Boys’ socialisation and agency in a Swedish special educational needs unit

ABSTRACT

The overall aim of this article is to analyse how a school’s special needs unit in Sweden deals with children’s agency and category work as they negotiate and categorise the problems that are encountered there. The data derive from an ethnographic study conducted in a Swedish special educational needs unit (SENU) attended by a group of five boys aged between 7 and 12. The results show that the teachers’ categorisations of the boys’ emotional and behaviour problems and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) could be interpreted as an attempt to guide the boys’ development so that they will change and improve. Conversely, from the boys’ perspectives, the daily activities in the SENU could themselves be problematic in that the boys are obliged to adopt several different strategies to control and strengthen their identity. These observations highlight the importance of detailed analyses of the boys’ communicative activities during their interactions with teachers and peers.

KEYWORDS:

• Special education
• behavioural difficulties
• ADHD
• regulative talk
• categories
• socialisation

Introduction

Like many other countries, Sweden aims to include all children within regular education (Nilholm and Göransson 2013; UNESCO 2017). The Swedish National Education Act states that educational inclusion is important regardless of a child’s social background, geographical location, disability, behavioural difficulties, psychosocial problems or mental illness (SFS 1985:1100; SFS 2010: 800). Despite this strong political commitment to equal educational opportunities, there have always been groups of children who do not have the same access to education as the rest of society. Differentiating and segregating children into different categories and groups remain central in the national school system (Giota and Emanuelsson 2016). The school can play a significant role in defining children who are regarded as having behavioural difficulties and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) at school (Hjörne and Evaldsson 2015) and who for this reason cannot be accommodated in Sweden’s regular primary education system.

Figure 1. Seating arrangement during the regulative talk ‘smile’.

The boys in this study are described as having ‘difficulty concentrating’, as ‘finding it difficult to remain attentive’ and as having ‘anxiety’ or ‘depression’. These definitions, and the ways in which they are used to organise pupils at the school, are part of a marginalisation process that the pupils have to constantly cope with, given that it occurs daily at the special educational needs unit (SENU).

The strategies and opportunities that pupils in a SENU in Sweden make use of to negotiate their school’s disconcerting and negative descriptions and definitions of them in a regulative activity are analysed. Here, the focus is on how these strategies can be observed and described in a talk-in-interaction context during one special education activity.

The three following specified research questions are asked: (i) How is the pedagogic activity of regulative talk organised? (ii) How do the boys participate in the regulative talk? and (iii) How do the boys respond to their teachers’ initiatives during the regulative talk? This activity offers a particularly interesting perspective on how the boys in the SENU perform category work by rejecting or negotiating the teachers’ descriptions and categorisations, which in the main are focused on the boys’ deficiencies with the intention of remedying their emotions and behaviour.

The Swedish education system and special needs units

An estimated 17–20% of all pupils in the ordinary comprehensive school system in Sweden are defined as having special educational needs (SEN) and thus require special support (Giota and Emanuelsson 2011). The reasons for being defined as having SEN vary although pupils who are at risk of not achieving the expected educational targets in one or more subjects, and those who have behavioural difficulties, ADHD and autism, are most likely to be given additional support (Andreasson 2007). One form of SEN support for pupils with behavioural difficulties, ADHD and autism in Sweden is placement into special needs units (SFS 1985:1100 ; SFS 2010:800; SNAE 2014). Separating SEN pupils from other pupils is deemed best in order to provide them with the educational support they require. According to self-reported data, each Swedish municipality has about four SENUs, in which pupils regarded as having SEN spend more than 50% of their time. Thus, it seems likely that the existence and use of these SENUs are underreported (Göransson, Nilholm, and Karlsson 2011). The prevalence of SENUs is remarkable considering the stipulations of the Education Act (SFS 1985:1100 ; SFS 2010:800) that organisational solutions in the form of SENUs should be avoided whenever possible within the comprehensive school system.

Disadvantaged children, behavioural problems and categorisations in school

In recent decades, many researchers have highlighted critical perspectives on the labelling and medicalisation of children’s learning and behavioural problems at school and the individualisation of social problems (Conrad 1976/2006). Current there is a worldwide upsurge in childhood mental illness, with significant increases in the numbers of children being categorised and diagnosed with mental disorders, such as ADHD, and medicated for these conditions. This implies explaining school failure and excluding pupils from mainstream classrooms (Hjörne and Säljö 2014; Meerman et al. 2017; Mehan 2014; Slee 2013; Timimi 2017). In Sweden 5–12% of children in school are estimated to ‘have’ ADHD, and this phenomenon is increasing (National Board of Health and Welfare 2012).

Timimi (2017) emphasises that the medicalisation of school difficulties and that diagnoses such as ADHD explain children’s behaviours risk obscuring other school and life situations that may influence the development of ADHD behaviours for some children. This comprises distress, lack of sleep, living in a vulnerable life situation, witnessing domestic violence, sexual abuse, struggling with academic demands in school and so on (see also Allan and Harwood 2014; Meerman et al. 2017).

Further, the enhanced individualisation and medicalisation of pupils’ learning, behaviour and social acts may increase schools’ and teachers’ focus on children’s deficiencies, problems and negative behaviours. This might undermine considerations of children’s health and wellbeing, emotional states, positive behaviours and social acts. This entails understanding children’s emotions, competencies and strengths and their interactions with teachers and peers in the everyday context in school (Timimi 2017).

There are also gender issues in relation to children with emotional and/or behavioural difficulties and ADHD. Most of the children who are defined as having behavioural problems and ADHD are boys from socially disadvantaged backgrounds (Allan and Harwood 2014; Gillberg 2013). More boys than girls are excluded from mainstream classes, and a majority of these boys are designated as having ‘social and emotional difficulties’ and ‘acting out problems’ (Evaldsson and Karlsson 2012). These boys also generally obtain lower grades and are more likely to experience failure at school and tend to remain in marginalised positions throughout school and later in life (Graham, Van Bergen, and Sweller 2016; Slee 2013). Unambiguously, both the government and research highlight that a qualitatively functioning day at school, with learning and supportive relationships in place with both teachers and peers, is very important for vulnerable children’s achievements at school and in the future (Mautone, Lefler, and Power 2011; Straussner 2011; National Board of Health and Welfare 2010). In line with this research, most of the boys in this study live in vulnerable family situations and have experienced violence and disadvantaged environments. According to research as well as the government, it is important to highlight these pupils’ situations and everyday life in school.

Previous research on schools’ local social processes for describing and categorising children’s social, emotional and behavioural problems and ADHD has shown that teachers invoke and define limits for deviant and desirable behaviour amongst boys in their everyday practices. This results in the confirmation of identities, such as having ‘social and emotional difficulties’, ‘acting out behaviour’ and ADHD, which in turn leads to children with such identities being defined as ‘pupils with deficiencies’ and ‘pupils who fail’. These definitions are then solidified in the local social processes that are embedded in a school’s activities. Social categorisations during interaction simultaneously define and construct a person’s identity as a member of a specific social group and are thus resources for organisational activities (Hjörne and Evaldsson 2015; Mehan 2014).

Children’s socialisation and communicative agency in interactions

In contrast to an individualistic perspective, childhood sociology is used to analyse children’s competence as communicative agency. Childhood sociology emphasises that children’s social relations and interactions are inherently worth studying in addition to adults’ definitions of them. Agency relates to children as active meaning-making participants, who understand their experiences and are able to reflect on and interpret their social world during interaction. Thus children use, construct and reproduce the knowledge and information that is gleaned in their experiences of adult relations and culture. Further, agency concerns children’s capacity to be attentive in the midst of interactions and recognise the possibility to intervene in, and transform the meaning of, social situations. As such, they constantly strive for and contribute to changes in the routines, rules and normalities of everyday practices (see Corsaro 2005).

There is little known about agency in relation to pupils categorised as having emotional behavioural difficulties and/or ADHD in SENUs. Although, in the school context pupils’ agency has been studied empirically in ordinary science classrooms to make science education meaningful and relevant. Rajala et al.’s (2016) results show that pupils’ agency is promoted when teachers provide space for negotiations in discussions in a third-grade classroom. In contrast, teachers also supressed and silenced pupils’ opposition in interactions. Siry, Wilmes, and Haus (2016) point out that flexible and open-ended activities can support pupils’ agency and the elicitation of children’s questions and ideas in the learning process. Simultaneously this process promotes change in the pupils’ engagement with the task.

In this study agency is related to a pupil’s potential to take initiative and to choose opportunities for active interventions in SENU practices and interactions. This includes the ability to reject, comment on, modify and negotiate, within limits, reactions that are situationally expected or forced onto the participant.

Children’s category work in interaction

Sacks’s (1995) Membership Categorisation Analysis (MCA) is used to understand how identities are accomplished in institutional interactions. How boys perform category work by rejecting or negotiating membership within a specific social identity group (e.g. social and emotional deficiencies, behavioural problems and ADHD) that may have been attributed to them during talk-in-interaction is also analysed. The children’s strategies for performing category work are examined as well as they participate in and respond to the social processes that their school uses to define them as having behavioural and educational deficiencies. MCA demonstrates how ‘category work’ is negotiated in morally accountable ways (see Jayyusi 1984). According to Antaki and Widdicombe (1998), a person’s identity is his or her display of, ascription to or rejection of membership within a feature-rich category. Any individual can be regarded as fitting into a number of categories. Schools’ and teachers’ processes for categorising pupils as having educational difficulties, behavioural deficiencies and ADHD may also present unfavourable inferences for boys to whom the category is directly or indirectly applied. Day (1998) emphasises that individuals can function as active agents by indirectly and subtly resisting undesirable categorisations during talk-in-interaction. Individuals who perceive themselves as being categorised by others in a negative way perform category work during such interactions by resisting these descriptions. This category work can be zealous and direct or subtle and indirect.

Methodological considerations and the data

As already indicated, this study aims to explore and identify children’s communicative agency and category work during regulative talk at a SENU in Sweden. During interactions with the boys at the SENU, the teachers do not explicitly describe the boys as having social and emotional difficulties, behavioural problems and ADHD (see Evaldsson 2014). Instead, they use descriptions (e.g. being angry, using dirty words, exaggerating, whining) as resources for organising social activities (e.g. praise, blame, accountability) that refer to the construction of the pupils as having social and emotional deficiencies, behavioural problems and ADHD. In this study, the ethnographic analysis of the educational setting, including spatial arrangements, is central to understanding how the categorisations attributed to the boys at the SENU are contextually embedded within institutional practice and how the boys respond by doing category work.

The research data include video recordings to identify and explore the children’s communicative agency and category work in detail during the pedagogic practices. This facilitates the study of the local social processes that occur amongst the five boys as they respond to their school’s negative and disconcerting descriptions in the SENU practice. The video recordings of everyday activities also facilitate the identification and understanding of the meanings that the boys ascribe to social categories, identities, values, norms and relations (Corsaro 2005). The video recordings further facilitate the observation of non-verbal communicative resources, such as gestures, gazes and body positions, such as someone turning away or bowing their head as a ‘quiet’ response. In corroboration of Duranti’s (1997) work, it is noted that the participants remain engaged in their everyday social activities and use the same communicative resources despite the presence of the researcher and video camera.

The data derive from an ethnographic study conducted in a Swedish SENU attended by a group of five boys, aged between 7 and 12. The boys are from exposed residential areas with low socioeconomic status, social disadvantage and crime. According to the teachers, the boys live in vulnerable family situations, characterised by the presence of unemployment, substance abuse, mental disorders and violence. Most of the boys have traumatic experiences of violence in their family situations. At school the boys are defined as having social, emotional and behavioural difficulties and ADHD and being in need of full-time special support in a SENU.

The boys had been removed from their ordinary classes and regular school activities with other pupils due to their disruptive behaviour. They participated full-time in separate educational and social activities conducted in a building located on the periphery of the school property. Each boy had spent between eight months and three years in the unit. The present study formally met the ethical requirements of the Swedish Research Council (2011) and its ethical considerations and reflections, especially those concerning informed consent. The unequal power relations between the adult researcher and the children were continuously taken into consideration throughout the entire research process. Four female teachers with different professional backgrounds (a special needs education teacher, a leisure-time pedagogue, a youth recreation leader and a child minder) were responsible for the boys’ education. The boys were assigned to the unit because they were classified as having emotional and social deficiencies, behavioural problems and ADHD, which identified them as different and as ‘needing remedial help’. According to Hester (1998, 142), the category ‘remedial’ implies various predicators, including the need for help, falling behind in a subject etc., which ascribe incompetence to the categorised individuals. The school’s categorisation of each individual boy as needing remedial help has been both acknowledged and interpreted in the daily school activities over a long period of time.

It is necessary to state the narrow scope and methodological limitations of the current study. It has a small sample, and the presence of a researcher during lessons in the SENU may potentially affect the outcome. Further research on other such units would be both advisable and beneficial.

Results

The organisation of the pedagogic regulative talk activity occurs at the end of every school day. The activity is called ‘smile’ and involves the teachers evaluating how the boys have behaved during the school day based on the boys’ answers to their questions. The ‘smile’ activity focuses on the pupils’ problematic behaviour and is performed in a specific physical space in a classroom that is only used for this activity. During the regulative talk the pupils sit on chairs arranged in a semi-circle in front of a wall (Figure 1). Each pupil is assigned a map, which is placed on the left-hand section of the wall, on which they paste their smiley stickers. In this way, the deficiencies attributed to each individual boy become a public matter for the group as a whole. During the activity, the teachers either stand behind or beside the pupils.

The seating arrangement (in which the pupils sit facing the wall) positions the boys as subordinate to the teacher, while the teacher, who stands behind or beside the children and monitors their activities, assumes a position of power. The teachers routinely evaluate the boys’ problematic behaviour by means of talk-in-interaction (see Hester 1998). Only those pupils who have managed to remedy their emotional, behavioural and social deficiencies are rewarded with a smiley sticker.

In the ‘smile’ activity the teachers ask questions about the pupils’ behaviour during the day. The ‘smile’ activity lasts for 25 minutes and focuses on aspects of the pupils’ behaviour that are considered problematic. During the activity the pupils are reminded about four or five problematic situations/occasions identified by the teachers at a conference held at the start of the school term. The predefined problematic behaviour is documented in written form at this conference, and the record is used to structure the activity (Example 1).

Table

To get a ‘smiley’ sticker you have to:
Anton * Control your anger. * Do not say no. * No exaggerating. * Do not make mistakes even if your friends are doing the wrong things.
Jesper * Did you do your homework? * Finish your school tasks. * Listen to adults and obey. * Do not pull faces.
Marcus * Talk nicely. * No dirty words. * No complaining. * Confess when you make mistakes. * Do not tease.
Oskar * Do not correct others. * Do not say dirty words. * Do not exaggerate. * Tell and explain what you want. * Leave the room when told to do that.
Tom * Leave the room when you get disturbed. * Do not say ‘what’. * No unpleasant tone. * Take off your jacket and cap before you enter the room, and be attentive to the social situation. * Eat all the food you have put on your plate.

In the written record, the teachers categorise what they identify as pupils’ problematic behaviour together with the characteristics of the behaviour, interactions and relations with adults and peers at the school. Much of the behaviour relates to social/school norms for interaction and emotions, such as what the pupils did or said and their responses during the interactions. Jesper is an exception in that he is expected to do his schoolwork. This can be interpreted as the other pupils are not expected to do their schoolwork. The problematic behaviour is associated with a specific pupil and demonstrates the individualisation of the problems experienced at school. The school has determined that the boys need remedial help to manage their social, emotional and behavioural problems.

The ‘smile’ activity is also controlled by the teachers’ questions. The teachers lead the activity by asking questions and use traditional turn-taking to facilitate initiate-response-evaluation (I-R-E) sequences (Hester and Francis 2000). In the discussion quoted below, a pupil (Anton) performs category work by reinforcing rejections and emotional stances in order to distance himself from the activity and redefine the problematic school categories.

Reinforcing rejections and emotional stances

In the regulative talk, the teachers can use open questions, which give the pupils opportunities to describe their behaviour during the school day from their own perspective. Sometimes the pupils also describe and evaluate behaviour that is not included in the list (Example 2).

Example 2. Discussion during a ‘smile’ activity recorded on video.

1 2	ANNA:	Anton (.) how has your day been? ((stands behind Anton andreads the written record)) (4s)
3 4 5	Anton:	((looks down at the wall, turns around and looks at Anna))(2s) oh (.) I took two sugar cubes and ((turns away fromAnna))(4s)I don’t know ((looks at Anna))
6	ANNA:	think back on your day ((looks at Anton))
7	Anton:	do you think so? ((looks at Anna))
8	ANNA:	no I’m asking you ((looks at Anton))
9 10 11	Anton:	((turns towards the wall)) (8s) now I remember something (.)when you were away (.) but that I was sad because you- (.) Itore the paper that I actually didn’t need ((looks at Anna))
12	ANNA:	you exaggerated your anger
13 14	Anton:	no::: ((laughter in the voice)) but I didn’t want thePA:::PER ((loud voice))
15 16	KARIN:	bu- (.) you became- (2s) but it’s a little bit like Anna says(.) you were really irritated (2s) about Oskar
17	Anton:	hm ((looks at Karin))
18 19 20	KARIN:	but (.) you were- (2s) you did not put your anger down there(2s) but after a while you put it away (.) so you did thatvery well (.) but it shouldn’t have [been so explosive]
21	Anton:	[but I sa:::t] ((looks at Karin))
22	KARIN:	really? ((looks at Anton))
23	Anton:	but I sat do:::wn
24	KARIN:	that was because I had to put you on the chair (2s)
25	Anton:	but I was sitting there ((looks at Karin))
26	KARIN:	yes and then you sat
27	Anton:	a::::ll the time
28	ANNA:	too:::: bad ((reads the written record))
29	Anton:	((looks at the wall))
30 31 32	ANNA:	because I think you’ve been quite good with your anger (2s)Anton ((looks at Anton)) I think you can regulate it quitewell (2s) continue with that
33	Anton:	hm ((looks at the wall))

Anna initiates an open question to Anton, ‘how has your day been?’ (line 1). Although Anton seems to know the purpose of the activity and orients to it, it is regulative talk. He responds by saying that he has followed the school rules by referring to the fact that he did not take too many sugar cubes (lines 3–5). In this way, he positions himself as a ‘good pupil’ who follows the school rules. Anna is not satisfied with the evaluation and repeats her question (line 6). Anton seeks the teacher’s opinion by asking ‘do you think so?’ (line 7). However, it is the teacher who controls the activity and which problems he is expected to talk about (line 8). A break occurs when Anton does not answer Anna’s question, which can be interpreted as avoiding formulating predefined problematic behaviour (line 9). Finally, Anton takes up the challenge by describing an event that Anna has no knowledge of: ‘now I remember something (.) when you were away’ (lines 9–10). Anton then describes an emotion, ‘I was sad because you-’ and explains ‘I tore the paper that I actually didn’t need’ (lines 10–11). Anton categorises himself as someone who is sad. Anna replies by redefining Anton’s descriptions of an emotion, ‘you exaggerated your anger’ (line 12), and categorises him as a person who is angry. When Anton immediately protests and invokes agency via a polarity expression, ‘no:::’ (line 13), he indicates that he has a different opinion (see Goodwin and Goodwin 2001). Further, Anton expresses, ‘but I didn’t want the PA:::PER’, in a loud voice (lines 13–14). Here, Anton displays agency using emotion as an embodied practice (loud voice) in order to position himself as not exaggerating anger. Goodwin and Goodwin (2001, 239) argue that participants use embodied practices to visibly take up stances towards phenomena that are being evaluated in the midst of situated interaction. This can be done by means of a vividly embodied emotional stance conveyed through affective intensity or highlighting as indicated by leaps in pitch, the lengthening of vowels and raised volume. In line with Anton’s emotion as embodied practice (lines 13–14), Karin reinforces the definition of Anton’s behaviour, ‘you were really irritated’ (line 16). The words ‘really irritated’ not only reinforce the statement but also reduce the risk of being challenged by Anton. Karin concludes the evaluation by stating that Anton’s anger was explosive. When Anton interrupts Karin and repeatedly invokes agency through emotion as embodied practice (see Goodwin and Goodwin 2001), he explains and enhances his behaviour ‘[but I sa:::t]’ (line 21), ‘but I sa:::t down’ (line 23) and ‘a::::ll the time’ (line 27). Karin responds by rejecting his response (line 24). Finally, Anna comes to the conclusion that Anton has failed to manage his behaviour during the day (line 28). She gives him an encouraging comment and advises him to continue working on his problem, that is, regulating his anger (lines 30–32). On one hand, Anton is encouraged to freely evaluate his school day, but on the other, he is expected to evaluate specific predefined problematic features himself. Finally, Anton distances himself from the activity by saying ‘hm’ (line 33) and looking at the wall.

In this example, the pupil is an active participant who invokes agency by means of protests, definitions, redefinitions and the evaluation of problems as well as the invoking of skills. Anton performs category work by reinforcing rejections and redefining the teacher’s categories using emotional words and emotional embodied practices. The teacher wants Anton to describe the problems she has listed. During the regulative talk, the teacher describes and categorises Anton as a person who is angry, exaggerates, irritated and explosive. The description is used to define the problems and make him realise that he has problems and needs to change and that a change should take place. The example shows that the educator controls the activity and orientates towards the predefined list. At the same time, the educator defines and redefines the boy’s problems: his emotions, ways of speaking, actions and behaviour. In the educator’s descriptions, the boy appears to be unaware of what he knows, does and says.

Negotiating and avoiding the formulation of problematic behaviour

The teacher also uses general open and positively framed questions, such as ‘has it been a good day today?’ when initiating regulative talk (Example 3, line 3). As will be seen in Example 3, the pupil tries to negotiate the descriptions and categorisations. In the following example, Marcus’s behaviour during the school day is being evaluated.

Example 3. Discussion during a ‘smile’ activity recorded on video.

1	LENA:	Marcus ((reads the written record))
2	Marcus:	no (.) yes ((looks at Lena))
3	LENA:	has it been a good day today?
4	Marcus:	yes ((looks at Lena))
5	LENA:	((reads the written record)) (7s)
6 7	Marcus:	tell those things then ((refers to the written record, looksat Lena))
8 9 10	LENA:	((reads the written record)) (5s) what (.) yes talk nicelyand no bad words (2s) no whining (.) and confess when you’vedone wrong things (2s)
11	Marcus:	I think we can remove whining
12	LENA:	do you think so?
13	Marcus:	no (.) yes
14 15	LENA:	I don’t think so (4s) however (.) I think we will addteasing

Lena initiates a question with a positive indication to Marcus, ‘has it been a good day today?’ (line 3). This question can result in a yes or no answer, and Marcus answers ‘yes’ (line 4). In this way, Marcus positions himself as a ‘good pupil’ who follows the school’s rules. A long break occurs (line 5), which can be interpreted as Lena disqualifying the answer and waiting for Marcus to formulate specific problematic behaviour listed in the written record. Marcus does not take up the challenge to formulate any predefined behavioural problems and instead orients to the social order of the activity and the written record, which is that teachers ask questions and express directives and pupils answer. He thus changes the structure of the participation framework in the interaction (Goffman 1981) and gives Lena a directive, ‘tell those things then’ (line 6). By referring to the written record he avoids formulating the predefined problematic behaviour. He thus uses the strategy of ‘not naming device’ (see Wooffitt 1992), which implies that naming and formulating something indicates that the person has knowledge of it. Lena follows his request and lists the relevant behavioural problems, ‘yes talk nicely and no bad words’, ‘no whining’ and ‘confess when you’ve done wrong things’ (lines 8–10). Marcus is thus categorised as a person who uses bad words, whines and is unable to admit that he has done wrong. Marcus initiates agency by negotiating to remove the problematic behaviour of ‘whining’ from the predefined list in the regulative activity (line 11). Lena opposes Marcus’s opinion by saying ‘do you think so?’ (line 12). Thereafter, Marcus suggests that it is the teacher who evaluates and categorises problematic behaviour. He expresses hesitation by saying ‘no (.) yes’ (line 13). Finally, Lena suggests adding a new behaviour to Marcus’s list of behavioural problems, ‘I don’t think so (4s) however (.) I think we will add teasing’ (lines 14–15).

As can be seen in this example, the teachers determine the agenda, how problems are to be evaluated, what to evaluate and whether or not problems can be removed. The teacher wants the boy to describe his behavioural problems and evaluate them in line with the predefined written record. Marcus establishes agency by not categorising himself according to the predefined and listed behavioural problems and instead positions himself as a ‘good pupil’. He invokes agency by categorising himself as someone who can change the participation framework (Goffman 1981) and give directives to the teacher. Marcus also orients to the agenda and categorises himself as someone who can bargain away a problematic behaviour. However, this strategy proves to be risky in that a new problematic behaviour appears on the written record.

Confessing behavioural problems

As indicated earlier, the teachers urge the boys to define their problems and evaluate how they have dealt with them during the school day. Further, the teachers read in the written record and list the problem definitions. Another way in which the boys participate in the regulative talk is to initiate an evaluation of the listed problems before the teachers does (Example 4).

Example 4. Discussion during a ‘smile’ activity recorded on video.

1	LENA:	Oskar ((reads the written record and looks at Oskar))
2	Oskar:	I’m not worth anything ((looks at Lena))
3 4	LENA:	you are not worth anything? (.) what do you mean? ((looksat Lena))
5	Oskar:	I’ve been exaggerating ((looks at Lena))
6	LENA:	when?
7	Oskar:	at lunch (6s)
8 9 10	LENA:	you- (.) but today it was a little bit different (.) we think(.) Karin and I (.) you started to exaggerate (.) and then wetold you (.) that you should think it over and be quiet
11	Oskar:	hm
12 13	LENA:	and you did that today (.) I really want to say that you didthat well
14	Oskar:	is it blame or?
15	LENA:	what did you say?
16	Oskar:	is it blame or?
17	LENA:	blame?
18	KARIN:	no it’s praise
19	LENA:	it was good that you didn’t-
20	Oskar:	praise (.) then I get- ((refers to a smiley sticker))

Before the teacher asks her questions based on the written record, Oskar invokes agency and takes the initiative by quickly confessing a defined problematic behaviour and evaluating himself as ‘I’m not worth anything’ (line 2). Lena asks him to explain (lines 3–4). Oskar orients towards the written record and categorises himself as ‘I’ve been exaggerating’ (line 5). When Oskar states ‘at lunch’ as a situation for his problem (line 7), Lena makes a mitigating description of Oskar’s problems (lines 8–10). Oskar is urged to take teacher’s perspective to understand and manage his behaviour in the dining room ‘and then we told you (.) that you should think it over and be quiet’ (lines 9–10). In this negotiation, Oskar escapes the problem after a direct confession.

Following Oskar’s confession of the problematic behaviour during the school day, the teacher evaluates Oskar positively by saying that he has handled his behaviour well. In this negotiation, Oskar avoids problematic definitions. Lena gives Oskar an encouraging comment and advises him to continue to work on the problem, for example to consider things carefully and be quiet (lines 12–13). Thereafter, Oskar indicates that it is the teachers who determine and judge whether he has succeeded or failed to deal with his problematic behaviour during the school day: ‘is it blame or?’ (lines 14 and 16). Karin clarifies that he has managed his problem during the school day but that the problem still remains.

In the example, the pupil is an active participant and invokes agency by directly confessing to a problematic behaviour in the predefined list. Oskar also contextualises the behavioural problem and says that it happened in a specific situation, at lunch. He performs category work by confessing and contextualising, and the teacher responds by mitigating his behaviour. In this way, Oskar avoids being categorised as a pupil with behavioural problems. Further, he emerges from the regulative talk as smoothly as possible and thereby minimises the risk of another problematic behaviour being added to his list. Even though in this case it is the pupil who defines the problematic behaviour, it is the teacher who evaluates the problem.

Conforming to teachers’ talk and reinforcing a description as a ‘good and desirable’ pupil

The discussion below stems from a ‘smile’ activity during which Anton was asked to discuss his behavioural problems. In this activity, the teacher begins by addressing the pupil by name. In this way, school problems are individualised and made a matter of concern for the individual child (see Hester 1998). Anton uses a strategy to avoid being described as having problematic behaviour and, instead, describes himself as a good pupil (Example 5).

Example 5. Discussion during a ‘smile’ activity recorded on video.

1	KARIN:	Anton
2	Anton:	((looks at Karin))(2s)
3 4	KARIN:	have you managed to control your anger? ((reads the writtenrecord and looks at Anton)) (4s)
5	Anton:	I have not had any anger ((looks at Karin))
6	KARIN:	((nods yes)) (6s)
7 8	KARIN:	and not said no? (reads the written record and looks atAnton)
9	Anton:	I have not said that
10	KARIN:	((nods yes))
11 12	KARIN:	not made any mistakes… even if your friends do wrong things?((looks at Anton))
13	Anton:	I have not done that ((looks at Karin))
14	KARIN:	((nods yes))
15	KARIN:	not exaggerated? ((looks at Anton))
16	Anton:	not done ((with low voice, looks at Karin))
17	KARIN:	((nods yes, cuts out a smiley sticker)) (4s)
18	Oskar:	then it´s my turn… after Anton
19	LENA:	you get a sticker ((with low voice, looks at Anton))
20	KARIN:	[great… Anton]
21 22	LENA:	[he deserved that] …give it to him ((hands over the smileysticker to Lena))

Here, Anton clearly adapts to what the teacher says and tries to answer the questions in the manner that is expected of him as a pupil, namely that the teachers asks the questions and the pupil provides the answers in I-R-E sequences (Hester and Francis 2000). However, Anton’s involvement is minimal, and he answers the questions as briefly as possible (lines 5, 9, 13 and 16). Moreover, he uses the same phrases and vocal tones as the teacher. This observation can be interpreted as conforming to the teacher’s talk. Anton performs category work by adapting his responses to the teacher’s questions to avoid being defined as problematic. In other words, he attempts to minimise the risk of the conversation moving in a direction that the teacher may regard as problematic (see Goodwin and Goodwin 1997).

Example 5 can thus be interpreted as Anton establishing agency and a form of category work aimed at extracting himself from a difficult situation and avoiding being categorised as a problem pupil. At the end of the discussion, Anton is described in positive terms (lines 20–21), which invokes a desirable pupil identity. This identity is further reinforced when Anton receives the smiley sticker. Anton reinforces his position as a ‘good and desirable pupil’ using the strategy of adapting his responses.

Concluding comments

In this article, the local social processes occurring amongst a group of five boys as they respond to their school’s negative and disconcerting definitions during the pedagogic regulative talk activity have been examined. The results show that the pupils have to deal with the school’s social organisation and the teachers’ definitions and categorisations of them while at the same time attempting to control their circumstances.

The school focuses unilaterally on the boys in the SENU as having deficiencies, problems and difficulties, which is a disconcerting practice, especially when the purpose of the SENU is to give these boys special needs support and to help them with the difficulties they experience at school. It is argued that educational approaches in which the boys are mainly regarded as problematic and having deficiencies tend to obscure the boys’ own perspectives of their experiences, their emotions and their own reflections and actions during the social interaction in daily SENU practices.

Further, it is important to highlight that most of the boys in this study are exposed to vulnerable family situations and disadvantaged areas. This in itself raises questions about how society and school view, meet and support children/boys from disadvantaged homes and circumstances in everyday school practices (see Allan and Harwood 2014; Meerman et al. 2017; Timimi 2017). This is an important focus in that boys who are considered to have ‘social, emotional and behavioural difficulties’ and ADHD at school and also find themselves in vulnerable and disadvantaged life situations tend to remain in marginalised positions throughout school and also later in life (Graham, Van Bergen, and Sweller 2016; Slee 2013).

In the regulative talk are the boys ascribed responsibility for school difficulties. When teachers describe the pupils are they contrasting the pupils’ behaviours in relation to the ideal pupil. In this way the pupils are ascribed moral responsibility for not using abilities they are considered to have or should have. Consequently, the teachers avoid ascribing the school any responsibility for pupils’ school difficulties. In the regulative talk activity the teachers use a direct form of speech with emphases and pausing and without any paraphrasing or humour. This can be interpreted as the school and teachers wanting the pupils to take personal responsibility to change their behaviours. Moreover, this is problematic in relation to the fact that the boys live in vulnerable life situations. Children in vulnerable life situations tend to take a great deal of responsibility in their families and likely even have reduced support at home (see Straussner 2011). When the school ascribes responsibility for school difficulties to the children, they can end up with strained and double responsibility, both at home and at school.

The results show that the boys have low agency and paradoxically a weak voice in the pedagogic activity of regulative talk. Agency and children’s competence must be understood in relation to the different contexts and social structures where children live their lives. In the regulative activity the boys are seated in front of a wall with the teachers standing behind or bedside them. The teachers have a powerful institutional authority and position in the regulative talk activity in relation to the boys. The discussion in the activity is organised in a way where the teachers ask questions about behaviour and the pupils are positioned to answer. The teachers control how the boys should behave, how they can describe themselves and their experiences, what they should do and which emotions are appropriate. The boys’ reduced control and agency in relation to the teachers can be explained by the boys pervading and constant intervention in the regulative talk to negotiate categorisations of behaviour difficulties. The boys have certain communicative strategies to take control and escape from the situation in the regulative talk and strengthen their identity as good, desirable pupils. Identity cannot be taken for granted; instead identities must be understood in relation to how humans achieve or resist social categories (Antaki and Widdicombe 1998). It is also important to problematise how teachers talk to pupils about behaviours in school and to consider whether it is a good and facilitating activity that benefits the pupils.

Although the boys’ negotiations of the descriptions and categories assigned to them at school indicate that they are active agents, their agency depends on whether or not the teachers pay attention to their unique experiences and reflections and highlight their communicative contributions during the pedagogic activities. Instead, the study shows that the teachers at the SENU limit the boys’ opportunities to be heard and seen during the pedagogic activities. The boys are categorised as troublesome and problematic and, as a result, are denied opportunities to comment on disconcerting and negative descriptions of themselves, to perform category work and to negotiate the school rules and norms. In this study, the boys show that they have their own unique opinions about the school’s cultural and institutional assumptions. The categorisation of the boys as deviant, with disconcerting descriptions and deficiencies, affects the construction of their identity (Antaki and Widdicombe 1998). Further, Rajala et al. (2016, 18) point out that pupils’ opposition traditionally has been framed as an indication of a deficit in their adaptation to school and society. In contrast, they emphasise the importance of viewing pupil opposition as a transformative potential to develop pupil agency and more meaningful educational practices.

This study’s observations highlight the importance of detailed analyses and of appropriate interpretations of the social purpose of the boys’ communicative activities during interactions with teachers and peers in their everyday practices in contrast to the individualised perspective that hides children’s agency and competence behind clinical concepts and problem definitions. I found that a more accurate perspective consists of boys constantly interacting with teachers and peers in different contexts. Schools and teachers can look more deeply into what the child is communicating or trying to achieve in interactions.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Yvonne Karlsson

Yvonne Karlsson senior lecturer in education with a focus on special education at the University of Gothenburg. Department of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg, Box 300, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; [email protected]