Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chemistry inside an epistemological community box! Discursive exclusions and inclusions in Swedish National tests in Chemistry

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cultural Studies of Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the Swedish national tests in chemistry for implicit and explicit values. The chemistry subject is understudied compared to biology and physics and students view chemistry as their least interesting science subject. The Swedish national science assessments aim to support equitable and fair evaluation of students, to concretize the goals in the chemistry syllabus and to increase student achievement. Discourse and multimodal analyses, based on feminist and critical didactic theories, were used to examine the test’s norms and values. The results revealed that the chemistry discourse presented in the tests showed a traditional view of science from the topics discussed (for example, oil and metal), in the way women, men and youth are portrayed, and how their science interests are highlighted or neglected. An elitist view of science emerges from the test, with distinct gender and age biases. Students could interpret these biases as a message that only “the right type” of person may come into the chemistry epistemological community, that is, into this special sociocultural group that harbours a common view about this knowledge. This perspective may have an impact on students’ achievement and thereby prevent support for an equitable and fair evaluation. Understanding the underlying evaluative meanings that come with science teaching is a question of democracy since it may affect students’ feelings of inclusion or exclusion. The norms and values harboured in the tests will also affect teaching since the teachers are given examples of how the goals in the syllabus can be concretized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almqvist, J., & Lundqvist, E. (2013). De nationella provens innehåll: vilken scientific literacy mäts i NO-proven? In E. Lundqvist, R. Säljö, & L. Östman (Eds.), Scientific literacy—Teori och praktik (pp. 101–117). Malmö: Gleerups förlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, K. (2011). Lärare för förändring—att synligöra och utmana föreställningar om naturvetenskap och genus. (Doctoral dissertation, Linköping University, Department of Social Welfare Studies).

  • Archer, L., Dewitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11-year-old school children’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94, 617–639. doi:10.1002/sce.20399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, A. (1998). Feminist science education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge, B.-M., & Widding G. (2006). En granskning av hur kön framställs i ett urval av läroböcker. Underlagsrapport till Skolverkets rapport”I enlighet med skolans värdegrund?”. Umeå universitet.

  • Björkvall, A. (2009). Den visuella texten: multimodal analys i praktiken. Stockholm: Hallgren & Fallgren.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 282–295. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<282:AID-TEA1006>3.0.CO;2-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufour, H., & Carroll, S. (2013). Great myths die hard. Nature, 502, 32–33. doi:10.1038/502032a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englund, T. (1997a). Undervisning som meningserbjudanden. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Didaktik: teori, reflektion och praktik (pp. 120–145). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englund, T. (1997b). Towards a dynamic analysis of the content of schooling: Narrow and broad didactics in Sweden. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(3), 267–287. doi:10.1080/002202797184044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englund, T. (1998). Teaching as an offer of (discursive) meaning. In B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue (pp. 215–226). New York: P. Lang Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1988). Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1–26). London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (2013). International assessment of science learning: their positive and negative contributions to science education. In D. Corrigan, R. Gunstone, & A. Jones (Eds.), Valuing assessment in science education: Pedagogy, curriculum, policy (pp. 11–31). Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6668-6_2.

  • Fox Keller, E. (1977). The anomaly of a woman in physics. In S. Ruddick & P. Daniels (Eds.), Working it out (pp. 78–91). New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. (2001). Science and its ‘other’: Looking underneath ‘woman’ and ‘science’ for new directions in research on gender and science education. Gender and Education, 13(3), 291–305. doi:10.1080/09540250120063571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halstead, J., & Taylor, M. (1996). Values in education and education in values. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasse, C. (2002). Gender diversity in play with physics: The problem of premises for participation in activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(4), 250–269. doi:10.1207/S15327884MCA0904_02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedlin, M. (2009). Konstruktion av kön i skolpolitiska texter 1984-1994: med särskilt fokus på naturvetenskap och teknik. Doktorsavhandling i pedagogiskt arbete. Umeå universitet: Institutionen för matematik, teknik och naturvetenskap.

  • Hirdman, Y. (1990). Genussystemet. In Statens offentliga utredningar, SOU 1990:44, Demokrati och makt i Sverige. Stockholm.

  • Hussénius, A., Andersson, K., Gullberg, A., & Scantlebury, K. (2013). Ignoring half the sky: A feminist critique of science education’s knowledge society. In N. Mansour & R. Wegerif (Eds.), Science education for diversity in knowledge society (pp. 301–316). Rotterdam: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Interests & recruitment in science 2009–2012. (2014, June 30). Retrieved from http://iri.uni-lj.si/data/Projekti/IRIS/irisarhiv/about-iris/index.html.

  • Khalick Abd-El, F., Waters, M., & Le, A.-P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry: Textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 835–855. doi:10.1002/tea.20226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klafki, W. (1997). Kritisk–konstruktiv didaktik. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Didaktik: teori, reflektion och praktik (pp. 215–228). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lpo. (94/2000). Utbildningsdepartementet. Läroplan för det obligatoriska skolväsendet, Stockholm: Fritzes Offentliga Publikationer.

  • Lundqvist, E., & Lidar, M. (2013). Nationella prov i NO och lärares val av undervisningsinnehåll. Utbildning och Demokrati, 22(3), 85–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. (2006). Contemporary perspectives from human development: Implications for feminist scholarship. Signs, 31(2), 445–469. doi:10.1086/491680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Östman, L. (1995). Socialisation och mening: NO-utbildning som politiskt och miljömoraliskt problem. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Östman, L. (1998). How companion meanings are expressed by science education discourse. In D. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 54–70). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 62(2), 243–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (1998). Analyzing school science courses: The concept of companion meaning. In D. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum (pp. 5–12). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandell, K., Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2005). Education for sustainable development: Nature, school and democracy. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, L. (1997). Creating sustainable science. Osiris, 2nd Series (Vol. 12, pp. 201–216).

  • Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: an overview and key findings. Oslo: University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolverket. (2011). Läroplanen för grundskolan, förskoleklass och fritidshemmet. Stockholm: Ordförrådet AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolverket. (2014a, January 29). Nationellt ämnesprov i kemi våren 2009 och tillhörande bedömningsanvisningar. Umeå universitet: Institutionen för tillämpad utbildningsvetenskap. Retrieved from http://www.edusci.umu.se/np/nap/tidigare-givna-prov-lpo94/.

  • Skolverket. (2014b, January 29). Bedömning: Nationella prov & bedömningsstöd. [Assessment: National tests & assessment support]. Retrieved from http://www.skolverket.se/nationell-prov-bedomningsstod/.

  • Stromquist, N. (1993). The practical and theoretical bases for empowerment. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Women’s Education and Empowerment, UNESCO Institute for Education, Hamburg, Germany.

  • Svennbeck, M. (2004). Omsorg om naturen: om NO-utbildningens relativa traditioner. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberg, R. (2006). Värdepedagogik i skolans vardag: interaktivt regelarbete mellan lärare och elever. (Doctoral dissertation, Linköping University, Department of Behaviour Sciences).

  • von Wright, M. (1999). Genus och text—när kan man tala om jämställdhet i fysikläromedel? Stockholm: Skolverket.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, Box 527, 75120, Uppsala, Sweden

    Marie Ståhl & Anita Hussénius

Authors
  1. Marie Ståhl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anita Hussénius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Ståhl.

Additional information

Lead Editor: K. Scantlebury.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 2 Discourse analyses
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ståhl, M., Hussénius, A. Chemistry inside an epistemological community box! Discursive exclusions and inclusions in Swedish National tests in Chemistry. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 12, 395–423 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9730-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-016-9730-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation