Literature review for WP6 – Mälardalen University Margareta Enghag, Susanne Engström, Birgitta Norberg Brorsson, Jutta Lesell

Towards teachers’ professional development for dialogic inquiry-based teaching and learning

1 Introduction MDU gives in this overview some basic ideas about how science education has developed in Sweden, and how some national projects and events have been influential for teachers’ attitudes, as we see this. Our ideas about teacher professional development, based on Education for Sustainable Development, will permeate the training module we will initially start up with, and we therefore briefly describe the main ideas. The MDU team will pay attention to students’ science writing abilities and we include our ideas about science writing as both parts of dialogue and as a separate enterprise. Our main idea is that inquiry based science teaching and learning need to be developed as dialogic inquiry based science teaching and learning.

2 Swedish Science Education Research (SER) related to pedagogical development

2.1 Swedish SER. The growth of Science Education Research SER (Forskning i Naturvetenskapernas och Teknikens Didaktik. SER= NT-didaktik) in Sweden is commonly seen as how research-informed teacher education came to influence the unification of two former educational perspectives; The academic – with teachers deep-rooted in the university science content-focused discourses, and the non-academic - with teachers from elementary-school teachers' training college having a fostering and pupil centred view towards education. This development is described by several Swedish authors, for example Andersson, 2001; Carlgren, 1999; Ekstig, 2002; Helldén, Lindahl, & Redfors, 2005; Wickman & Persson, 2008.

2.2 SER Graduate school. When teacher training was replaced by academic teacher education programs, SER also became a growing research discipline in Sweden. Subject didactics from Göteborg University and Curriculum Studies from Uppsala University and Stockholm University, now enlarged with The National Graduate School for Science and Technology, FontD, which was established as a network enterprise for seven Swedish universities and university colleges. FontD, with the goal to produce 25 Doctors of Science Education, used Linköping University as the centre for the network, and they still continue to educate doctors and licentiates within SER (Strömdahl, 2000). Today, Stockholm University has established a new graduate school for Subject Didactics, aimed at teacher professional development and teacher education carriers. The Centre for Educational Science and Teachers’ Research at Göteborg University had 2009 153 applicants for 6 positions as part-time PhD students (Centrum för utbildningsvetenskap och lärarforskning (CUL) vid Göteborgs universitet), which shows how popular teachers find this opportunity.

2.3 Dominant SER Institutions. The Institution for Subject Didactics at Gothenburg University have dominated the development of science education in Swedish compulsory school and with projects such as NORD-LAB, which have provided teachers with research based teaching material. They have, during the last 40 years, produced most of SER results in

1

Sweden and numerous reports. Professor Björn Andersson’s impact on teacher education and teachers’ professional development is considerable throughout Sweden, and with his two new books, this dominance will persist for a long time. (Andersson, 2008a, 2008b). The team has adapted to new international trends towards a social constructivist view, and their focus on energy flow as a natural starting point in science education, also makes their research of interest for education for sustainable development, (See for example (Andersson, Bach, & Zetterqvist, 2002; Andersson & Wallin, 2000). Their contribution to the national evaluation of compulsory school can be exemplified by “Nationella utvärderingen av grundskolan 2003 (NU-03). Problemlösning [National evaluation of compulsory school (NU-03). Problemsolving]” (Kärrqvist & West, 2005).

3 Science Education School projects and activities related to Teacher professional development

3.1 The NOT-project. In Sweden the national projects NOT (Naturvetenskap och Teknik [Science and technology]) and ITiS (IT i Skolan) [ICT in Schools]have been of special importance. NOT was aimed to increase young people’s interest for science and technology, and to enhance science education in schools. Children and students were expected to get a positive view of S&T through interesting science education, parental influence and activities in collaboration between school, communities and, trade and industry. The second phase of the NOT-project, carried out in Sweden 1998-2003, was a cooperative project between The Swedish National Agency for School Improvement and The National Agency for Higher Education. The aim of the project was to stimulate the interest for science and technology, and to develop the teaching of these subjects. Many professional development courses were arranged over one or two days, consisting of presentations by university teachers or best-practice examples from schools. The activities aimed at enhancing science teaching, providing science teachers with material, and increasing motivation and energy in science classrooms in Sweden were given within the NOT projects. Also, resource centers and organizations such as The National Resource Centres for Physics, Chemistry and Biology and CETIS, Centre for Technology in School were built up. In total 17 MSEK were used into the project. These organizations still exist and CETIS in particular, is a centre for activities and for developing technology in school, a compulsory subject under development. This influential project has been evaluated in several reports and in the final report, a leading theme is, how important science and technology are for economic growth in a knowledge society, and continuous teacher professional development is prescribed. See (Backlund & Fröborg, 2005). In the evaluation of the project, teachers and teacher educators were pleased and positive about the courses, seminars and conferences, but they also expressed a wish for more reflective discussions and local seminars and activities (Gisselberg, Ottander, & Hanberger, 2004).

3.2 The ITiS-project. The national project – ITiS (ICT in Schools) – was introduced at a national level between 1999-2002 and offered professional development to 75 000 teachers. Here the main idea was to give teachers knowledge of ICT, but at the same time change content and working methods in schools towards problem-based learning strategies. At the same time, all teachers in the project were given the opportunity to have a computer of their own sponsored by the project. The number of computers in the classroom was increased to one computer for three teachers in schools during the project time (Delegationen-för-ITiSkolan, 1999).

2

3.3 Current trends. After the NOT-and ITiS-projects, more interest has been given to mathematics education, and national efforts for basic knowledge in writing, reading and calculating have been emphasized. During 2007, (the 300 year anniversary of Linné), a collaboration between the National Linnaeus Commission and The Swedish National Agency for School Improvement resulted in The Linnaeus Schools Project, which was principally targeted at teachers working in primary schools, compulsory secondary schools, upper secondary schools and adult education. The main goal of the initiative was to stimulate learning, further education, research education, and research. See http://www.linne2007.se.

During 2008-2009 , Dr Britt Lindahl from Kristianstad University leads a national series of seminars for NT-didaktik (SER). These seminars are successful as a forum for teachers and researchers to meet and discuss. Teachers and researchers with an interest in compulsory school science education have met for discussions on themes such as; formal assessment or ICT in schools. International researchers (for example Svein Sjöberg, Shirley Simon), and new Swedish PhD students have presented their research projects.

3.4 Lärarlyftet “The growth of teachers”. The national investment during the year 2007–2010 in teachers professional development in subjects, and subjects didactics, are planned to cost around of 2,8.109 SEK. Teachers can work part-time and receive salaries for their participation in projects. The investment is meant to raise teachers’ status and competence. The project name is Lärarlyftet “The growth of teachers”. The government has also arranged for investments for science and technology education and science museum during 2009 -2011. (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2009)

3.5 The NTA-project. The NTA program (Science and Technology for All) started in 1997 as a project by the Royal Swedish Academy of Science (KVA), and the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Science (IVA) in cooperation with municipalities throughout Sweden. In April 2007 the participation had increased to 70 municipalities and 10 independent schools (a total of 66000 students and 4000 teachers). NTA provide teachers with 14 units developed in US, and another4 units developed in Sweden. Each unit provides a teacher book, a pupil book and laboratory material for an entire class. To be able to use the “boxes”, the teacher has to attend two general education meetings and two specific training sessions for every thematic area; this is mandatory for teachers wishing to use NTA. The units are adapted versions of the Science and Technology for Children, STC, curriculum, developed by the National Science Resourses Center, NSRC, and Carolina Biological Supply Company, CBS. NTA is based on the Swedish national curriculum and syllabuses, but does not satisfy all the goals specified. Teachers a free to develop the NTA material further on, and can take part in additional development work within NTA. See www.nta.se.

4 Inquiry-based science teaching/learning IBST/L in a Swedish context

4.1 Many variations of IBST/L. The Swedish school-system was influenced by problem based learning in the 80s. Flexible learning, portfolio and storyline are educational concepts most teachers have come across. The website “Multimediabyrån[ TheMultimedia Bureau]” , supported by The Swedish National Agency for Education (www.skolverket.se), describes these instructional strategies, and provides material for enhanced variations of teaching and ICT skills. Probably most teaching in compulsory school still is “traditional”, which is to say: the teacher is in control, and series of smaller teacher defined tasks are

3

organized within separate subject disciplines. Learning takes place in the classroom, and the content is the most important aspect. Students’ master knowledge through drill and practice and content is not necessarily learned in context.

Most pedagogical influences in Sweden have been taken from US pedagogy. John Dewey’s influence on the Swedish curriculum cannot be overestimated and his books are still as source for pedagogical discussions. In spite of the fact that “learning by doing” has been criticized since the 70s, research finds that many inductive investigations without guidance still remain in schools; This was noticed and debated when Bergqvist (1994) as a non- science pedagogue entered the optics lesson in a physics classroom and shared the pupils’ confusion when they were supposed to discover for themselves the law of refraction, and to understand the teacher’s analogies in this area(Bergqvist & Säljö, 1994). Recently Andrée (2007) has discussed inductive discovery still continuing in Swedish classrooms. Much focus has been placed on work methods and projects and “the seven steps” have been implemented in teaching. In primary education learners’ own planning of activities has gone far beyond what the older students do, in fact the independent planning of learning decreases rapidly with age! Few teachers go so far in using the inquiry process, that they become a facilitator or guide for the learner's own process of discovery and creating understanding of the world. Many teachers use parts of the new pedagogical “methods” and design a learning environment which is a compromise or vary their teaching strategies. But, despite the freedom in the curriculum, many teachers follow a text-book driven instruction. The pressure on time, and perhaps the lack of evaluation and appreciation, makes it easy to do as “always”. ICT is perhaps the reason for teaching to change; assessments in the form of student powerpoint presentations are commonly used. We find that the Swedish curriculum empowers teachers to use IBST/L, but that educational development since the 70s has involved many steps: First the higher education problem based learning “movement” gave increased interest towards inquiry as such. Secondly, increased computer density for teachers and students helped teachers to implement a variety of project based instructions into their classrooms. Many influences came from language learning and social sciences, and science education is seen as slow to adapt to new technology and to new educational paradigms. However, the entrance of education for sustainable development has given science education a “new chance”.

5 Education for Sustainable Development

UNESCO leads the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) during the decade 2005-201. ESD promotes Interdisciplinary and holistic learning rather than subject-based learning. Further on ESD emphasizes Values-based learning and Critical thinking rather than memorizing as well as Multi-method approaches: word, art, drama, debate, etc. ESD will also promote Participatory decision-making and Locally relevant information, rather than national.

“The founding value of ESD is respect: respect for others, respect in the present and for future generations, respect for the planet and what it provides to us (resources, fauna and flora). ESD wants to challenge us all to adopt new behaviours and practices to secure our future.” (See www.unesco.org/en/esd/).

4

In Sweden, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has become an issue and a driving force for teacher education as well as teaching in schools. Several dissertations have recently been produced in this area. Björneloo’s dissertation is used as the course book in several teacher education programs, as teacher education focuses on ESD for all teachers ((Björneloo, 2007; Lundegård, 2007; Sund, 2008; Öhman, 2006). At Mälardalen University student teachers meet ESD during the first year of general courses, but they are also given opportunity to take special courses. A national mapping of environmental education was conducted in 2001, and included strategic work for sustainable development within the Baltic Sea region. The Agenda 21 for the region was called Baltic 21. The basis of the survey was to establish a picture of where the countries were on a scale of three generations of environmental education; 1) The environmental education (EE) as factum - based, 2) The EE as normative, providing action competence to the learners, or 3) The EE as ESD.The overall mission was to describe the situation and implement an action plan for education for sustainable development (Öhman & Östman, 2001).

6 Teachers’ professional development

Global perspectives on teacher learning: Improving policy and practice. This title comes from the UNESCO report; see (Schwille, Dembélé, & Schubert, 2007). This international review of teacher education organization and teachers’ professional development (PD) contains more than 160 references (no Swedish). In the summary (pp 97 -129) a clear message about PD is that:

In contrast to one-shot workshops or top-down cascades training, effective professional development are characterized by

Programs conducted in school settings and linked to school-wide efforts; Teachers participating as helpers to each other and as planners with

administrators, of in-service activities; Emphasis on self-instruction with differentiated training opportunities; Teachers in active roles, choosing goals and activities for themselves; Emphasis on demonstration, supervised trials and feed-back; Training that is concrete and ongoing over time; and Ongoing assistance and support available upon request

This view has been refined and elaborated (Villegas-Reimers, 2003).

Two key dimensions are identified: core features and structural features. Core features include focus on content, active learning and coherence. Structural features include duration, form and participation. Schwille, Dembélé and Schubert (2007) pay great attention to Japanese lessons studies and to Chinese teachers’ research groups. They especially mention the way in which to use teachers’ own classrooms as laboratories for professional development, the public nature of teaching, the importance of teachers working together, and the “bifocal nature of lesson studies”. Other issues are action research as a means for professional development, emphasis on understanding student thinking, cumulative impact through writing and dissemination of reports and balance between teacher initiative and outsider advice and guidance. Also the Swedish researcher Ference Marton has emphasized the content oriented nature of teaching/learning; it is not about methods– it is to be able to

5

discern critical aspects for learning, and recommends Learning Studies for PD (Marton & Ling, 2007)

7 The MDU/S-TEAM view of Teachers Professional Development

“Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” (Wenger, 2004)

We find that our interest in developing teaching and teachers’ interest to get access to research informed strategies makes us a natural “community of practice” for teaching development.

By inviting teacher teams and developing teaching activities around topics (energy for example), we intend to engage and explore the possibility to interact as a network and a community of practice. We argue that every teacher should have a supporting and observing researcher related, who is willing to discuss and develop the teaching and evaluating results on a safe and interest-based level. The frequency of this communication has to be economically viable. We plan in cycles of 1) meeting in dialogue – mentoring ideas 2) classroom work 3) visit with field studies 4) final visit with evaluation.

In the same way that participation and inquiry has become important in education in general, we think that this is also the situation for teacher education and teachers’ professional development (PD). A way to include teachers as participators and owners of their PD, is to ask for best-practice experiences, and with this as starting-point together develop teaching further with input from research based ideas and results. At MDU we intend to reach teams of teachers at schools who are willing to work together with us, by presenting some of our ideas in seminars, arranged in cooperation with our regional developing centres.

1) The Regional Development Centre (RUC) is a link between the teacher education department of each Swedish university and school communities.

2) NTA-meetings. NTA (Science and technology for all) is a national project in which teachers without science education, during three days of education for each experimental box, gain confidence to use these boxes in their teaching. During these education days we also have the opportunity to have four 20 – 30 minutes talks from us on different specialties (dialogic teaching, education for sustainable development, new energy systems, writing in science. Our Training module TM, will be arranged based on our view of teachers PD as a network enterprise between teachers, teacher educators and researchers. Three steps will be characteristic;

First, teachers will get to know about us in our presentation in the RUC seminar series, or at the NTA start-up education days, where we will give short presentations about 1) dialogic teaching/ communicative approaches, 2) ESD and the importance of teaching for sustainable energy, and 3) how writing is a part of dialogue and a way in which to learn.Secondly, we will meet teams of teachers who are interested to work with us at their school, and have a productive conversation with them about their experiences of

6

teaching, and how they look upon the situation in their classrooms today. We will ask for resource- sheets and their reflections on their teaching in the light of ESD. We will decide about joint activities, literature to read, and main ideas to focus upon. This important part of sharing ideas will be the basis for PD to take place.Thirdly, we will map the activity in the classroom at the beginning of this TM, both regarding activities going on and the communicative approaches used. An action plan will be set up. Some lessons will be followed and we will come back and listen to teacher and learner experiences after six weeks.Finally, we will return for a last mapping and for the evaluation of teacher and learners’ experiences. Questionnaires and interviews will be used.This TM is set up individually for each school-teacher team for the duration of one semester. We hope to follow four – eight teams during 2009/2010.

Figure 1: MDU Training Module for each teacher team with the duration of one semester (4 months)

8Dialogic Inquiry Based Science Teaching and Learning

8.1 Dialogic teaching. In UK Dialogic teaching has developed as a strategy to enhance the pattern of classroom talk discussed by Lemke (1990), as the triadic pattern. Teacher do not teach by lecturing that anymore, but still keep control in class by using discursive moves by initiate – response -evaluation pattern. The IRE pattern often is built on question- answer-evaluation, when the teachers make the students “que-seekers”, the pupils guess the word the teacher is aiming at. Another pattern of discourse is IRFRF, initiate – response-feedback- response-feedback, can be found when the teacher instead of asking yes/no questions, encourage and prompt the pupil to tell the class of personal ideas around the phenomenon that is in focus. The teacher can ask prompting questions “How do you mean?” or “ Tell us more…”, or “Can you give us an example? “, to let the pupil get time enough to explain his/her view. This is valuable for several reasons. The class learns that there are many ways to look upon a phenomenon; some can be expressed by everyday-life

7

words, but also in a more scientific wording. When many ideas are expressed, it is better chance to discern fruitful alternatives to go on with.

Mercer(1995) analysed and categorized talk, building on Barnes (1973) findings of children’s exploratory talk. Exploratory talk was used, when the children were free to discuss to find a solution to a problem, and free to explore each other’s ideas around a topic without interruption. The final draft talk, was on the other hand what they turn to, when they in a more stringent way, reported their ideas to the teacher as a summary.

Mortimer and Scott (2003) described different communicative approaches in a two dimensions; interactive/non-interactive and authoritative/dialogic. They emphasized that teachers awareness of these different approaches could help to you the in an appropriate way. They described further on, the teachers responsibility to: 1) present the scientific ideas on the social plane, 2) discuss the ideas with the pupils to help them internalize the ideas, and 3) handing the ideas over to the students to make them their own.

Alexander (2004) gave a broad meaning to dialogic teaching in the book “Towards Dialogic Teaching”, where he review the research field in classroom discourse. Alexander has summarized the essential features of dialogic teaching in five principles:

Collective: teachers and children address learning tasks together, whether as a group or as a class, rather than in insulation;

Reciprocal: teachers and students listen to each others, share ideas, and consider alternative viewpoints:

Supportive: students articulate their ideas freely, without fear of embarrassment over ‘wrong answers’, and theybhelp each others to reach common understandings;

Cumulative:Teachers and children build on their own and each other’s ideas and chain them into coherent lines of thinking and enquiry;

Purposeful: teachers plan and facilitate dialogoc teaching with particular educational goals in view

8.2 Dialogic Inquiry. MDU like to focus on, and search for episodes, that include dialogic inquiry in the dialogic/interactive talk in the classroom. This means a situation when learners and teachers together explore ideas that are not planned for the lesson, but are initiated by the way the dialogue has taken place during the classroom discussion.

Even if the teacher has a predetermined message of science learning for the class, the conversation in the classroom can lead the teacher into a discussion where new questions can appear. To accept this moment as an opportunity for development and learning for all, and not react to it with panic could lead to dramatic differences for a teacher. Hurst (2002) describes “dialogue as a form of inquiry, but also a process”. He propose that “in a subject-centred classroom individuals collaboratively learn from one another through inter-subjective awareness. Dialogic discourse therefore gives rise to meaning-making, a dynamic that honours both the learners’ own subjectivity and as it does the objectivity of the subject” (Hurst, 2002).

This special form of dialogue can also be found when students work in small groups and use “exploratory talks” to find the answer to a specific question. For the teacher to have the

8

opportunity to take part in an exploratory talk in the classroom, requires some credibility from the class and their confidence in the teacher. This becomes easier with several teachers in the classroom, arguing and talking about ways to look at phenomena. Often this discussion between teachers in the classroom is very interesting for students, and gives them confidence in their own thinking and reasoning. To create this atmosphere of a community of practice involving students could be a great way for teachers’ professional development.

9 Education for sustainable energy9.1 Sustainable energy. Climate change, decreasing oil resources and troublesome

“security-conflicts” have accelerated the process of an adjustment of our energy systems.

This has resulted in a need for an increased level of competence in energy. People need to understand the consequences of energy requirements, which in turn require education in school to address energy questions, primarily within the subject of physics.

“If physicists’ don´t teach energy and society (as I will call this field), it´s hard to imagine who will” (Hobson, 2006, s. 294).

A great deal of teaching material is created to be provided to and to support teachers (Hobson, 2006).

This material created and used in schools contains and includes fundamental physics, as the energy-principle, the concept of efficiency, and different sources of energy. Also connections to technology are included, for example the fuel cell, the wind turbine, the heat pump and the nuclear power station.

In addition, knowledge about the greenhouse effect, climate change and ecological footprints are included. Education for sustainable energy is comprised of different aspects and a holistic way of working might be necessary (Hobson, 2006; SEET, 2008; Areskoug, 2006; Connecticut Energy Education, 2008). Students’ learning of energy is studied over the years. (Andersson, 2001; Driver et al., 1985; Duit, 2007; Solomon, 1992). Researchers have often given descriptions of how learners explain energy concepts and context. Students’ understandings have been mapped in order to develop teaching for enhanced understanding (Andersson, 2oo1).Student explanations have a tendency to be marked by everyday language, and by non-scientific descriptions (Kesidou & Duit, 1993; Solomon, 1992; Wiser & Amin, 2001). Energy is a part of physics that is to be found, to a great extent, within everyday life, and so it is close to adopt an everyday understanding (Solomon, 1992).

It is especially difficult to learn scientific explanations useful for future society in areas where students already have a deeply rooted pre-understanding (Schumacher et al., 1993).

Researchers point at difficulties for students to understand physics concepts and connections in a scientific way. Even if students succeed in doing this, further insights are necessary for understanding energy within sustainable development. In which case another problem sets in often discussed in science education research; How can students transfer their science knowledge from school subjects into “real-life”, and be able to solve problems

9

and participate in public discussion of social problems on grounds of fact? Marton and Mun Ling (2007) point out:

“We are interested in learning that enables the learners to deal with novel situations in powerful ways” (s.35).

The last ten years of science education research, has shown the importance of shifting focus from students learning the scientific content, towards schools promoting a culture of scientific literacy for all. This can be done by allowing the learners to become involved in the science language and to use inquiry-based methods (Millar & Osborne, 1998).

By inquiry-based methods we mean that students work with awareness in a process to define problems, critique experiments, see alternatives, plan investigations, give hypothesis, debate with peers and others, and formulate coherent and fact-based arguments (Blumenfeld et al., 1996; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000).

Roberts (2007) describes Vision І and Vision ΙΙ to give meaning for science education. He found that a polarisation has occurred between two approaches; one where subject content makes difference in itself, and another where science is important in the context. Both these approaches have significance for science education. The question is the balance between the two. Vision Ι emphasizes science’s own products and processes, but Vision II points to the situations in which the students have to act as citizens. There are many arguments in support of Vision II, according to Roberts, for example that the students need knowledge for citizenship in the technological society we live in, and that the content will develop the students intellectually and morally.

Roberts describes Vision II as mixing traditional subject content with context-based material, and that a person doing this ”uses scientific knowledge and scientific ways of thinking for individual and social purposes” (Roberts, 2007, s. 751). The idea is that education shall start in ”socio- scientific situations” (s. 753), and that one lets ”situations be an important focus of science classroom discourse” (s. 759).

Roberts (2007) elucidate s the difference in outcomes for students taught in the spirit of Vision I versus vision II; the main difference is how the student creates a conceptual understanding, and experiences socio-scientific issues. Vision I influences the student to become “a little scientist”, and look upon issues in that way. To consider controversial social issues from economic, aesthetic, political, ethical and social perspectives, is not something a student does without training, or just because she or he has learnt a logical scientific explanation. Therefore is it important within Vision II, to find an understanding for scientific concepts and clarify them from other perspectives (Roberts, 2007). Roberts also discusses the risks with Vision I and Vision II within education; Vision I risks portraying technology, personal and social perspectives as superficial and shallow, and Vision II risks jeopardizing the scientific content for the subject.

Gyberg (2003) has in a study, described energy as the field of knowledge of energy in a Swedish context,and found three different discourses (here interpreted as ways of reasoning about energy).

10

9.2Names for energy education. Within physics education for sustainable energy several expressions are to be found, for example “education in environmental physics”, “physics education for sustainable development”, “sustainable energy education” or “energy and society” (SEET, 2008; Connecticut energy education, 2008; Hobson, 2006).

All of these include a similar content. Physics education with focus on environment, is often called Environmental Physics, and contains energy and environment.

The basic standpoint is that understanding physics laws is important for humankind in order to find sustainable solutions for the future. There is a challenge for physicists, engineers, economists and sociologist to collaborate for solutions (WCPSD, 2006).

Environmental physics is more interdisciplinary than traditional physics education.

“The science education that can have a relationship with environmental education(and sustainable development) is not necessarily that currently practised, but a reconstructed form, which incorporates a more mutualistic relationship, could well be what is needed” (Gough, 2002).

According to Hobson (2006) there are two strategies for education for sustainable energy; One can either have a special project or course about energy, or energy-and society is presented within the traditional physics course. Hobson finds energy and society as a interdisciplinary field, that include physics, engineering, chemistry, economics, sociology, politics, ethics, religion and history. Hobson (2006) describes the integration within sustainable energy:

“Dont`t save these topics until the end of the course; insert them as soon as students understand the relevant physics, so that they can see the connections between physics and society. Energy – and – society topics can range from a few minutes devoted to photovoltaic cells during a lecture about the photoelectric effect, to 15 minutes about automobile engine efficiencies during a discussion of the second law of thermodynamics, to a 50 – minute lecture on global warming following presentation of the electromagnetic spectrum “(s. 295).

Concerning the content in education for sustainable energy some concepts and terms frequently recur. Users- and supplying-perspectives (Areskoug & Eliasson, 2007; Gyberg, 2003) take departure in concepts as energy supply that describes the energy usefulness. The question of how we provide for energy supply becomes of interest. Energy supply should be by renewal energy systems, but insights into other energy sources and consequences of use of these are important. It is important to understand the technology behind the fuel cell, the solar cell, the heat pump, the water-and wind power and the meaning of bio-energy (SEET, 2008; Areskoug & Eliasson, 2007). Content in education for sustainable energy is also renewable energy and energy efficiency (WCPSD, 2006; ISES, 2008). ISES, 2008:

“The project focuses on environmental education in schools, in particular addressing the topics of Renewable Energy (RE) and Energy Efficiency (EE)”.

Hobson (2006):

“Many experts consider a combination of renewable resources with energy efficiency and conservation to be the key to providing sustainable energy services to a growing and aspiring

11

world population while maintaining a healthy environment (s. 306”).

Education for sustainable energy can also be about: The students’ own energy use, energy sources, the recycling of coal, how a power plant works, climate change, or climate change vs human activity.

10 Writing in Science.

There are two main reasons why writing should be an important part of teachers’ instruction: Firstly, writing is an important learning strategy, secondly, it is important that the students know how to write within the different school subjects as writing is part of the culture of each content subject. Writing is thus a powerful means to help the students develop their everyday, concrete, informal language use (primary discourse according to Bachtin 1986, 1997) and acquire the abstract, scientific language use of school (secondary discourse according to Bachtin 1986, 1997). Consequently, teachers must have knowledge of what kind of writing best helps their students to develop their knowledge.

In international research there are two main directions. One direction, Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC), stresses writing-to-learn-strategies, which can be used in all subjects. Spontaneous writing and writing to investigate can help the pupils “make the content of the subject their own”. The theories of this direction are built on the research of Britton (1970) and later on e.g. Elbow (1981). The other direction, Writing in the Disciplines (WID), stresses the terminology of each subject, its linguistic style and requirements of the texts, specific to each subject. This direction is based on the sociologist Bernstein’s and the linguist Halliday’s theories, to which the so called Australian school or genre school adheres. Different text strategies are used to introduce the students to the language and the way of writing of the various content subjects, particularly within the natural sciences.

International (e.g. Berkenkotter & Huckin 1997, Clark Ivanic 1997, Schleppegrell 2004) as well as national research (e.g. af Geijertsam 2006) shows, however, that writing strategies are seldom used by teachers of content subjects. Research shows as well (e.g. Berge et al. 2005, Norberg Brorsson 2007a,) that students are often asked to write in their mother tongue, narratives and texts within the intimate sphere such as diaries and letters. Such writing does not demand that the students develop their scientific linguistic use. Instead it allows the students to use their everyday language.

The writing of narratives is not enough (Hertzberg 2006a) and the development of the secondary discourse argumentative writing is vital. This kind of writing is regarded difficult and problematic, though (Andrews 1995, 2005). This means that argumentative writing has to be focused more in instruction than is often now the case. It is mostly introduced during the latter part of education, often not until in upper secondary school. Argument is inherent and natural in the content subjects, not in the least in the natural sciences. Therefore, it is to be recommended that argumentative writing becomes a natural part of instruction in those subjects, perhaps in co-operation between teachers of the mother tongue and content subject teachers (Hertzberg 2006b, Norberg Brorsson 2007b).

Central names in the research on the language of the natural sciences subjects are Halliday and Martin (1993). They show that the language used in these subjects requires that the students receive competent guiding in text structure and the use of typical concepts.

12

Wellington and Osborne (2001) give a survey of research on teachers’ and students’ use of language for communication and learning as well as for the development of concepts and building of theories. A thesis where the writing in the natural sciences subjects in the compulsory school is focused was written by af Geijerstam (2006). She studied instruction, student activities and texts in several classrooms in the school years 5 and 8. One of the results shows that writing plays a subordinate role in the natural sciences subjects. In Norway Knain (2001, 2005, 2006) has carried out research on writing and also on the use of multimodality in the natural sciences.

In mathematics Lennerstad’s research (2006, 2008) is of interest. He states the importance of the mother tongue for the development of mathematical thinking. According to Lennerstad there are rules for the “mathematical language” but they are not outspoken but are made up of silent knowledge living in the praxis of mathematics. The development of a meta-language is necessary, first hand among teachers of mathematics, so they can help their students acquire this important means of learning.

REFERENCESAlexander, R. (2004) Towards Dialogic Teaching-Rethinking classroom talk. University of Cambridge:

DialogosAndersson, B. (2001). Elevers tänkande och skolans naturvetenskap. Stockholm: Skolverket.Andersson, B. (2008a). Att förstå skolans naturvetenskap : forskningsresultat och nya idéer. Lund:

Studentlitteratur AB.Andersson, B. (2008b). Grundskolans naturvetenskap : helhetssyn, innehåll och progression. Lund:

Studentlitteratur AB.Andersson, B., Bach, F., & Zetterqvist, A. (2002). Understanding global and personal use of energy.

Journal of Baltic Science Education, 1(2), 4-18.Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2000). Students’ Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect, Societal

Consequences of Reducing CO2 Emissions and Why Ozone Layer Depletion is a Problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1096-1111.

Andrée, M. (2007). Den levda läroplanen: en studie av naturorienterande undervisningspraktiker i grundskolan [The lived curriculum. A study of science classroom practices in lower secondary school.]. Institutionen för samhälle, kultur och lärande (LHS) Stockholms universitet. Doctoral thesis.

Andrews, Richard, 1995: Teaching and learning argument. London. Cassel.

Andrews, Richard, 2005: Models of argumentation in educational discourse. Text, 25 (1), 107–127.

Areskoug, M. (2006). Miljöfysik – Energi för hållbar utveckling. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Areskoug, M., & Eliasson, P. (2007). Energi för hållbar utveckling – ett historiskt och naturvetenskapligt perspektiv. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Bachtin, Michail, 1986: The problem of speech genres. In: C. Emerson & M. Holquist (red.): Speech Genres and Other Essays. University of Texas Press. Austin. Texas.

Bachtin, Michail M, 1997: Frågan om talgenrer. I: Hættner Aurelius, E. & Götselius, T. (red.), Genreteori. Studentlitteratur. Lund. S. 203–239.

Backlund, L., & Fröborg, H. (2005). Naturvetenskap och Teknik är KUL - Kultur, Utveckling och Lärande. Stockholm: Skolverket.

13

Berge, Kjell Lars, 2005: Tekstkulturer og tekstkvaliteter. I: Berge, K. L., Evensen, L. S., Hertzberg, F. & Vagle, W. (red.), Ungdommers skrivekompetanse. Bind II. Norskeksamen som tekst. Universitetsforlaget. Oslo. S. 11–190.

Bergqvist, K., & Säljö, R. (1994). Conceptually blindfolded in the optics laboratory. Dilemmas of inductive learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9(1), 149-158.

Berkenkotter, Carol & Huckin, Thomas N. 1997: Da klokka klang … Om å laere seg fagsjangrer i skole og på universitet. I: Evensen, L. S. & Hoel, T. Løkensgard (red.), Skriveteorier og skolepraksis. Cappelen Akademisk Forlag. Oslo. S. 112–129.

Björneloo, I. (2007). Innebörder av hållbar utveckling. En studie av lärares utsagor om undervisning[Meanings of Sustainable Development . A study of teachers’ statements on their education.] Doctoral thesis.Göteborgs Universitet, Gothenburg.

Blumenfeld, P. C. et al. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher 25(8), 37 – 40.Britton, James, 1970: Language and Learning. Penguin Books. Harmondsworth. Middlesex.

Brorsson, Birgitta Norberg, 2007a: Man liksom bara skriver. Skrivande och skrivkontexter i grundskolans år 7 och 8. Studier från Örebro i svenska språket 2. Örebro universitet.

Brorsson, Birgitta Norberg 2007b: Diskursivt skrivande i grundskolan. I: Svenskläraren. Tidskrift för svenskundervisning nr 4/2007.

Carlgren, I. (1999). In Carlgren (Ed)Miljöer för lärande Skolarbete som en särskild slags praktik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Clark, Romy & Ivanic, Roz, 1997: The Politics of Writing. London. Routledge.

Connecticut Energy Education, The Institute for Sustainable Energy. Retrieved 2008.06.16 from Web site: http://www.ctenergyeducation.com/Delegationen-för-ITiSkolan. (1999). ITiS. En nationell satsning på IT i Skolan 1999:2. Stockholm:

Utbildningsdepartementet.Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children´s ideas in science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, P. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumention in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.Duit, R. (2007). Bibliography - STCSE (Students' and Teachers' Conceptions and Science Education). Kiel: IPN. Retrieved 2007 from Web site: http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.htmlEkstig, B. (2002). Naturvetenskapliga förklaringssekvenser. I Strömdahls (red). Kommunicera

naturvetenskap i skolan. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Elbow, Peter, 1981: Writing with Power. New York. Oxford University Press.

af Geijerstam, Åsa, 2006: Att skriva i naturorienterande ämnen i skolan. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia 3. Uppsala universitet. Uppsala.

Gisselberg, K., Ottander, C., & Hanberger, A. (2004). NOT-PROJEKTET (1999-2003)- en utvärdering Umeå Centre for Evaluation Research Evaluation Reports No 14.

Gyberg, P. (2003). Energi som kunskapsområde – om praktik och diskurser i skolan. (Doktorsavhandling). Linköping: Tema Teknik och social förändring Linköpings universitet.Halliday, M.A.K. & Martin, J.R. (red.), 1993: Writing Science. Literacy and Discoursive Power. University of Pittsburgh Press. Pittsburgh

14

Helldén, G., Lindahl, B., & Redfors, A. (2005). Lärande och undervisning i naturvetenskap - en forskningsöversikt Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.

Hertzberg, Frøydis, 2006a: Genreskrivning under senare skolår: att berätta räcker inte. I: Bjar L. (red.), Det hänger på språket! Lärande och språkutveckling i grundskolan. Studentlitteratur. Lund.

Hertzberg, Frøydis, 2006b: Skrivekompetanse på tvers av fag. I: Elstad E. & Turmo A. (red.), Læringstrategier. Søkelys på lærernes praksis. Universitetsforlaget. Oslo.

Hobson, A. (2006). Resource Letter PSEn-1: Physics and society: Energy. American Journal of Physics. 75 (4), 294 - 308.Hurst, D. R. (2002). Dialogic Inquiry: A Subject-Centered Approach to Learning. Doctoral Thesis,

University of Calgary.ISES (2008). International Solar Energy Society. Solar schools forum. Retrieved 2008.06.16 from Web site: http://www.ises.org/schools/Kesidou, S., & Duit, R. (1993). Student’s Conceptions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics – An interpretive study. Journal of Research in Science Education, 30(1), 85-106.Knain, Erik, 2001: Naturfagets tause stemme. Diskursanalyse av lærebøker i Natur- og miljøfag. Revidert utgave av avhandling for graden dr scient. 1999. Skrifter fra projektmiljøet Norsk sakprosa, 4. Universitetet i Oslo.

Knain, Erik, 2005: Skriving i naturfag. Mellom tekst og natur. NorDiNa, 1. S. 73–84.

Knain, Erik, 2006: Achieving Scince Literacy Through Transformation of Multimodal Textual Resources. I: Science Education. 90, 656–659.

Kärrqvist, C., & West, E. (2005). Nationella utvärderingen av grundskolan 2003 (NU-03). Problemlösning. Ämnesrapport till rapport nr 252. Stockholm: Skolverket.

Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education 38, 115-142.

Lennerstad, Håkan, 2006: Completing Mathematics by Teacher and Student Reflection. Proceedings from MADIF5, Malmö.

Lennerstad, Håkan, 2008: Matematik och matematiska – om språnget mellan betydelser och formler. I: Lennerstad, H. & Bergsten, C. (red.), Matematikens språk. Santérus förlag.

Lundegård, I. (2007). På väg mot pluralism: Elever i situerade samtal kring hållbar utveckling [Towards pluralism: Students in situated deliberations on sustainable development] Doctoral Thesis., Stockholms universitet, Stockholm.

Marton, F., & Mun Ling, L. (2007). Learning from ”The learning Study”. Tidskrift för lärarutbildning och forskning (Journal of research in Teacher Education). 1, 31-46.Millar, R., & Osborne, J.F. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King´s Collage London.Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific Literacy/ Science Literacy. In S.K. Abell, Lederman N.G. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729 – 780). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers.Schumacher, G.M., Tice, S., Wen Loi, P., Stein, S., Joyner, C., & Jolton, J. (1993). Difficult to Change Knowledge: Explanations and Interventions. Paper presented at the third International Seminar om Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathmatics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

15

Schwille, J., Dembélé, M., & Schubert, J. (2007). UNESCO/IIEP’s “Fundamentals of Educational Planning” series: Global Perspectives on Teacher Learning: Improving Policy and Practice Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.unesco.org/en/teacher-education/training-and-management/

Strömdahl, H. (2000). NO-didaktisk forskning i Sverige. Stockholm: Statens skolverk och Högskoleverket.

Sund, P. (2008). Att urskilja selektiva traditioner i miljöundervisningens socialisationsinnehåll - implikationer för undervisning för hållbar utveckling[Discerning selective traditions in the socialization content of environmental education – implications for education for sustainable development] Doctoral Thesis.MDU - Mälardalen University, Västerås.

Statens skolverk (2009). Uppdrag till Statens skolverk att genomföra utvecklingsinsatser inom matematik, naturvetenskap och teknik Regeringsbeslut 1:2 2009-02-19 U2009/914/GU2008/6186/G. Stockholm: Tubildningsdepartementet

Schleppegrell, Mary J, 2004: The Language of Schooling. A Functional Linguistics Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. New Jersey.

SEET. The Institute for Sustainable Energy SEET--Sustainable Energy Instructional Materials. Retrieved 2008.06.16 from Web site: http://www.ateec.org/profdev/seet/materials.htmSolomon, J. (1992). Getting to know about Energy in school and society. London: Taylor & Francis Group.WCPSD (2006). World conference on physics and sustainable development – physics education in Durban, South Africa 2005. Retrieved 2008.06.16 from Web site: http://www.wcpsd.org/education/Wenger, E. (2004). Communities of practice- a brief introduction Retrieved June 12, 2009, from

http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htmWickman, P.-O., & Persson, H. (Eds.). (2008). Naturvetenskap och naturorienterande ämnen i

grundskolan : en ämnesdidaktisk vägledning. Stockholm: Liber.Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: an international review of the

literature. Paris UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.Wiser, M., & Amin, T. (2001). Is heat hot? Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11, 331-355.Öhman, J. (2006). Den etiska tendensen i utbildning för hållbar utveckling: Meningsskapande i ett

genomlevandeperspektiv[The Ethical Tendency in Education for Sustainable Development. A Practical Understanding of Meaning-making].Doctoral thesis., Örebro University, Örebro.

Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2001). Miljöundervisning och utbildning för hållbar utveckling i svensk skola[ environmental education and education for sustainable development]. Stockholm: Skolverket.

16