Today, student influence is an important part of the school’s activities and is anchored both in Lgr 11 and the school law. Student influence has gained a larger and more important role thru out the years. Previous research points out that teachers and management at school’s have had difficulties with interpretation and understanding the education plan (curriculum) and to know in which way and how much influence the student should have. The problematic around student influence is that the concept is multifaceted and can be interpreted from different points of view. The purpose of this essay is to find out how teachers and management at two schools for younger children view of the concept of student influence. Through qualitative interviews with four teachers, a principal and one development manager in two schools, I noticed that the view of student influence has changed since earlier research in the matter. The Informants had no longer difficulties to interpret the education plan (curriculum), or understand what student influence is all about. Instead they talked about the benefits of student influence for the pupil’s own learning. However, they argued that in order for pupils to have real influence, pupils in the younger ages must first learn what influence is all about. The question then becomes if the younger pupils can’t have influence and which view the teachers then have on the pupils.

Genom en empirisk studie undersöker denna uppsats på vilka sätt och i vilken utsträcking man i en svensk högstadieskola efterföljer läroplanen vad gäller elevers rättigheter till inflytande över undervisningen.Undersökningen baseras på intervjuer med både elever och deras lärare. Resultaten av intervjuerna jämförs med varandra, och mot läroplanerna Lgr11 och Lpo94. Eleverna upplever sina möjligheter till inflytande som begränsade, medan lärarna ger en lite mer positiv bild av deras samspel i den här frågan. Det framkommer även att man arbetar mycket med att öka elevinflytandet på skolan, men att man har en lång väg att vandra innan man lever upp till läroplanernas paragrafer.

<p>The aim of this study is to investigate the notion of pupil influence in English teaching at level 1 and 2 at High-School level. The study focuses on how the students and teachers experience the possibility of influence in their English classes. Empirical data has been collected through questionnaires from two classes at year 1 and two classes at year 2 in English. The study also includes interviews from four teachers and four students. The study is both qualitative and quantitative. The results show that the majority of the students consider their possibility of influence in their English- learning to be very high in all schools to a great extent, even though the results showed that their influence in their teaching was not very extensive.</p><p>The way the students mostly influenced their teaching was when discussing the planning of their courses and through regularly made evaluations of their courses.</p><p>The teachers´ view on the pupil-influence was mostly linked to personal views and opinions of the matter as well as the referred information in the national curriculum for teachers. Overall the results show that the students´ and the teachers´ view on the influence seems to coincide very well.</p><p>The differences in year 1 and 2 at high-school in this investigation can mostly be seen by the fact that year 2 increasingly can influence their curriculum of their courses and that they also can influence how examinations are to be carried out in a more extensive way than the students in year 1.</p><p>The hypothesis of this essay, that pupil-influence should increase with age and level at</p><p>high-school proved to be a partly correct assumption, mainly because the majority of the students expressed that this was partly true. Nevertheless, both the teachers and the interviewed students claimed that influence increases with age, so maybe it is hard to make a clear conclusion out of these results.</p>

<p>This project is a comparative study of three elementary schools in India and two elementary schools in Sweden. The purpose of this project is to study if Indian and Swedish students have the possibility to have influence on their English lessons. The research involves values conveyed in the socialisation and their consequences for student influence, democracy and society in the two countries.</p><p>National and international research and literature concerning socialisation, language didactics, democracy and student influence were used as a foundation of this study. Furthermore, the study investigates the Swedish and the Indian curricula, and makes use of observations of English lessons, questionnaires and interviews with teachers in both countries. The method for this research is qualitative with some features of quantitative research and based in the method of Grounded theory.</p><p>The results of this project is that the teachers in both countries controlled the students in different ways during the lessons and practiced student influence only when letting the students choose between preselected materials. Exclusion, inclusion and the hidden curriculum were aspects that appeared, which are likely to teach the students about their individual values in society. The lack of student influence consequently leads to the students being discouraged to be partaking citizens. Instead, the students will learn to follow the rules of society, be loyal to authorities and to carry established values with them and thus reproduce the society in each country and make it remain the same.</p>

The aim of this study is to explore how young people act and the organisation of school practice, and what possibilities they have of influencing the content and the forms practiced. The study focuses on how the pedagogic practice is organised in two classes in their first year of upper secondary school, one Social Science programme class and one Vehicle programme class. This embraces questions as: How, where, when and for what cause do students act to influence, and then with what result? Are students offered influence, and in that case which students? How does the organisation of and the content in the pedagogic practice prepare students to act in order to be able to exert influence in the future? These questions have been studied with focus on differences between the programmes with regard to social background and gender. The thesis has its theoretical base in Bernstein’s theory of pedagogy and code (1990, 2000), feminist perspectives (Arnot, 2006; Arnot &amp; Dillabough, 2000; Connell, 1987; Gordon, 2006; Gordon, Holland &amp; Lahelma, 2000) as well as theories of structuration (Giddens, 1984). The empirical material of the thesis was ethnographically produced during one school year, through classroom observations, individual interviews with students, teachers and head teachers, and the gathering of school and teaching material. The main results in the analysis are that actions taken to gain influence were rare, that the organisation of and the content in the pedagogic practice was mainly focused on students as becoming, i. e. it focused students possibilities to be able to influence in the future and not the present. Furthermore, changing of pedagogic content or pedagogic forms was dependent on students’ own actions.   There was a lack of teacher organisation to promote student influence. Finally, what was evaluated in the pedagogic practice, i.e. factual learning, did not promote student influence. The thesis demonstrates how pedagogic practice was gendered and classed, which had consequences for how students could influence and how students were prepared to influence in the future. Since the Social Science programme mostly attracts students from a middle-class background and the Vehicle programme those with a working-class background, the content in the programmes contributed to reproducing hierarchical social relations. The content for the Vehicle students proved to be simplified, personal and context dependent, whereas the content of the Social Science programme was more advanced, general and context independent, knowledge which, in argumentation for influence, is usually highly valued. In previous research, working class masculinities have often been associated with opposition towards study-oriented   subjects.   However, the current  study indicates that there is an interest in studying Swedish, English and maths. The students argued that it was necessary for future employment, and that the Vehicle industry is now asking for this kind of knowledge.

This project is a comparative study of three elementary schools in India and two elementary schools in Sweden. The purpose of this project is to study if Indian and Swedish students have the possibility to have influence on their English lessons. The research involves values conveyed in the socialisation and their consequences for student influence, democracy and society in the two countries. National and international research and literature concerning socialisation, language didactics, democracy and student influence were used as a foundation of this study. Furthermore, the study investigates the Swedish and the Indian curricula, and makes use of observations of English lessons, questionnaires and interviews with teachers in both countries. The method for this research is qualitative with some features of quantitative research and based in the method of Grounded theory. The results of this project is that the teachers in both countries controlled the students in different ways during the lessons and practiced student influence only when letting the students choose between preselected materials. Exclusion, inclusion and the hidden curriculum were aspects that appeared, which are likely to teach the students about their individual values in society. The lack of student influence consequently leads to the students being discouraged to be partaking citizens. Instead, the students will learn to follow the rules of society, be loyal to authorities and to carry established values with them and thus reproduce the society in each country and make it remain the same.

The aim of this study is to investigate the notion of pupil influence in English teaching at level 1 and 2 at High-School level. The study focuses on how the students and teachers experience the possibility of influence in their English classes. Empirical data has been collected through questionnaires from two classes at year 1 and two classes at year 2 in English. The study also includes interviews from four teachers and four students. The study is both qualitative and quantitative. The results show that the majority of the students consider their possibility of influence in their English- learning to be very high in all schools to a great extent, even though the results showed that their influence in their teaching was not very extensive. The way the students mostly influenced their teaching was when discussing the planning of their courses and through regularly made evaluations of their courses. The teachers´ view on the pupil-influence was mostly linked to personal views and opinions of the matter as well as the referred information in the national curriculum for teachers. Overall the results show that the students´ and the teachers´ view on the influence seems to coincide very well. The differences in year 1 and 2 at high-school in this investigation can mostly be seen by the fact that year 2 increasingly can influence their curriculum of their courses and that they also can influence how examinations are to be carried out in a more extensive way than the students in year 1. The hypothesis of this essay, that pupil-influence should increase with age and level at high-school proved to be a partly correct assumption, mainly because the majority of the students expressed that this was partly true. Nevertheless, both the teachers and the interviewed students claimed that influence increases with age, so maybe it is hard to make a clear conclusion out of these results.

This survey is a qualitative study about how teachers see on the concept student leverage and what they say about how they in practice work with it. We have chosen to examine the subject from a teacher’s perspective, because almost all investigations and literature, that we have found, discuss student influence from a student’s perspective. That’s why we are interested to examine what teachers think of the subject. We did three focus group interviews with teachers from preschool classes up to class 6. The teachers considered that student influence is when teachers listen to the students' interests and the lesson content then acts about that. Student influence is also that the students may influence the organization of social environment, evaluation and approaches. Evaluation was something the teachers regarded should be done, but they said that they didn’t have time to do it. All teachers expressed that when they work with student influence, it is through class - and pupil ' council. They considered that the students through this might have leverage in both classroom and school. We have come to a result that student effect means that the students should have leverage in both contents and approaches. Student effect is also that the student can have influence in his/hers situation in the school.

Student influence is a well debated subject and all Swedish teachers should let the students influence their education. According to research the student influence is generally low and something that varies from school to school. The school policy documents do not clarify how much impact the students get to have on their education and the impact is therefore something that every individual teacher decides. These individual differences are the reason of this study. This is a qualitative study about four teachers work and thoughts focusing on the subject of school democracy and student influence in the school environment. The study is based on qualitative interviews in order to highlight four different teacher’s thoughts. Previous scientific studies show that students do not utilize their right of impact that the school policy documents give them. According to the school policy documents all Swedish schools are obligated to teach about democracy, not only convey democratic values but also how to practice and use it. These facts made me want to look in to how teachers think about the responsibility they have to let the students influence their education. What conditions do they think have to exist in order to have student democracy? The conclusions of this study are that the meaning of the concept student influence varies between the four interviewed teachers and the teacher’s point of view does affect the extent of the student influence. The gain of student impact, that all teachers mention, is motivated students. The teachers all think that having an open dialogue with the students is of importance, as well as letting the students take responsibility for their actions. The teachers also talk about the importance of having a culture in the classroom that allows everyone to make mistakes without having to be ashamed of them. Some of the teachers thought that the way for students to make an impact on their education rather happens through the student councils than through having a say in their everyday life in school.

<p>This survey is a qualitative study about how teachers see on the concept student leverage and what they say about how they in practice work with it. We have chosen to examine the subject from a teacher’s perspective, because almost all investigations and literature, that we have found, discuss student influence from a student’s perspective. That’s why we are interested to examine what teachers think of the subject. We did three focus group interviews with teachers from preschool classes up to class 6. The teachers considered that student influence is when teachers listen to the students' interests and the lesson content then acts about that. Student influence is also that the students may influence the organization of social environment, evaluation and approaches. Evaluation was something the teachers regarded should be done, but they said that they didn’t have time to do it. All teachers expressed that when they work with student influence, it is through class - and pupil ' council. They considered that the students through this might have leverage in both classroom and school. We have come to a result that student effect means that the students should have leverage in both contents and approaches. Student effect is also that the student can have influence in his/hers situation in the school.</p>