserts that paradoxically we can see a development toward greater individual rationalities (allowing parents to choose schools, etc.) as well as a standardization and technification of the educational system (teacher certification, standardization, more specific knowledge requirements, standardized tests, etc.). In studies of the Swedish teacher education programmes, several researchers have asserted that the programmes have moved in a direction that limits the ways in which pre-service teachers can deal with complex situations. With regard to teachers’ responsibility for teaching democratic principles, Mooney Simmie and Edling (2018) have identified a discursive shift between 1999 and 2009 in Sweden as well as in Ireland. Their study shows that the previous teacher education programme gave students the opportunity to make ethical decisions in their navigation of a complex school environment, while today’s teacher education reform places greater focus on individuality and effectiveness, influenced by an essentialist, dualistic, and atomistic way of viewing knowledge. Studies done by Beach and Bagley (2012) as well as Nilsson Lindström and Beach (2015), show a similar development, in both Sweden and the United Kingdom. They claim that the programmes have shifted toward a more horizontal discourse with a technical, economic rationality and that the content that was previously central for the programme (Trivium) and gave students the tools to work with vertical discourses of knowledge, has now had to give way to a greater focus on subject didactic elements. Englund and Dyrdal Solbrekke (2015) also critique the paradox in the way that the teacher’s role has been highlighted as a discursive position in teacher education policy while the strict regulation of schools and teachers keeps teachers from inhabiting that position.

In a comparative study of the Norwegian profession-based programme with the Finnish research-based programme, Wågsås Afdal (2012) and Wågsås Afdal and Nerland (2014) have also highlighted the importance of a research-based teacher education programme. They assert that in a clearly profession-based programme the students find it difficult both to interpret and understand concrete practical-pedagogical situations from a more general, theoretical perspective. One way to develop this type of knowledge base is to place more focus on content, so that students can develop a critical stance to be able to understand political and pedagogical premises, and to be able to make theoretically based pedagogical decisions (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2017; Reeves, 2018; Wågsås Afdal & Spernes, 2018; Yancovic-Allen, 2018; Zeichner, 2010).

Data Collection and Analysis

This study was conducted at one of the larger teacher education institutions in Sweden and is part of a research project about pre-service primary teachers’ knowledge base (Player Koro & Sjöberg, 2018; Sjöberg, 2018a, 2018b, 2019). The empirical material for the study contains the policy texts that govern what the pre-service teachers should know upon finishing the courses and programme – that is to say, the course plans, study guides, and examination tasks. Every course and examination task, except the degree projects and the optional practical aesthetical subjects,³ in the programme are included in the study. All in all, the empirical material consists of 40-course plans and study guides and 298 examination tasks (Table 1). The empirical documents were collected during the autumn of 2014 and spring of 2015.

Table 1. The number of courses and examination assignment in the different subjects.

Subjects	Number of courses	Number of examination tasks
Swedish	5	43
English	3	26
Mathematics	4	17
Social studies	2	47
The sciences	2	21
Educational science	16	103
Placement	8	41
Total	40	298

Based on the overarching research questions and the theoretical framework, the study is designed around three analytical questions, aimed at determining what pedagogic discourses are manifested in the examination practice of the PTE-programme and what knowledge is thus shaped as legitimate. The analytical questions are directed toward (1) which forms of examination are used, (2) what content the examinations assess (content structure), and (3) what type of knowledge and competencies the student is supposed to demonstrate and how control of examination content is achieved (knowledge structures). For each analytical question, there are a number of theory-related concepts linked to codes (Table 2).

Table 2. The relations between the research questions, analytical questions, and coding of the empirical material.

Research Questions		Analytical questions		Theoretical concepts/codings
Which pedagogic discourses are constructed in the various subjects of the PTE-programme in relation to the choice of content and the form of examination?Which knowledge and competencies are legitimatized as part of a primary teacher’s professional knowledge base?	↔	1. Which forms of examinations are used in the primary teacher education to assess teacher students’ knowledge base? (Regulative discourse)	↔	Seminar examsOral examinations
				Workshops
				Creative or multimodal exams
				Excursions
				Teaching practices
				Take-home exams
				Written university exams
				Quizzes/web examinations
				Self reflections
		2. What kinds of content structures are in focus for the examinations? (Instructional discourse)	↔	Subject didactics (theoretical/practical)
				General didactics (theoretical/practical)
				Trivium
				Quadrivium/Subject knowledge
		3. What knowledge structures are constructed in the examination tasks? (Instructional & Regulative discourse)	↔	Knowledge as holistic or atomistic
				Knowledge as descriptive/normative or analytic/problematizing
				Knowledge as private or collective
				Knowledge as personal or public (or both)
				Selection of content (weak, middle, strong)

The coding and analysis of the material have been carried out with the help of the qualitative analysis tool Nvivo. Initially, all the course policy documents were examined (course plans, study guides and examination tasks) for the purpose of gaining a general idea of the content. Based upon this first stage of analysis, and on Bernstein’s theoretical toolbox, the analytical questions and codes above were formulated (Table 2).

The codes for the first analytical question about forms of examination were generated based upon which forms of examination were used to assess the pre-service teachers’ knowledge base. Forms of examination are in this way primarily a regulative part of the pedagogic discourse. In the second analytical question, which is about what content the examination questions are targeting – that is to say, content structure – the concepts Trivium and Quadrivium are used as well as four other aspects of didactical knowledge. Here the instructional part of the pedagogic discourse is in focus. Since the tasks have content that can be categorized into different fields, for those cases several codes have been used. The didactic content is divided into subject didactics and general didactics, and whether the content has a theoretical or a practical focus (Table 2).

In the analyses of the exam questions knowledge structure, the third analytical question, particular attention has been directed at both the instructional and the regulative part of the pedagogic discourse. In this part of the analysis, the following aspects has been examined: (1) whether the task focuses on a holistic or atomistic content, (2) whether the task requires that the pre-service teachers demonstrate analytical abilities or if the assignment is of a descriptive/normative sort, (3) whether the task requires cooperation (collective) or individual knowledge (private), (4) whether the knowledge presented should be based upon one’s own experience (personal) or from other established knowledge (public) or a combination of one’s own and others’ knowledge and experience (public and personal), and finally (5) whether the pre-service teachers have the opportunity to determine the content of the task themselves or the content is clearly established by the teacher educators (selection of content).

When all the material was coded in Nvivo, a third stage of analysis was performed. At this stage, the scope of the various codes was examined. This was done as an overall analysis, but also with the aim to see the various subjects related to the pedagogic discourses. The possible connections found in the empirical material have been analysed statistically with the help of a cross-tabulation test (multiple group-chi2-test or contingency table test) to determine whether there are systematic and significant differences between the examination practices for various subjects (Djurfeldt et al., 2009). The significance tests were done within each category (for instance, whether the tasks tested analytical ability), as well as within the entire analytical question (for instance, knowledge structures). Significance levels are shown in the presentation of results and the p-value *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0005.

Results

The results of the study begin with a general description of the pedagogic discourses in the programme. These become apparent in the way that knowledge is examined (forms of examination), in the targeted content of the examination tasks (content structures) and in the knowledge structures manifested in the examination tasks (knowledge structures). Following this general presentation of results, there is an account of the pedagogic discourses in each subject.

Forms of Examination – a Regulative Part of the Pedagogic Discourse

For the most part, pre-service students’ knowledge base is assessed by seminars (41%) and take-home exams (26%). Otherwise, there is a large variation in the form of exams, such as oral presentations (8%), written university exams (6%), teaching exercises (6%), self reflections (4%), workshops (3%), creative and multimodal tasks (3%), excursions (1%) and quizzes/web examinations (1%) (Table 3).

Table 3. Forms of examination as a regulative part of pedagogic discourse.

	Swedish	Percentage	English	Percentage	Mathematics	Percentage	Social studies	Percentage	Sciences	Percentage	Educational science	Percentage	Placement	Percentage	Total	Percentage	Chi-square
Quizzes/web examinations	1	2%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	3	14%	0	0%	0	0%	4	1%	29.66
Excursions	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	2	4%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	2	1%	10.68
Teaching exercises	0	0%	0	0%	2	12%	0	0%	2	10%	0	0%	15	37%	19	6%	73.75
Creative or multimodale tasks	2	5%	0	0%	1	6%	1	2%	1	5%	4	4%	0	0%	9	3%	3.45
Take-home exams	13	30%	16	62%	2	12%	21	45%	7	33%	15	15%	3	7%	77	26%	31.87
Oral exams	5	12%	4	15%	3	18%	2	4%	0	0%	7	7%	2	5%	23	8%	7.90
Written university exams	1	2%	3	12%	7	41%	0	0%	4	19%	4	4%	0	0%	19	6%	46.39
Seminars	15	35%	3	12%	2	12%	21	45%	4	19%	70	68%	8	20%	123	41%	34.70
Self reflections	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	13	32%	13	4%	81.49
Workshops	6	14%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	3	3%	0	0%	9	3%	21.61
Total	43	100%	26	100%	17	100%	47	100%	21	100%	103	100%	41	100%	298	100%	341.51

The results also show that there is a large variation between subjects with respect to the way the pre-service teachers are examined; in some subjects the seminar form is the clearly dominant tradition (educational science 68%,⁴ social studies 45%),**** while in other subjects the take-home exam are mostly used as the most relevant way to assess the knowledge (English 62%, social studies 45%).**** Written university exams are an unusual form of examination on the PTE-programme, but they are used more often in mathematic courses (41%), the sciences (19%) and in English courses (12%).**** One type of examination that is only used during student placement is self reflections (32%).**** In these examination tasks, the pre-service teachers are to reflect upon their role as a teacher and the way their professional identity has developed. Except during placement (37%), the assignments focusing teaching activities are in maths (12%) and the sciences (10%) **** only. Swedish differs from other subjects in its use of workshops (14%), which are otherwise only found in educational science (3%).** Similarly, quizzes and web examinations are only found in the sciences (14%) and Swedish (2%)**** and excursions are only found in social studies (4%) (no significance). The results thus indicate that there is a significant difference between examination traditions in the various subjects in terms of which form is considered appropriate for assessing pre-service teachers’ knowledge and competencies.**** This is the case for the entire collection of data as well as for each form of examination category.

Content Structures – an Instructional Part of the Pedagogic Discourse

The content that is assessed in examinations, content structures, is most often knowledge of subject didactics. In total, more than half (54%) of all examinations have a subject didactics feature. Moreover, approximately one quarter of all examinations (24%) have a general didactics feature. Hence, what is most often assessed on the programme is the pre-service teachers’ didactic knowledge base. Furthermore, the results show that in total 34% of examination tasks are of a practical, concrete nature. The practical tasks occur primarily in subject didactics (25%). Quadrivium-knowledge – subject knowledge – is assessed in 8% of the examinations and Trivium-knowledge – knowledge that is not primarily about teaching – is assessed in 13% of examinations (Table 4).

Table 4. Content structures, as an instructional part of pedagogic discourse.

	Swedish	Percentage	English	Percentage	Mathematics	Percentage	Social studies	Percentage	Sciences	Percentage	Educational science	Percentage	Placement	Percentage	Total	Percentage	Chi-square
General didactics – practical	1	2%	2	5%	1	4%	0	0%	0	0%	10	7%	34	32%	48	9%	75.02
General didactics – theoretical	2	3%	0	0%	0	0%	1	1%	0	0%	58	41%	15	14%	76	15%	95.43
Total general didactics		5%		5%		4%		1%		0%		48%		46%		24%
Subject didactics – practical	23	34%	16	37%	7	25%	30	34%	7	23%	5	3%	39	36%	127	25%	39.60
Subject didactics – theoretical	33	49%	18	42%	11	39%	44	50%	11	37%	11	8%	19	18%	147	29%	53.47
Total subject didactics		82%		79%		64%		84%		60%		11%		54%		54%
Trivium	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	8	9%	0	0%	59	41%	0	0%	67	13%	122.71
Quadrivium – subject knowledge	9	13%	7	16%	9	32%	5	6%	12	40%	0	0%	0	0%	42	8%	82.43
Total	68	100%	43	100%	28	100%	88	100%	30	100%	143	100%	107	100%	507	100%	468.66

The subjects differ in terms of content structures as well. The educational science, as well as placement, have unsurprisingly a much larger percentage of exams that target general didactics (48% and 46% respectively) compared to the teaching subjects (Swedish, English, mathematics, the sciences and social studies).**** Knowledge in subject didactics is also much more commonly assessed in placement courses, where more than half of all examinations contain subject didactic elements (54%). As described above, the Quadrivium elements of the programme are limited. These elements are, however, quite common in the sciences and mathematics (40% and 32% respectively). ****The subject that has the least proportion of Quadrivium elements is social studies (6%). Social studies courses place a greater focus on subject didactics instead (84%). Furthermore, social studies is the only subject that has any Trivium features (9%). Trivium-knowledge is otherwise only found in the educational science (41%)****.

Knowledge Structures – Instructional and Regulative Parts of the Pedagogic Discourse

Regarding the knowledge structure in the examination tasks, three aspects were studied: the way content was structured in tasks, what kinds of knowledge and competencies the pre-service teacher was supposed to exhibit, and how the content of the responses to exam questions was controlled. Analysis of the programme shows that the exam questions pre-service teachers are given are primarily of a holistic nature (94%). Quite a large portion of the tasks were of a descriptive or normative kind (74%). In only a little more than one quarter of the tasks (26%) were the pre-service teachers asked to analyse and/or problematize content. Most often, examination tasks require that the pre-service teachers work together in some way while doing the assignment (collective, 67%) showing a cooperative rationality. They were to make use of established knowledge as well as their own experiences in more than half of the tasks (53%). In one-tenth of the tasks they were only to make use of already established knowledge, while 37% of the tasks were mainly based on the students’ experiences. Regarding assessment, in 23% of exams pre-service teachers are not given much freedom to choose content of their response, and in 35% there is a little room for choice. In 42% of all examination tasks, pre-service teachers are given considerable freedom to influence what knowledge of the subject they want to display for assessment (Table 5).

Table 5. Knowledge structures, as the instructional and regulative part of the pedagogic discourse.

	Swedish	Percentage	English	Percentage	Mathematics	Percentage	Social studies	Percentage	Sciences	Percentage	Educational science	Percentage	Placement	Percentage	Total	Percentage	Chi-square
Holistic	39	91%	23	88%	14	82%	47	100%	15	71%	101	98%	41	100%	280	94%	2.36
Atomistic	4	9%	3	12%	3	18%	0	0%	6	29%	2	2%	0	0%	18	6%	34.91
Total	43	100%	26	100%	17	100%	47	100%	21	100%	103	100%	41	100%	298	100%	50.45
Descriptive /normative	37	86%	24	92%	15	88%	26	55%	20	95%	59	57%	40	98%	221	74%	12.99
Analytic	6	14%	2	8%	2	12%	21	45%	1	5%	44	43%	1	2%	77	26%	37.46
Total	43	100%	26	100%	17	100%	47	100%	21	100%	103	100%	41	100%	298	100%	50.45
Collective	31	72%	10	38%	10	59%	31	66%	8	38%	78	76%	31	76%	199	67%	20.08
Private	12	28%	16	62%	7	41%	16	34%	13	62%	25	24%	10	24%	99	33%	10.37
Total	43	100%	26	100%	17	100%	47	100%	21	100%	103	100%	41	100%	298	100%	30.45
Personal & public	26	60%	17	65%	9	53%	27	57%	10	48%	67	65%	2	5%	158	53%	49.63
Personal	14	33%	6	23%	3	18%	18	38%	3	14%	28	27%	38	93%	110	37%	60.69
Public	3	7%	3	12%	5	29%	2	4%	8	38%	8	8%	1	2%	30	10%	28.00
Total	43	100%	26	100%	17	100%	47	100%	21	100%	103	100%	41	100%	298	100%	138.32
Selection of content
Middle	20	47%	12	46%	5	29%	15	32%	6	29%	41	40%	6	15%	105	35%	8.46
Strong	9	21%	4	15%	9	53%	12	26%	8	38%	27	26%	0	0%	69	23%	19.63
Weak	14	33%	10	38%	3	18%	20	43%	7	33%	35	34%	35	85%	124	42%	23.45
Total	43	100%	26	100%	17	100%	47	100%	21	100%	103	100%	41	100%	298	100%	51.54

Also, with regard to knowledge structures, there are differences in content between subjects. Despite the fact that atomistic knowledge is seldom called for, it can be found in the tasks in some subjects. In science courses 29% of the assignments call for atomistic knowledge, in mathematics 18%, and in English and Swedish 12% and 9% respectively.⁵ **** Analytical ability and problematizing are also found to a somewhat greater extent in certain subjects like social studies (45%) and educational science (43%). **** In the sciences only 5% of assignment call for pre-service teachers to analyse or problematize their answers, and during placement, they are asked to analyse or problematize upon their teaching and its outcomes in 2% of the tasks. Exams in the sciences (95%), English (92%), mathematics (88%) and Swedish (86%) are also characterized by descriptive and/or normative approaches. It is also in science and English courses that the forms of examination used call for the most individual work (both subjects, 62%).* In Swedish (72%), social studies (66%) and mathematics (59%), as well as in the educational science (76%) and placement (76%), the dominating examination tasks call for cooperation of some sort instead.* Furthermore, the subjects differ with regard to whether pre-service teachers are primarily supposed to make use of established knowledge, basing their answers on their own ideas/experience or explicitly stating that their answers should combine others’ theories with their own experience. The sciences and mathematics are the subjects that most often make use of established knowledge in exam questions (38% and 29% respectively), while social studies and Swedish exams (38% and 33% respectively) call for pre-service teachers to write about their own experience without clearly linking it to established theories.**** With regard to the choice of exam content, mathematics and the sciences differ in that they call for specific content to a greater degree (53% and 38% respectively).** Placement is the subject in which pre-service teachers have the most freedom to influence exam content (85%) followed by social studies (43%) and English (38%).***

Pedagogic Discourses in the Various Subjects

In the final section of the results, the character of each subject is summarized.

Swedish

Swedish is characterized by an oral and creative examination culture, in which examination forms such as seminars, workshops, and oral presentations dominate (35%, 14% and 12% respectively of the subject’s exams).⁶ The content of the examinations targets subject didactics (82%) and only a few of the tasks touch on subject knowledge (13%). Regarding knowledge structures, there is a high degree of holistic (91%) and normative tasks (86%), and tasks that are to be done collectively in groups or pairs (72%).

English

The subject of English has a tradition of written examination tasks, in which take-home exams dominate, but written exams taken on campus are also comparatively common (62% and 12% respectively). Oral elements are often in the form of oral presentations (15%), while seminar examinations are uncommon compared with the other subjects (12%). English has a substantial subject didactic focus (79%) and only 16% of examinations target the pre-service teachers’ own knowledge (Quadrivium). Regarding knowledge structures, the subject has strong normative features (92%) and students write their examination tasks individually (62%). Even when holistic tasks dominate, English is one of the subjects that has the most atomistic exam elements compared to the other subjects (12%).

Mathematics

The forms of examination used in the subject of mathematics are primarily written exams taken on campus (41%), but oral presentations (18%) and teaching exercises (12%) are used more often compared to examination tasks in other subjects. On the other hand, seminars (12%) and take-home exams (12%) are relatively uncommon in comparison with the other subjects. As in other teaching subjects, the content targets subject didactics (64%), but Quadrivium-oriented knowledge are more examined compared to most other subjects (32%). Regarding knowledge structures, tasks often involve a higher percentage of atomistic tasks (18%), are often normative/descriptive (88%), feature individual work (41%) and are more often than average task based upon established theories (29%). Math examinations do not often allow pre-service teachers to choose the content of their response (53%).

Social Studies

The forms of examination in the teaching subject of social studies are seminars (45%) and take-home exams (45%); that is to say, the subject has a mix between oral and written cultures. Social studies is the only subject that makes use of excursions as a form of examination (4%). With regard to content structures the examinations target subject didactic content (84%). Compared with the other subjects, social studies exams contain the most Trivium-knowledge (9%) and the least Quadrivium knowledge (6%). It is also the teaching subject that encourages pre-service teachers to demonstrate their analytical and problematizing competence the most (45%). All the exam questions are also of a holistic nature. Pre-service teachers are also given relatively extensive opportunities to influence the content of their responses to the exam questions (43%).

The Sciences

The sciences are dominated by a written examination culture with take-home exams (33%), written exams that are taken on campus (19%), and quizzes/web-examinations (14%) being the most common forms of examination. In comparison with other subjects the examination tasks target to a much greater extent Quadrivium-knowledge (40%), which involves a somewhat lower proportion of didactic tasks (60%). The subject also stands out in terms of knowledge structures, since exams are often atomistic (29%), have a descriptive/normative nature (95%), are written individually (62%) and are based on material taken from already established knowledge (38%) and the pre-service teachers have little choice in the content of their responses (38%).

Educational Science

In the educational science seminars are the most commonly occurring form of examination (68%), while take-home exams are not given to the same extent as in other subjects (15%). Educational science is therefore defined by an oral tradition. In the subject area of educational science, examinations target pre-service teachers’ knowledge of general didactics (48%) and Trivium-knowledge (41%). Regarding knowledge structure, tasks are more often holistic (98%), and students’ analytical and problematizing abilities are tested more often than average (43%), require cooperation (76%) and call for students to process existing theories (65%). Regarding the possibility of choosing the content of their responses to exam questions, educational science tasks are somewhat less likely to allow pre-service teachers to determine content themselves (34%).

Placement

In placement, teaching exercises are common (37%), as is self-reflection (32%), while examinations that are often used in other subjects occur more seldom (seminars 20%, take-home exams 7% and written campus exams 0%). All of the examination tasks target content of didactic knowledge with a little more of subject didactics (54%) compared to knowledge of general didactics (46%). Regarding knowledge structures, all of the tasks are holistic (100%), almost all of the tasks are of a normative/descriptive character (98%) and many require cooperation (76%). The examinations given during placement are also the ones in which pre-service teachers are mostly supposed to base their responses upon their own experience (93%) and they can often choose the content of their responses (85%).

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine the pedagogic discourses in and through the examination practice on the PTE-programme and which knowledge and competencies are legitimized as part of a pre-service primary teacher’s knowledge base. Particular attention has been given to the relation between the various subjects and the pedagogic discourses generated in the subjects.

The result shows that subjects within the programme have quite different pedagogic discourses, instructional as well as regulative, which in turn participate in the development of the pre-service primary teacher’s knowledge base.

The results show, regarding the regulative discourse and examination forms, that the various subjects have different cultures with regard to oral and written traditions and the way they examine students. The subjects of English, mathematics and the sciences exhibit a written examination culture, whereas Swedish and educational science have an oral culture. In English and the sciences, the written culture is supplemented by an individual rationality, as the examinations assignments are more often written individually.

Regarding the instructional discourse and the content structure, the focus on subject didactics is generally very strong on the programme, but especially strong in placement and the subjects of Swedish, social studies, and English, where approximately four of five examination tasks focus on subject didactics, and where about one third of the tasks are of a practical nature. The examination of placement is composed of didactic tasks only. Few of the tasks place any focus on subject knowledge, except in the sciences and mathematics, where 30-40% of the tasks target pre-service teachers’ subject knowledge. It seems then that teacher educators expect their students to have the subject knowledge required before they begin the teacher education programme.

Finally, and regarding knowledge structure (concerning both instructional and regulative discourse) it is notable that the results show that pre-service teachers have a considerable amount of freedom to choose what they themselves want to present in their responses to the examination tasks. One effect of this is that students can choose the area in which they have the most knowledge and avoid content that they feel is more difficult. Furthermore, the descriptive and/or normative weighting of examination tasks should be noted. In only about one-quarter of the tasks was it clear that students were expected to analyse and/or problematize the content they were presenting. It is also primarily in the areas of educational science and social studies that these demands are made upon the pre-service teachers. Instead, they are expected to apply theories – often didactic theory – to plan lessons or otherwise show that they have mastered the content of theories. Finally, pre-service teachers quite often are asked to primarily base the examination tasks on their own experience. This is most common in the placement. The result of this study is in line with research results by, for example, Beach and Bagley (2012), Nilsson Lindström and Beach (2015) and Mooney Simmie and Edling (2018), showing how teacher education has developed towards a technical, economic rationality and the discourse of neo-liberal politics (Garm & Karlsen, 2004; Reeves, 2018).

To conclude, I, therefore, return to Bernstein’s notions of horizontal and vertical discourses (Bernstein, 1999, 2000) and the discourses shown in studies done by Winch et al. (2015), Tatto (2006) and Hordern and Tatto (2018) of teachers’ knowledge base. These scholars have in earlier studies asserted that the discourses that form teachers’ knowledge base are a “craft discourse”, a “technical discourse”, and a “professional endeavour discourse”, in which the political and medial focus lies in the first two discourses. The results of this study show that Swedish pre-service primary teachers’ knowledge base is primarily shaped by a craft or technical discourse. I base this statement on the amount of practical didactical tasks (34%), few Trivium tasks (13%), the lack of analysing/problematizing tasks (26%), together with the fact that students quite often can decide the content by themselves (42%) and base their tasks on own experience (37%). The results also show that various elements of the programme participate in different pedagogic discourses, where the educational science is the subject whose content is most characterized by a vertical discourse or a professional endeavour discourse and where placement is the area that features mostly a horizontal craft discourse. The examination practice of other teaching subjects participates in a technical discourse, where social studies is more of a vertical, professional endeavour discourse (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Pedagogic discourses present in subjects as they relate to theories and conceptions about teachers’ professional knowledge base (Bernstein, 1999, 2000; Winch et al., 2015; Tatto, 2006; Hordern & Tatto, 2018).

It is in many ways problematic that placement mostly participates in a craft discourse and sparsely in a professional endeavour discourse. From experience, pre-service teachers often experience placement as where they learn both how to teach and experience the “teaching reality” (cf. Jedemark, 2019). Based upon that, it is likely to be the pedagogic discourse connected to placement that above all shape the pre-service teachers’ knowledge base. In this way they will, among other things, have more difficulty understanding the need for analytical abilities in the complex teaching profession. This ability is very important today when the demands upon teachers are becoming more and more similar to managerial professionalism, and where responsibility lies primarily in the pupils’ already being acquainted with the goals set down by politicians (Ben-Peretz & Flores, 2018; Deng, 2018).

One question that emerges from the results of this study that could be studied further is the relation between the pedagogic discourses in teacher education subjects on the programme related to the pedagogic discourses in the compulsory school. One question I ask myself is how the pre-service teachers deal with the discourses they encountered in the education programmes when they become practicing teachers.

Finally, based on these and other scholars’ findings (Bernstein, 1999; Hordern & Tatto, 2018; Tatto, 2006; Winch et al., 2015), an important implication of this study is that much more effort has to be done in and in relation to the PTE to develop the pre-service teachers towards a vertical professional endeavour discourse. It requires reflections and problematizations of the pedagogic discourses in the programme, and in the various subjects, to give pre-service teachers the knowledge and resources they need to navigate in complex teaching practices. In the local context, this can be done at each individual university by developing both the teaching and examination practices in the various subjects in such a way that they have more analytical and problematizing content and the teacher educator has more relevant control over the examined content. This is most important in placement, since the horizontal craft discourses are the strongest in that subject. It is also important to develop a more coherent primary teacher education, in which the teacher educators within the different subjects can share reflections and ideas for development of the programme with each other. In the national context, vigorous efforts have to be made too. Firstly, the detailed regulation of the teacher education programme regarding the number of learning outcomes, the focus on didactics, classroom methodology and so on, must decrease. Secondly, future policy actions within teacher education must be based on educational research, and finally, financial resources must be in line with the requirements that are set down in terms of the content and execution of the teacher education programmes.

Disclosure Statement

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

Notes

1 This research project examines the PTE-specializations for K-3 and 4-6. The PTE-programme for youth leisure centers is not included since it has a somewhat different history compared to the other two specializations, which are more classroom oriented.

2 The degree projects are not included in the study, since they are not linked to any subject. The student chooses which subject to write their two degree projects in (total 30 credit points).

3 In those subjects the empirical policy material wasn’t available at the university.

4 The percentages that are presented are a percentage of the forms of examination in the different subjects. 68% of the examinations in educational science are in the form of seminars.

5 Examination tasks coded as atomistic are questions that ask for detailed facts, such as the names of elements in the sciences or specific questions about grammar in English.

6 All of the percentages below refer to the percentage of examination tasks in that subject.