Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka och problematisera diskurser som kommer till uttryck i pedagogers resonemang kring genusfrågor. Studiens ansats är feministisk poststrukturalism. Vi vill kunna identifiera och fördjupa förståelsen för språkligt burna värden i pedagogernas resonemang, eftersom dessa inverkar på hur elever förstår sig själva, andra och förhåller sig till varandra. Vi har för syfte att nå och synliggöra strukturer. För att uppnå syftet formulerades följande frågeställningar: Vilka diskurser rörande genusfrågor kan utläsas i pedagogers resonemang? Och hur kan de utlästa diskurserna förstås i förhållande till nationella krav i Lgr11? För att besvara frågeställningarna har vi genomfört en kvalitativ intervjustudie med fem pedagoger. Intervjuerna har sedan analyserats med inspiration av diskursanalytiska metoder. De diskurser som utlästs i pedagogernas resonemang har varit sådana som förklarar individer som olika beroende av könstillhörighet. I förhållande till framskrivelser i Lgr11 så förstår vi sådana diskurser som problematiska, eftersom de strider emot styrdokumentets krav.

Denna uppsats ämnar att undersöka den roll subjektifikation har i grundskolans historieundervisning. Genom att tillämpa kvalitativa, semistrukturerade intervjuer med verksamma historielärare kring en planering av ett ämnesområde, är målet att utforska lärarens inställning till olika aspekter av utvecklingen av det autonoma identitetsskapande samt hur de inkluderas eller exkluderas i undervisningen. Därmed kan den problematik som det autonoma identitetsskapandet möter i elevens utbildning uppenbara sig. Det finns skilda åsikter om hur eleven utvecklar ett autonomt identitetsskapande. Dock går det ofta att urskilja en återkommande tanke om att utvecklingen av det autonoma identitetsskapandet är en tvåstegsprocess. Eleven behöver utveckla förmågan att adaptera befintliga eller skapa nya värderingar. Dessa värderingar måste sedan uttryckas i ett socialt sammanhang, i syfte att få de erkända eller bestridna. Det är denna tvåstegsprocess, samt aspekter av historieundervisningen som påverkar den, som utgör utgångspunkten för uppsatsen. Historieämnet har en relativt unik roll vid elevens identitetsskapande, då det genetisktgenealogiska historiemedvetandet utgör en betydande del i ämnets mål. Då den genetiska tankeprocessen av historiemedvetande innebär ett systematiskt arbetssätt, som grundar sig i kausala led, och kan därför bidra till att elevens världsbild grundar sig i ett längre narrativ. Tillämpningen av det genealogiska perspektivet tillåter eleven att utgå från de existentiella frågor hen har om sig själv och sin omgivning. Om dessa tankeprocesser får möjligheten att fungera i symbios, får eleven möjligheten att besvara de frågor hen har om sig själv genom ett vetenskapligt arbetssätt. Den inställning läraren har till att utveckla ett autonomt identitetsskapande hos eleven, är ofta avgörande för hur väl hen lyckas. Enligt den forskning som undersöktes i samband med skrivandet av detta arbete, är subjektifikationen den aspekt av skolans uppdrag som oftast blir försummad av lärare. Vare sig dess frånvaro i undervisningen främst beror på en generell okunskap eller ovilja är oklart, men dess inklusion är nödvändig då elevens utveckling av ett autonomt identitetsskapande inte sker automatiskt. Det krävs, med andra ord, att läraren har en medveten plan för hur hen ska utveckla de nödvändiga förmågorna hos eleven som utgör det 3 autonoma identitetsskapandet. Vidare kan lärarens attityd till koncept såsom kultur, identitet och historiedidaktiska verktyg påverka hur eleven skapar sina identiteter. Om man utgår från att kulturer och identiteter är fenomen som skapas genom interaktioner, blir de relationella till det sociala umgänget. Tillämpar läraren ett relationellt förhållningssätt till kulturer och identiteter vid undervisningen blir inte elevens identitet låst till en specifik kultur. Hur läraren väljer att utnyttja de historiedidaktiska verktygen för att presentera och bearbeta den historiska kunskapen kan innebära externt inflytande vid elevens identitetsskapande. Oavsett om läraren väljer ett kvantitativt tillvägagångssätt, att överföra så mycket historisk kunskap som möjligt, eller ett kvalitativt tillvägagångssätt, att läraren avgör vilka historiska berättelser som ska behandlas i klassrummet, är det nödvändigt att eleven utvecklar ett systematiskt arbetssätt, grundad i elevens källkritiska förmåga, för att hantera den historiska kunskapen. Den datainsamling som utfördes i samband med uppsatsen, påvisade en viss ambivalens hos de deltagande lärarna. Även då lärarna uttryckte sin uppskattning för behovet av ett autonomt identitetsskapande, var det tydligt att det inte hade varit i åtanke vid varken planeringen eller genomförandet av ämnesområdet i fråga. Dock gick det att urskilja aspekter, från de undervisningsmoment som presenterades, som skulle eventuellt kunna bidra till att eleven utvecklar ett autonomt identitetsskapande, men eftersom det inte fanns en aktiv ansträngning av lärare eller elev att utveckla de nödvändiga förmågorna måste man fråga sig hur väl eleven lyckas med detta.

According to the steering documents from the Education administration (Skolverket), history in upper secondary schools should teach students to approach history from “different perspectives”. In this paper, I interviewed five history teachers regarding their interpretation of phrasing with regard to the subject of “perspectives”. The study aims to give insight into what kind of content the formulations of the Education administration result in, when interpreted by the teachers. It investigate what the teachers in the study think a “perspective” is, and what it means to teach history from different ditto. Which perspectives are the focuses of their history courses? I also discuss what the purpose and end of using different perspectives in history education is perceived to be, from what the interviews can reveal. For this I use Gert Biestas theory that suggests that good education aim at either qualification, socialisation of subjectification. The result show that all the teachers in the study primarly connect perspectives to different groups. Students should be allowed to to focus on the history of different category’s of people, or use their historical empathy to understand the view of others. The groups of people that the respondents most often accentuated in the interviews where people from different social classes, women, as well as different groups of people that experienced the European colonialism in the 18th and 19th century. The teacher’s in my study also described the usage of “different perspectives” in another way. They talked of this activity in terms of teaching students critically thinking and examining the subject of history as a science. To teach from “different perspectives” could, in this kind of answer, be to have student’s examine historical knowledge as a constructed product and teach them to analyse historical narratives critically. Other, less prominent interpretations involved “perspectives” as referring to different disciplines within the subject of history – such as social history, economical history or political history. When examining what aims the teachers seem to have with their described usage of perspectives I found that they often seem to emphasise the important of the students becoming analytic, critical thinking, capable individuals. I also found that the teachers many times want to pass on social norms and values, make the students tolerant and empathetic. They also want to start processes where the students ask themselves existential questions or find help in orientating themselves in social structures and form identities. Also, the respondents often expressed ideas of history as an emancipating subject where the exposing of structures and historical injustices could counteract power structures in the present.

The aim of this study has been to broaden the understanding of the opportunities and challenges ofcitizenship education by analyzing Civics teachers' experiences of translating their perceptions ofthe mission into practice on academic and vocational programmes. More precisely, the broadeninghas been accomplished through describing similarities and differences between the conditions onthe basis of qualitative interviews with three teachers. Furthermore, descriptions have been formedthrough the use of a theoretical framework consisting of Gert Biesta's socialization, qualification,and subjectification dimensions on one hand, and frame factor theory on the other. The findings of the study suggests that two of the teachers emphasize socialization, allemphasize qualification and two emphasize subjectification. Within the qualification dimension, adistinction was noted between external means (referring to contextually bound ways of participationand influence), which are related to socialization, and internal means (referring to factualknowledge, perspective-taking and critical thinking), which are related to subjectification. Theframe factor analysis of the teachers' experiences indicated that one participant emphasizes inparticular the similarities in the challenge of realizing socializing elements and external means as aresult of existing pedagogic frame factors; most notably the factually oriented curriculum. Regarding differences, which are substantially more prominent, it emerged that opportunities areprimarily linked to academic programmes while challenges are linked to vocational programmes. At academic programmes, there were particularly better opportunities for qualification interms of internal means (especially factual knowledge) as a result of student-related frame factorssuch as a positive attitude towards studies and the subject. The results suggest that these factors canbenefit both qualification and subjectification, if these are combined. Other student-related factorssuch as willingness to speak and subject-relevant prerequisites emerge as valuable resources forqualification and subjectification amongst students at vocational programmes, but they are in somerespects also prevented from being sufficiently utilized. Willingness to speak is prevented byresource-related frame factors such as lack of time in combination with pedagogic frame factorssuch as a substance-rich curriculum, while subject-relevant prerequisites are prevented bydeficiencies in the linguistic knowledge of students with immigrant backgrounds.

No description available.

Democracy is an ever so current topic, especially since we are facing a negative trend of decreasing voting participation in Sweden. This is, according to some, evidence of a democratic failure, while others are of the opinion that democracy is ever changing and that voting participation is not the only way of assessing the strength of a democracy. The younger generation is often at the center of the discussion of democracy, and are often seen as uninterested or even unconvinced of the point of democracy.  In this study I seek to understand how pupils in upper secondary school understand and construct democracy and citizenship, hoping that this will further my understanding of the purpose of the Swedish social science subject. To do this I have interviewed 16 students in three focus groups, focusing on how they as a group discuss and construct democracy and citizenship.  The interviews have been analyzed by three different theoretical points of views. Firstly I have used Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne’s (2004) work along with Erik Amnå’s (2008) study about democracy and different types of citizenship. I then focused on social interaction and how language can be used to transfer power and responsibility, mainly using James A. Holstein and Gale Miller’s (2013) study. Lastly this is put in the context of social science, using Gert Biesta (2020) to understand the split mission of education and social science specifically.  Pupils understand democracy and citizenship in different ways, but have a mutual understanding of what the ”right answer” to the question of what democracy is. This is something they probably have been socialized into knowing from their years in school. As the title of this study insinuates, pupils are inclined to transfer the power of change to politicians or adults when discussing the topic more freely, which also transfers the responsibility of society from themselves and makes them passive. This is something the students seem to think is fair, due to their lack of knowledge in politics. This in turn makes it clear that the pupils' expressed needs concerning social science education is focused on deeper factual knowledge, which might be a part of what social science should be but makes the task of allowing students to be active citizens invisible.

Tim Randberg and Filip Lindahl carried out this study under the institution for pedagogy, didactics and educational studies at Uppsala University. In relation to the lack of research regarding students’ perspectives regarding the legitimizing aspects of the school subject of social science(samhällskunskap), and in contrast to the existence of such research regarding teachers’ perspectives, this study is an attempt at contributing to the lack of previous research and note the importance of working towards a reality in which students’ and teachers’ attitudes, regarding the importance and the purpose of social studies, aligns.  This didactic study, which analyzes which attitudes are connected to a small group of students (age 18), as well as a small group of social science teachers, regarding what legitimizes studying social science, along with the key differences between these two groups, is an interview study in which a didactic theory formed by Gert Biesta was applied in relation to the results of the interview. Biesta’s theoretical framework, which is central for this study, categorized the legitimizing aspects of education into three categories: qualification, socialization and subjectification, in which every relevant analytical finding was categorized into each of Biesta’s three categories. This study concludes that both teachers and students found the internalization of democratic values as well as citizenship development to be the central legitimizing aspects of civic studies. The results regarding the teachers’ comments aligned with most previous research, except for the aspect of power, which in contrast to previous research was absent in the results for this study. Regarding the three theoretical categories, no significant differences were to be found but rather smaller differences that could be considered noteworthy. Teachers discussed the legitimizing aspects of civic studies from a qualification-related point of view more than the students did. In contrast, the students made comments that were connected to the concepts of socialization as well as subjectification in a greater sense compared to the teachers. Regarding the concept of qualification, both teachers and students related the purpose of civic studies to skills and knowledge necessary to engage politically in society, or to prosper in society. Connected to the concept of socialization, students found that it was important that people internalized democratic values and norms related to democracy, which aligns with the teachers’ responses, only that the latter as a group further discussed the legitimizing aspect of civic studies as it being a means to prevent extremism, racism as well as other anti-democratic aspects that a few students were described as gravitating towards. In relation to the concept of subjectification, students, unlike the teachers, noted the importance of becoming global citizens. Both groups argued for the importance of developing a culturally adaptive mindset as well as forming an individual political opinion. Most teachers discussed the importance of students, along with the civic studies, becoming less self-centered and more focused on their role in relation to a social, collective context. In contrast, several students made individualistic claims; that a legitimizing aspect of civic studies, regarding certain skills and abilities that comes with the subject and that was regarded as a key element in a modern, democratic social context, is that they develop a sense of what others think of them and how successfully they present themselves to other people, groups and institutions. One conclusion is that there is a reason for the didactic research-field to investigate whether there needs to be a function in Swedish education which investigates whether students and teachers share the same idea of why they are studying a subject or various content related to a subject,