Abstract
In this chapter, social learning and the changes over time are described and analysed as seen from several perspectives and strategies which impact on Norwegian educational theory and practice. Social learning is analysed by combining two dimensions – the level of educational practice (classroom – community) on the one hand and the degree of change (minor adjustments – new solutions) on the other. Social learning in different versions is discussed pointing to the challenge of balancing two main perspectives of social learning and teaching, namely, knowledge acquisition in classrooms and knowledge learnt by participation in community. Several strategies for social learning in Norwegian single-grade and multigrade classes, classrooms and schools are identified, compared, discussed and exemplified. The analysis points to a closing discussion of research on social learning and the several challenges to its successful implementation – ‘evidence-based’ teaching, teachers’ use of certain pedagogic strategies, the weak voice of children, ‘peer society’ and ‘ageism’ and the approach to social learning in the more abstract (theory-based) school subjects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The concepts of ‘school class’ and ‘group’ have been replaced by guidelines directed towards learning for the individual pupil. Little is said about the social collective and substantial aspects, the learning content in schools. Equity seems to be at risk. Content can be decided locally by teachers, parents and pupils – being co-responsible for documented learning results.
- 2.
Formerly well known and practised in many Norwegian and Swedish schools at this time is Johnson and Johnson (1987) Learning Together and Alone. Confluent education played a parallel role emphasising collective class meetings discussing the values behind daily practice in school, expressed by the title Aktivt Verdivalg (Active Choice of Values), promoted by Steinberg (1980), or Steinberg (1976), Emotional Growth in the Classroom: Implementing Affective Education Through the Process of Confluency. These dialogical strategies of social learning were based on contracts between pupils as an integrated collective and their teachers rather than reflecting the informal interplay between actors in school. Internationally strategies of cooperative learning have been developed for years, and many research studies have been completed. Slavin (1990, p. 241) summarised the research on cooperative learning methods supporting the usefulness of these strategies for improving such diverse outcomes as pupil achievement at a variety of age levels and in many subjects, intergroup relations, relationships between integrated and normal-progress pupils and pupil self-esteem. Slavin lists several conditions to be met for strategies of this kind to be successful. The decisive condition is that the programmes are strongly structured or instrumentally adult-controlled social learning reflecting the prevailing adult-centred professional of social learning as opposed to the central importance of agency, community and the relational qualities of children and young persons’ experiences of social learning.
- 3.
Kvalsund (2009) has shown that comparative analysis of social learning variations in differing context and learning environments (i.e. the rural–urban divide) is an indisputable characteristic of the Norwegian Research Council (NRC) programme of research on Reform 97. Therefore, strategies for improving established practice in urban schools would lack relevant comparative data and results. This mechanism contributes heavily to the development of negative myths about social learning and teaching in smaller rural schools as socially restricted.
- 4.
For a review of Norwegian research on inclusive education, differentiation and adapted teaching, see Backmann and Haug (2006).
- 5.
In a recent study, Måseidvåg and Munthe (2013) investigate the quality of learning support, analysing video-recorded lessons from teachers in four lower secondary schools mapping dimensions of quality feedback interactions. Results show that lessons are characterised by a positive climate. Teachers emphasise encouragement in their dialogues with students. Feedback is found to be more encouraging than learning oriented.
- 6.
Network processes would be understood in different ways based on conflicting values: on the one hand, the perspective of rational choice calculating action’s social exchange value by individual rational choices. On the other hand, social networks are embedded in routinised practices of everyday life in schools, work and communities based on intuitive knowledge of procedures and a fundamental value that man is a social being with an altruistic attitude not possible to reduce to individual calculation of social benefit. Social networks are formed by jumping into existing situations and activities, a practice in which altruistic acts are more important than calculating what you get in return – as in children’s play activities.
- 7.
Tiller (1983) reported on local communities seen through children’s eyes. He studied several very different ‘places’ as growing up environments for children – places representing extremes within a typology of in-migration, out-migration stability and turbulence using children as informants about their own environment, including their network patterns – a way of conserving valuable qualities of social learning in local community and become aware of conditions of negative social learning. Stangvik (1994) discusses network relations for disabled children and youth in local communities within what he describes as strategies of normalisation. Kvalsund and Hargreaves (2013) discuss the risk – dependent of theoretical perspective – of setting this kind of research ‘footprint’ in processes of educational research in rural settings studying ‘linked lives’. It seems to be an effect of not asking about the actions of people in the field making explicit the presumptions of interventions – taking presumptions, prejudices or ‘theory in advance’ for granted, be it about research or social learning.
- 8.
Råen and Ålvik (1987) in their Handbook of Local Curriculum Development discussed the exemplar principle in didactic. Their improvement strategies were suggesting the importance of balance between (1) showing the exemplar value of school subject knowledge (the scientifically based acquisition) and at the same time (2) making explicit the local exemplar value of knowledge (participation). Aasen and Engen (1994) point to season variations in local production or local custom of food processing (time-defined content) or local ‘heroes’ (person-oriented content) in addition to the historical dimension as well as multicultural dimension as criteria for selecting learning content. In some cases – e.g. Lofoten project from the 1970s (Høgmo et al. 1981) – the strategy implied developing local learning material. However, Tiller (1993, p. 124) documented that much of the local curriculum work stopped because of restricted competence among teachers. Some strategies were later directly formulated in the national curriculum plans: PRYO (practical vocational experience and knowledge) and PRASOSKA (practical social and cultural work). Within the knowledge analytical perspective, teaching in certain periods of time would be organised as field-oriented learning projects outside school (e.g. Dalin and Skrindo 1983: Learning by Participation, Tracing Historical and Cultural Traditions of Church Boats in Coastal Norway) and have broader contact and cooperation with local people on their own terms.
- 9.
The alteration between learning in large classes and small groups is a core feature in a study by J. I. Goodlad, The Nongraded School, from 1963 – organising the pupils in learning groups based on individual qualifications independent of age. Nissen og Egelund (1985) (‘Undervisning på tvers av. klassetrinn’/‘Teaching across age grades’) is a Nordic example of the same kind of educational thinking. In Norway, these educational strategies have connection to the tradition of ‘open education/open school’ in England in the 1970s and 1980s, for example, the Norwegian Elementary School Council project Elevtilpassa LæringsmMiljø – Integrert Dag (ELMID) (Pupil-Adapted Learning Environment – Integrated Day), content that supported cooperation, subject integration, age-mixed groups and flexible organisation of time and space in social learning. Today the class is no longer a stable group of people. Open schools are introduced again under the name of ‘base schools’ – where pupils are congregated in large groups of several classes in some periods of the day and then divided into smaller groups in other periods – this is the principle of flexible organisation of pupils supposed to enhance individual learning at a lower cost.
- 10.
Questions of closing down small rural schools are exported from central government down to the local level of the municipalities. In this way, the politicians at national level avoid responsibility for what is happening. They point to local politicians at municipality level even when it is a fact that they decide the economic frames for the municipalities each year. Kvalsund (2009) has analysed this process and concludes that it is a process with double meaning – centralised decentralisation or decentralised centralisation – in avoiding the responsibility.
- 11.
Emphasising abstract subject content supporting the process described by Corbett ‘learning to leave’ and increasing the chance of mobility is a change in Norwegian schools at all levels (Blichfeld 1996; Kvalsund 2009). The latest reform – ‘Reform 97’ – is increasing the level of abstraction in school content at primary and lower secondary level. Parallel to this change is observed considerable increase in the number of pupils with ‘special educational needs’ in the last 5–6 years: from 5000 pupils a year to 11,000 a year.
- 12.
This is a logic for multiple case studies associated with natural experiment. Identify a pattern of one case in a category of cases similar – and different – enough to be meaningfully compared. Then test if another pattern is identified for the next case and eventually refuted before testing a third case and so on. These are literal replications. Having identified a difference in patterns of reasons we know – a theory about the differences between two categories of cases – we speak of theoretical replications. Testing this on a multiple case material without being able to refute the pattern difference, the results/knowledge is strengthened. We then can make generalisations to the theory about the relationship between variables in cases with similar conditions and processes.
- 13.
When choosing and composing, e.g., football teams – in larger schools minor skill differences among players were judged by pupils to be very important in their age-specific sport of soccer at school. In smaller rural schools, indisputable differences among players were accepted and compensated for by establishing rules of equivalence and compensation in team composition such as three second year girls are equal to the ‘soccer power’ of one sixth year boy, because football was a play integration across age and gender which is OK.
- 14.
In a study by Nordahl (2007), the indicator of social learning is ‘self-assertion’. He finds that social learning of pupils from small rural schools and multigrade classes is way below the pupils from larger urban schools in social learning, the explanation of which is that pupils in larger schools meet more demanding social challenges and therefore have better social learning, i.e. self-assertion. The study does not refer to or review other research studies on social learning. The study is unfortunately referred to in several cases of closing down small rural schools. It is however an example of how urban criteria of social learning are applied to small rural schools where social learning has a very different meaning (cf Fig. 5 above). However, the criteria for selecting the sample and the logic behind comparisons are not made explicit. The study would therefore not be judged as serious research on social learning. In a letter written 16.10.07, from NESH, the national research ethical committee, the research study received heavy criticism – comments which have not been refuted by Nordahl.
- 15.
Subsequently this research design was extended well beyond the primary school, to examine the influence of earlier experience on the children’s later lives in the project Vulnerable youth – transition to adult life (Kvalsund and Bele 2010a, 2010b, Bele and Kvalsund (2013). Again the conditions and processes of long-time social learning – here in special classes (groups of four pupils) – have profound consequences for social integration of vulnerable pupils in adult life. Logistic regression analysis shows 3–5 times greater chance of being in a marginalised social network in early adult life if the pupil condition of social learning was regularly attending special classes, with other factors equal.
- 16.
A book by Schmuck and Scmuck (1992a) (Livet i Klasserommet or The Life in Classroom) was well known and referred to in several schools in Norway in the early 1990s. These two researchers have in addition analysed rural classrooms, schools and districts as well and again from the perspective of potential differences because of the size of schools and communities, between urban and rural social learning and cooperation (Schmuck and Scmuck 1992b). However relevant, this rural perspective and challenge of social learning was not implemented in Norway.
- 17.
According to Bell et al. (2010), examples of relevant themes in the British context have been an assessment for learning, including self and peer assessment; using the web as a learning tool; improving social skills through the use of cooperative learning strategies; making group work effective; increasing student motivation; professional development in behaviour management; teaching literacy, mathematics and social sciences; inquiry-based learning in science; and creativity in the curriculum.
- 18.
One example is a series of this kind of books published by the Scottish Council of Research in Education: Dreyer (1995) on interviews surveys and case studies, Munn and Dreyer (1995) on the use of questionnaires, Simson and Tuson (1995) on observation and on how to develop and formulate research questions – all books specially adapted for small-scale research with practical advice to teachers.
- 19.
This strategy – teacher as researcher – is a general approach grounding changes of teaching practice on research data. However, in Norway, we experience a standardising turn: see, e.g., the LP model on learning environment and educational analysis (http://lpmodellen.wordpress.com/english/), the development of which receives support from central school authorities as well. ‘Competence centres’ offer pre- and post-studies mapping schools. Predefined questionnaires are administered on teachers’ evaluation (e.g. school culture, own teaching, pupils’ motivation and efforts, behaviour problems and special needs teaching), pupils’ experiences (e.g. teaching, relations, well-being and school behaviour) and teachers’ judgement of pupils (e.g. social competence, motivation, academic results, absence from school). This represents a risk of standardisation of school evaluation and development work, moving it away from the Stenhouse idea of professional teachers in open classrooms into the hands of school leaders – as a kind of educational consumption of standardised evaluation services. A further move in this direction would be to expect evidence-based mapping studies empowering the researchers rather than the practising teachers even more.
- 20.
However, Topphol (2011) has published a fundamental critique of Hattie’s understanding of methods of significance testing and shown that his calculations of Cohen’s d (Cohen’s d is a calculated standardised measure of effect differences between the achievement means of the test group compared with the control group) are misunderstood and mathematically directly incorrect, a fact which Hattie in an e-mail exchange has admitted. In addition, Hattie‘s work is not just a meta-analysis. It is meta-analysis of meta-analysis making this review of research very abstract. As a consequence, the problem of comparisons across contexts and nation borders, comparing schools of very different sizes and pupils’ differences of age, is hardly addressed in Hattie‘s study of smaller and bigger effects on learning outcomes. (This was also a major critique of the earlier meta-analysis made by the economist Hanushek (1983, 1989) concluding about the question of impact of differential expenditures on school performance that we should stop throwing money at schools.) However, a little effect does not mean that pupils do not learn; it expresses rather that there is no difference in learning outcomes between test group and control group. In addition, Hattie’s meta-analysis focuses on single factor impact, the consequence of which is that the relative effects of interacting factors are neglected. In Hattie‘s research results on achievement, tests are the ultimate indicators of what pupils learn in school. This constitutes an industrialised production model of schooling which ignores the wider aims of a liberal education. Hattie’s review of research is taken to be essential for school development by NDET or the Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training.
- 21.
This is an understanding of learning processes very close to the prespecified behavioural objectives logic of Bobbit (1918), Tyler (1949) and Bloom (1956), which was heavily criticised by, for example, Eisner (1985) and Stenhouse (1975). Under the heading of New Public Management, the logic of the taxonomic prespecified behavioural objectives – especially objectives from the cognitive domain – has been reintroduced by politicians and school bureaucrats in Norwegian schools. The objectives can be found in work plans for the pupils. We can find examples of close to 400 specific learning objectives structuring their learning period of say 3 weeks. Teachers under this behavioural objectives regime are changed into functionaries using their time for making abstract individual work plans and reports on pupil achievements and attainment. Again teaching is misunderstood as a prescribed activity similar to the industrial production process neglecting the fact that teaching and learning are fundamentally communicative activities.
- 22.
The perspective can also be strategies addressing the school as an organisation. Early Norwegian examples of analysis from an organisational perspective are Grøterud and Nielsen (1990) and Åalvik (1990) and Tiller (1986, 1993). Several contemporary Norwegian researchers apply the organisational perspective in research and discussion of strategies for change in the frames of social and relational learning at school level – e.g. Fuglestad et al. (1999), Dalin (2005), Bjørnsrud (2009), Lillejord (2003) and Roald (2010). Research studies in these cases are most often researcher led and based on data from several schools. The intention is to analyse professional teaching and learning, the frame condition also relevant for social learning and what characterise, for example, leadership and management (Karseth et al. 2013), class leadership and learning environment (Ogden 2012) conceiving school as a system and organisation.
- 23.
Hovdenak reports on experiences with the school subject (three lessons a week in eighth grade) ‘local studies’ the content of which is about local community past, present and future including the registering of local work places. A student makes a research visit as a first step and then real work experience at self-selected work place for 15 weeks organised as 6 school hours a week every second week of the school year based on bilateral agreements between schools and employers making this school subject more authentic.
- 24.
References
Aadlandsvik, R. (Eds.). (2005). Læring gjennom livsløpet (Learning through the life course). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Aalvik, T. (1990). Vurdering av skolens arbeid – en kortfattet oversikt og noen problemer. Forsøk på å skissere et teorigrunnlag for prosjektet ‘Ledelse, evaluering og utvikling i utdanningsinstitusjoner’ (Evaluation of school‘s work – a short review and some problems). Lillehammer: Oppland Distriktshøyskole.
Aasen, J., & Engen, T. O. (Eds.). (1994). Didaktikk og læreplanarbeid i barnehage og skole (Didactic and curriculum planning in kindergarten and school). Hamar: Opplandsk.
Arnesen, A., & Sørli, M. -A. (2010). Forebyggende arbeid i skolen (Preventive work in school). In Befring, E., Frønes, & Sørlie, M. A. (Eds.), Sårbare unge. Nye perspektiver og tilnærmingsmåter (Vulnerable young. New perspectives and approaches.) (pp. 86–102). Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.
Backmann, K., & Haug, P. (2006). Forskning om tilpassa opplæring, Forskningsrapport 62 (Research on adapted teaching. Research report 62) Volda: Møreforsking Volda, Høgskulen I Volda.
Befring, E. (2004). Skolen for barnas beste. Oppvekst i eit pedagogisk perspektiv (School for Childrens best. ‘Growing up’ as seen from an Educational Perspective). Oslo: Samlaget.
Bele, I., & Kvalsund, R. (2013). On your own within a network? Vulnerable youths’ social networks in transition from school to adult life. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 1–26. doi:10.1080/15017419.2013.847860.
Bell, A., & Sigsworth, A. (1987). The Small Rural Primary School. London: Falmer Press.
Bell, M., Cordingley, P., Isham, C., & Davis, R. (2010). Report of Professional Practitioner Use of Research Review: Practitioner engagement in and/or with research. Coventry: CUREE, GTCE, LSIS & NTRP.
Berg-Olsen, A. (2008). Omsorg eller formal. Rasjonalitet og dilemmaer i fådeltskolen (Care or instrumental action. Rationality and dilemmas in small rural schools). PhD-avhandling, Universitetet i Trømsø, Tromsø.
Berg-Olsen, A. (2012). Aldersblanding som læringssystem (Multigrading as learning system). I Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, Nr 5, 2012.
Birkeland, I. (2014). Kulturelle hjørnesteiner. Hva kan vi lære av ensidige industristeder for klimaomstilling? Oslo: Cappelen Damm.
Bjørnsrud, H. (2009). Skoleutvikling – tre reformer for en lærende skole (School development – three reforms for a learning school). Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk forlag.
Blichfeld, J. F. et al. (1996). Utdanning for alle? Evaluering av Reform 94 (Education for all. Evaluation of Reform 1994 of upper secondary school). Oslo: Tano Aschehough.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: McKay.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism – Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Bø, I. (1993). Folks sosiale landskaper (People‘s social landscapes). Oslo: Tano.
Bø, I., & Schiefloe, P. M. (2007). Sosiale landskap og sosial kapital: innføring i nettverkstenkning. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Bobbit, F. D. (1918). The curriculum. New York: Houghton and Mifflin.
Brekke, M., & Tiller, T. (2013). Læreren som forsker (The teacher as researcher). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Bruner, J. (1997). Utdanningskultur og læring (Educational culture and learning). Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.
Carlgren, I., Klette, K., Myrdal, S., Schnack, C., & Simola, H. (2006). Changes in Nordic teaching practices: From individualised teaching to teaching of individuals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 301–306.
Christie, N. (1971). Hvis skolen ikke fantes (If school did not exist). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Coleman, J. (1982). The assymetric society. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Corbett, M. (2007). Learning to leave. The Irony of Schooling in Coastal Community. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again and again. In Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13.
Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the Black Box of Classroom Research. Change without Reform in American Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Dalin, P. (2005). School development: theories and strategies: An international handbook. London: Continuum.
Dalin, P., & Skrindo, M. (1983). Læring ved deltaking. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Degenne, A., & Forsé, M. (1999). Introducing social networks. London: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.
Dreyer, E. (1995). Using Semi-structured Interviews in Small Scale Research. A Teachers Guide. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Edvardsen, E. (1981). Skolen som parentes i samfunnet (School as parenthesis in society). Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 1981 (7).
Edvardsen, E. (1983). Kateteret og det anonyme levebrød (The position of teacher‘s desk and the anonymous livelyhood). In K. Skagen & T. Tiller (Eds.), Perspektiv på lærerarbeid (Perspectives on teacher work) (pp. 104–119). Oslo: Aschehoug.
Edvardsen, E., Eikeland, S., & Haavelsrud, M. (1994). Evaluering av Finnmark som egen utdanningsregion. Sluttrapport. Universitetet i Tromsø.
Edvarsen, E. (2004a). Ein påle i verdstraffikken. In J. I. Nergaard & S. Nesset (Eds.), Det gjenstridige. Edmund Edvardsen 60 år. Tromsø: Opplandske forlag.
Edvarsen, E. (2004b). Samfunnsaktiv skole. En skole rik på handling (Community active school. A school rich in action). Tromsø: Oplandske bokforlag.
Eisner, E. (1985). The art of educational evaluation a personal view. London: Falmer Press. Cambridge University Press.
Foros, P. B. (1989). Læring av ansvar. Fra handling til holdning. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Frønes, I. (1994). De likeverdige (The equals). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Fuglestad, O. L., Lillejord, S., & Tobiassen, J. (1999). Reformperspektiv på skole- og elevvurdering. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Fyrand, L. (1992). Perspektiver på sosiale nettverk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Fyrand, L. (2005). Sosialt nettverk. Teori og praksis. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. London: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gillies, D. (2012). Learning and leaving: education and depopulation in an island community. Paper presented at ECER Cadiz 2012, Network14, SES 04A. Schooling in urban and rural contexts.
Goodlad, J. I. (1963). The non-graded school. New York.
Grimen, H., & Terum, L. I. (Eds.). (2009). Evidensbasert profesjonsutøvelse (Evidence-based professional practice). Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.
Grøterud, M., & Nielsen, B. S. (1990). Skolevurdering som ledd i den enkelte skoles utvikling (School evaluation as school development). Stensil: Trondheim.
Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (Eds.). (2008). Place-based Education in the Global Age. Local Diversity. New York: Routeledge.
Gundersen, K., & Svartdal, F. (2006). Aggression Replacement Training in Norway. Outcome evaluation of 11 Norwegian student projects. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(1), 63–81.
Hagestad, G., & Uhlenberg, P. (2005). The social separation of young and old: a root of ageism. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 341–358.
Hanushek, E. A. (1983). Throwing money at schools? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1, 19–41.
Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher, 18, 45–65.
Hargreaves, L. (2009). Respect and responsibility: Review of research on small rural schools in England. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 117–128.
Hargreaves, L., Kvalsund, R., & Galton, M. (2009). Reviews of research on rural schools and heir communities in British and Nordic countries: Analytical perspectives and cultural meaning. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 80–88.
Hart, R. A. (1997). Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. London: UNICEF.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routeledge.
Healy, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: MacMillan.
Healy, P. (2003). Collaborative Planning in perspective. London: Sage.
Hellesnes, J. (1974). Sosialisering og teknokrati: ein sosialfilosofisk studie med særleg vekt på pedagogikkens problem. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Høgmo, A., Solstad, K. J., & Tiller, T. (1981) Skolen og den lokale utfordring. En sluttrapport fra Lofotprosjektet (School and the challenge of the local community Final report from the Lofoten project). Tromsø, Norway: Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap, Universitetet i Tromsø.
Hovdenak, S. S. (1993). Samarbeid skole-næringsliv: Hvorfor og hvordan? En studie fra et lokalsamfunn i kyst-Finnmark. Stensil. Tromsø: SUFUR og Tromsø lærerhøgskole.
Hovdenak, S. S. (1994). Skolen som identitetsdanner i moderne lokalsamfunn. En analyse av faget lokallære i en kystkommune. Stensil. Tromsø: Tromsø Lærerhøgskole.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jahnsen, H., & Grini, N. (2012). Er alle med? Smågruppetiltak for elever som viser problematferd på barnetrinnet. i Spesialpedagogikk nr, 08, 4–17.
Johansen, J. B. (2009). Sosialt utviklende prosesser i små og større læringsmiljøer: sosial kompetanse i fådelt skole. Vallset: Oplandske bokforlag.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs/New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Jordet, A. N. (2010). Klasserommet utenfor. Tilpasset opplæring i et utvidet læringsrom (The outdoor classroom. Adapted teaching in an extended room of learning). Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk.
Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2004). Byskolan I en brytningstid – lärarröster om skolans inndragningshot (Village schools in times of conflict – teacher voices about the threats of school closure). In A. L. Östern & Heila Yllikallio (Eds.), Språk som kultur – brytningar i tid och rum (Language as culture – conflicts in space and time). Vasa: Åbo Akademie Pedagogiska fakulteten.
Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2009). Att förstå det stora i det lilla. Byskolan som pedagogik, kultur och struktur (Understanding the big in the small. Village s chools as education, culture and structure). PhD-thesis, Åbo Akademi, Åbo.
Karseth, B., Møller, J., & Aasen, P. (Eds.). (2013). Reformtakter. Om fornyelse og stabilitet grunnopplæringen (Reform tendencies. On Renewal and Stability in Basic Education). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Klefbeck, J., & Ogden, T. (1995). Nettverk og økologi. Problemløsende arbeid med barn og unge (Networks and social ecology. Problem-solving practice with vulnerable children andyouth). Oslo: TANO.
Klette, K. (2007). Bruk av arbeidsplaner i skolen – et hovedverktøy for å realisere tilpasset opplæring? (Pupils written work plans (pupils ‘own work’) – a main tool in implementing adapted teaching?) Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, (91): 344–358.
Klette, K., Aukrust, V., Hagrtvedt, B., & Hertzberg, F. (2003). Klasserommets praksisformer etter Reform 97. Synteserapport (The Reform 97 ways of classroom practice. Synthesis report) Oslo: University of Oslo.
Kucerova, S. (2012). Changes in Territorial Structure of Primary Education in Czechia. Prague: CESKA GEOGRAFICKA SPOLECNOST.
Kvalsund, R. (1997). Særvilkårselevar i ordinærklasse. Differensiering – kompetanse eller verdsetting? (Pupils on special terms in ordinary classes. Differentiation – competence or valuation?). In B. Lødding & K. Tornes. (1997). Aspekter ved gjennomføringen av Reform 94 (Aspects of the implementation of Reform 94) (pp 217–238). Oslo: Tano Aschehough.
Kvalsund, R. (2004a). Inclusion – in disabling schools. Research from the national evaluation of the 1994 reform of upper secondary education in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6(2), 151–181.
Kvalsund, R. (2004b). Schools as environments for social learning – Shaping mechanisms? Comparisons of smaller and larges rural schools in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(4), 347–371.
Kvalsund, R. (2004c). School and local community – dimensions of change. A review of Norwegian research. Research Report no. 58, Møre Research Volda. Volda: Volda University College (Høgskulen i Volda).
Kvalsund, R. (2004d). Særvilkårselevar i ordinærklasse. Differensiering – kompetanse eller verdsetting? (Pupils on special conditions in ordinary classes. Differentiation – competence or valuation?). In B. Lødding & K. Tornes (Eds.). (1997). Idealer og paradokser. Aspekter ved gjennomføringen av Reform 94 (Ideals and paradoxes. Aspects of the implementation of Reform 1994 of upper secondary school) (pp. 217–238). Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.
Kvalsund, R. (2009). Centralised decentralisation or Decentralized Centralization? A review of Newer Norwegian Research on Schools and Their Communities. In L. Hargreaves & R. Kvalsund (Guest editors). International Journal of Educational Research, 48(2): 89–99.
Kvalsund, R., & Bele, I. (2010a). Adaptive situations and social marginalization in early adult life: students with special educational needs. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 12(1), 59–76.
Kvalsund, R., & Bele, I. (2010b). Students with Special Educational Needs – Social Inclusion or Marginalisation? Factors of Risk and Resilience in the Transition between School and Early Adult Life. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(1), 15–35.
Kvalsund, R., & Hargreaves, L. (Eds.). (2009a). Reviews of research on rural schools and their communities in British and Nordic countries. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 79–150.
Kvalsund, R., & Hargreaves, L. (2009b). Reviews of research in rural schools and their communities: analytical perspectives and a new agenda. International Journal of Educational Research, 48(2), 140–149.
Kvalsund, R., & Hargreaves, L. (2013). Theory as the source of ‘research footprint’ in rural settings. In S. White & M. Corbett (Eds.), Doing educational research in rural settings: Methodological issues. International Perspectives and Practical Solutions. London: Routledge. In press.
Lillejord, S. (2003). Ledelse i en lærende skole (Leadership in a learning school). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Måseidvåg, S, & Munthe, E. (2013). Mapping the quality of feedback to support students’ learning in lower secondary classrooms. Accepted: 3.10.2013 in Cambridge Journal of Education, doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.855171.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Melheim, K. (Ed.). (2011). Oppvekstsenter – barnehage og skule hand i hand (Growing up –centers. School and kindergarten hand in hand). Sogndal: Landslaget for nærmiljøskulen (LUFS).
Meyer, H. D., & Benavot, A. (Eds.). (2013). PISA, power and policy. The emergence of global educational governance. Series: Oxford studies in Comparative Education. Oxford: Symposium Books.
Munn, P., & Dreyer, E. (1995). Using questionnaires in Small Scale research. In A Teachers guide. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Myklebust, J. O. (1994). Kohortar på marsj. Flytting og etablering hos ungdom i etterkrigstida (Marching cohorts. Youth migration and settlement after Second World War). (PhD thesis) Doktoravhandling. Trondheim: Institutt for sosiologi og statsvitenskap, UNIT, AVH.
Nafstad, H. E. (Ed.). (2004). Det omsorgsfulle mennesket. Et psykologisk alternative (Caring man. A psychological alternative). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademiske.
Nissen, P., & Egelund, N. (1985). Undervisning på tvers av klassetrin (Teaching across age grades). København: Pedagogisk psykologisk forlag.
Nordahl, T. (2007). Elever i og fra store og små skoler. Presentasjon av kartleggingsresultater i en kommune (Pupils in and from larger and smaller schools. Presentation of results from a mapping study in a municipality). Elverum: Høgskolen in Hedmark. Reprt nr 4, 2007.
Nordahl, T. (2011). Læringsmiljøets betydning og bruk av veiledningmateriell. PP-presentation, Tromsø 22.09.2013. Hedmark University College and the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. http://www.slideshare.net/udir/bedre-lringsmilj-lringsmiljets-betydning-thomas-nordahl
Norwegian Directorat of Education and Training (NDET). (2013a). Skolestruktur: Endringer i landskapet de siste ti årene (School structure: Changes in the landscape last ten years). Statistikknotat 02, 2013.
Ogden, T. (2012). Klasseledelse. Praksis, teori og forskning (Class leadership. Practice, theory, and research). Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Österlind, E. (Ed.). (2005). Eget arbete – en kameleont i klassrummet (Individual work – chameleon in the classroom). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119.
Postholm, M. B. (2011). A completed research and development work project school: The teacher’s learning and possibilities, premises and challenges for further development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(3), 560–568.
Råen, F. D., & Ålvik, T. (1987). Håndbok i lokalt læreplanarbeid. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Reynolds, D. (1988). Forskning på britisk skoleutvikling – Bidraget fra kvalitative studier. (Research on British school development – The contribution from qualitative studies. First published in Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol 1(2). 143–154.). In L. Monsen & T. Tiller (1991): ‘Effektive skoler’ – skoleutvikling eller mer byråkrati? Oslo: Ad Notam.
Roald, K. (2010). Kvalitetsvurdering som organisasjonslæring mellom skole og skoleeigar. Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (PhD). Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing social-cultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Sociocultural Studies of Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Aruz, R. M., Correa-Chavez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). First Hand Learning Through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 175–203.
Rønning, W., Solstad, K. J. & Øines, T. (2003). Det trengs ei hel bygd for å oppdra et barn. (A whole community is needed to raise a child). Bodø: Nordlandsforskning. (NF-rapport 3/2003).
Salmon, S., & Salte, R. Å. (2008). PEACE4KIDS – ART. Trening av sosial kompetanse med barn. Sandnes: Diakonhjemmets høgskole i Rogaland.
Scahfft, K. A., & Jackson, A. Y. (Eds.). (2010). Rural Education for the 21 century. Identity, place and community in a global world. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University.
Schein, E. (2004). Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schiefloe, P.M. (1982). Sosiale nettverk – miljøfaktorer og planleggingsmål. I: Veggeland, N. (red) Planleggingens muligheter. 1. Teori for handling. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Schiefloe, P.M. (1992). Sosiale nettverk. I: Fyrand, L (red) Perspektiver på sosiale nettverk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Schiefloe, P. (2003). Mennesker og samfunn. Innføring i sosiologisk forståelse (Human beings and society. Introduction to sociological thinking). Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.
Schmuck, R. A. (2006). Practical action research for change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Schmuck, R. A., & Scmuck, P. A. (1992a). Livet i klasserommet. (The life in classroom.) Oslo: Cappelen.
Scmuck, R. A., & Scmuck, P. A. (1992b). Small Districts. Big Problems. Making School Everybody‘s House. London: Sage, Corwin Press.
Scott, W. R. (2002). Organisations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. London: Prentice Hall.
Scott, J. (2009). Social Network Analysis. A handbook. London: Sage.
Simson, M., & Tuson, J. (1995). Using Observations in Small Scale Research. In A beginner‘s guide. Edinburgh: Schottish Council for Research in EDucation.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Co-operative learning. I: Rogers, C. og Kutnick, P. (red). The social psychology of the primary school. London: Routeledge.
Slavin, R. (2008). Evidence-Based Reform in Education: what will it take? In European Educational Research Journal, Volume 7, Number 1, 2008 (www.wwwords.eu/EERJ)
Solstad, K. J. (1978). Riksskole i utkantstrok. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Solstad, K. J. (1994). Equity at risk. Schooling and change in Norway. PhD thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Solstad, K. J. (2009). Bygdeskolen i velstandsnorge. (The rural school in affluent Norway). Vallset: Opplandske bokforlag
Solstad, K. J. (2012). Ekstern gjennomgang av oppvekst- og kulturetaten i Leirfjord kommune. (External analysis of the ‘growing up’- and culture department in Leirfjord municipality, Nordland, Norway). NF-notat 1007/2012. Bodø: Nordlandsforskning.
Solstad, K. J., & Sigsworth, A. (2005). Small rural schools. A small Inquiry. Nesna, Norway. Report 64. Nesna University College.
Solstad, K. J., & Theling, A. A. (2006). Skolen og distrikta. Sampel eller konflikt? (School and the districts. Coperation or conflict?). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Solstad, K. J., Leka, W., & Sigsworth, A. (2012). Reaching out. The place of small Multi-grade Schools in Developing Countries. Bodø/Nesna: The Case of Ethiopia.
Sørlie, K. (1993). Bofasthet, flytting og utdanningsnivå i kommunene. Åtte årskull fulgt gjennom aldersfasen 15–35 år. Del I: Østlandet. Del II: Sørlandet og Vestlandet. Del III: Trøndelag og Nord-Norge. Oslo: Statistisk sentralbyrå. Rapporter 93/28–30.
Sørlie, K. (2003). Bosetting, flytting og regional utvikling, i Frønes, I and (Eds) (2003). Det norske samfunn, 4. Utgave. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Lodon: Sage.
Stangvik, G. (1994). Funksjonshemmede inn i lokalsamfunnetsamfunnet. Prinsipper og arbeidsmåter. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Steinberg. (1976). Emotional growth in the classroom: Implementing affective education through the process of confluency. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Steinberg, J. M. (1980) Aktivt verdivalg. (Active choice of values). Oslo: Dreyer.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann.
Thosmas, G., & Pring, R. (Eds.). (2004). Evidence-based Practice in Education. London: Open University Press.
Tiller, P. O. (1983). Å vokse opp i Norge (Growing up in Norway). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Tiller, T. (1986). Den tenkende skolen. Om organisasjonsutvikling og aksjonslæring på skolens egne premisser. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Tiller, T. (1993). Vurder selv. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Topphol, A. K. (2011). Kan vi stole på statistikken i utdanningsforskinga (Can we trust statistical analysis in Educational Research?). Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 95(6), 461–470.
Tyler, R. F. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chiicago, Press and Falmer Press.
Vetlesen, A. J. (2004). Det frie mennesket? Et sosialfilosofisk blikk på patologiene i opsjonssamfunnet (Liberty to choose? A social philosophical perspective on pathologies of the option society). In H. E. Nafstad (Ed.), Det omsorgsfulle mennesket. Et psykologisk alternative. (Caring man. A psychological alternative). (pp. 17–54) Oslo: Gyldendal Akademiske.
Vetlesen, A. J. (2009). Community in times of individualism. In H. E. Nafstad & R. M. Blakar (Eds.), Felleskap og individualism. (Community and Individualism) (pp. 19–54) Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Vinterek, M. (2003). Åldersblandade klasser. Lärares föreställningar och elevers erfarenheter (Age mixed classes. Teachers conceptions and pupils experiences). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Wassermann, S., & Galaskiewics, J. (Eds.). (1994). Advances in social network analysis. Research in the social and behavioral sciences. London: Sage.
Weick, C. (1995). Sensemaking in organisations. London: Sage Publications.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Leaning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, S., & Corbett, M. (Eds.). (2013). Doing Educational Research in Rural Settings: Methodological issues, International Perspectives and Practical Solutions. London: Routledge.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. London: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kvalsund, R. (2017). Social Learning Norwegian Classrooms and Schools: Educational Research in Perspective. In: Maclean, R. (eds) Life in Schools and Classrooms. Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, vol 38. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3654-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3654-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3652-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3654-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)