Student led parent conferences

Vol.19,No.1(2014)
Studia paedagogica

Abstract
Research shows that most of the talking in parent-teacher conferences is done by the teacher and the parent, with few opportunities for the student to express ideas or pose questions. Swedish conferences tend to focus on the shortcomings of the student, and the documentation becomes means to show the student appropriate behaviors, rather than focusing on learning progress. This article will investigate student led parent conferences, a method that aims at shifting the dialogue in favor of the student's voice and opinions. The work starts with a thematic unit, where the students self-assess their abilities and knowledge in each subject area. The thematic unit ends with each student leading a conference, where the parent will be informed of the student's present progress and of the learning goals and activities suggested henceforth. If the student understands his/her results, goals, and means to get there, learning will be more effective. In this qualitative study, students, teachers, parents, and school leaders from two schools have been interviewed in groups. The schools have practiced student led parent conferences for five and ten years. The research questions address how the respondents describe the effects of the student led parent conferences on pedagogical planning, school results, and administration, and differences between the schools, and the result is compared to results from previous research on teacher led conferences. Important findings are that the student, when participating in student led parent conferences, understands, describes, and makes strategic decisions about his/her development. Formative and understandable documentation is imperative. These conferences are more informative, have higher pedagogical qualities, and will introduce a more egalitarian division of power in the classroom. Teacher and parent roles change to be more cooperative.

Keywords:
parent conference; learning; feedback; meta-cognition
References

[1] Andersson, B. (2010). Introducing Assessment into Swedish Leisure–time Centres–pedagogues' attitudes and practices. Education Inquiry, 1(3), 197–209.

[2] Aspán, M. (2009). Delade meningar: Om värdepedagogiska invitationer för barns inflytande och inkännande [Divided opinions: About value pedagogical invitations to child influence and recognition]. Stockholm: Department of Education, Stockholm University.

[3] Bek, A. (2012). Undervisning och reflektion. Om undervisning och förutsättningar för studenters reflektion mot bakgrund av teorier om erfarenhetslärande [Teaching and reflection]. Umeå: Department of Education, Umeå University.

[4] Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. London: GL Assessment.

[5] Brolin Juhlin, J., Eliasson Skarstedt, K., & Öhman Nilsson, K. (2012). Elevledda utvecklingssamtal [Student led parent conferences]. Dostupné z: http://skola.uppsala.se/Global/Ramstaskolan/Dokument/Blandat/Elevledda%20utvecklingssamtal%20-%20effekter%20efter%20fem%20och%20tio%20%C3%A5r.pdf.

[6] Danell, M. (2006). På tal om elevinflytande: hur skolans praktik formas i pedagogers samtal. [Talking about student influence: how school praxis is formed in teachers' conversations]. Luleå: Luleå Technical University.

[7] Dysthe, O. (1996). Det flerstämmiga klassrummet [The multi-voiced classroom]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

[8] Elfström, I. (2005). Varför individuella utvecklingsplaner? En studie om utvärderingsverktyg i förskolan. [Why individual development plans? A study on assessment tools in preeschool]. Individ, omvärld och lärande/Forskning, 26. Dostupné z: http://www.specped.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.41336.1320915529!/IOL_Forskning_26.pdf.

[9] Giota, J. (2006). Självbedöma, bedöma eller döma? Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 11(2), 94–115.

[10] Giota, J. (2012). Forskning om undervisning och lärande. Utveckling genom IUP? [Research on teaching and learning. Development through IUP?]. Virserum: Prinfo Bergs.

[11] Granath, G. (2008). Milda makter! Utvecklingssamtal och loggböcker som disciplineringstekniker [Mild powers! Teacher-parent-student conferences and logs as disciplining techniques]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, University of Gothenburg.

[12] Gross, J. (2000). Paper promises? Making the code work for you. Support for Learning, 15(3), 126–133.

[13] Hackmann, D., Kenworthy, J., & Nibbelink, S. (1998). Student empowerment through student-led conferences. Middle School Journal, 30(1), 35–39.

[14] Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. London: Routledge.

[15] Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

[16] Hawe, E., Dixon, H., & Watson, E. (2008). Oral feedback in the context of written language. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31(2), 43–58.

[17] Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking. The real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.

[18] Hirsh, Å. (2012). IUP – verktyg för lärande? [IUP – tools to learn?]. Forskning om undervisning och lärande, 9, 32–41.

[19] Hofvendahl, J. (2006). Riskabla samtal – en analys av potentiella faror i skolans kvarts-och utvecklingssamtal [Risky conversations – an analysis of potential dangers in teacher-parent-student conferences]. Linköping: Department of Culture and Communication, Linköping University.

[20] Hofvendahl, J. (2010). Utvecklingssamtalen – några vanligt förekommande problem [Tea-cher-parent-student conferences – some frequent problems]. In M. Folke-Fichtelius & C. Lundahl (Eds.), Bedömning i och av skolan – praktik, principer, politik (s. 31–46). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

[21] Hortlund, T., Freccero, U., & Pousette, A. (2005). Bedömning av kvalitativ kunskap: konkreta exempel från gymnasieskolan [Assessment of qualitative knowledge: concrete examples from high school]. Stockholm: Fortbildningsförlaget.

[22] Jönsson, A. (2012). Lärande bedömning [Learning assessment]. Malmö: Gleerups utbildning.

[23] Jönsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity. Educational research Review, 2(2), 130–144.

[24] Korp, H. (2003). Kunskapsbedömning – hur, vad, varför [Assessing knowledge – how, what, why]. Stockholm: Myndigheten för skolutveckling.

[25] Körling, A.-L. (2010). Vägen till skriftliga omdömen [The way to written assessments]. Stockholm: Bonniers.

[26] Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet [Curriculum for compulsory school, grade K, and the leisure center]. (2001). Dostupné z: http://www.skolverket.se/om-skolverket/visa-enskild-publikation?_xurl_=http%3A%2F%2Fwww5.skolverket.se%2Fwtpub%2Fws%2Fskolbok%2Fwpubext%2Ftrycksak%2FRecord%3Fk%3D2575.

[27] Läroplan för grundskolan [Curriculum for the compulsory school]. (1969). Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen, Utbildningsförlaget.

[28] Läroplan för grundskolan [Curriculum for the compulsory school]. (1980). Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen, LiberLäromedel/ Utbildningsförlaget.

[29] Lindh-Munther, A., & Lindh, G. (2005). Antingen får man skäll eller beröm – en studie av utvecklingssamtal i elevers perspektiv. [Either you get scolded or praise – a study of the teacher-parent-student conference from the student's perspective]. Studies in Educational Philosophy, 1. Dostupné z: http://forskning.edu.uu.se/upi/SITE_Docs/Doc236.pdf.

[30] Lindström, L. (2002). Produkt- och processutvärdering i skapande verksamhet [Product and process evaluation in creative activities]. In Att bedöma eller döma. Tio artiklar om bedömning och betygssättning (s. 109–124). Stockholm: Skolverket.

[31] Lindström, L., Lindberg, V., & Pettersson, A. (2011). (Eds.) Pedagogisk bedömning – att dokumentera, bedöma och utveckla kunskap [Pedagogical assessment – to document, assess, and develop knowledge]. Stockholm: Stockholm University Publishing.

[32] Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[33] Läroplan för det frivilliga skolväsendet [Curriculum for the optional school]. (1994). Stockholm: Fritzes.

[34] Läroplan för förskolan [Curriculum for preschool]. (1998). Stockholm: Fritzes.

[35] Läroplan för det obligatoriska skolväsendet, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet [Curriculum for the obligatory school]. (1994). Stockholm: Fritzes.

[36] Lundahl, C., & Folke-Fichtelius, M. (Eds.) (2010). Bedömning i och av skolan – praktik, principer, politik [Assessment in and of school – praxis, principles, policy]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

[37] MacLure, M., & Walker, B. M. (2000). Disenchanted evenings: The social organization of talk in parent-teacher consultations in UK secondary schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1), 5–25.

[38] Mårell-Olsson, E. (2012). Att göra lärandet synligt? Individuella utvecklingsplaner och digital dokumentation [Visualizing learning? Individual development plans and digital documentation]. Umeå: Umeå University.

[39] Minke, M., Walker, B. M., & Anderson, K. J. (2003). Restructuring routine parent-teacher conferences: The family-school conference model. The Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 49–69.

[40] Moreau, H. (2008). IUP med skriftliga omdömen och utvecklande samtal [IUP with written assessments and developing conferences]. Grundskoletidningen, 6(18), 4–11; 40–41.

[41] Persson, L. (2010). Pedagogerna och demokratin. En rättssociologisk studie av pedagogers arbete med demokratiutveckling [The pedagogues and democracy]. Lund: Lund University.

[42] Pihlgren, A. S. (2006). Dialog som läromedel – Elevledda utvecklingssamtal [Dialogue as learning material – Student led parent conferences]. In IUP och utvecklingssamtalet i praktiken (s. 17–24). Solna: Fortbildningsförlaget.

[43] Pihlgren, A. S. (2007). Uppföljning som pedagogisk metod [Evaluation as a pedagogical method]. In Individuella utvecklingssamtal i förskolan och skolåren 1–9 (s. 5–15). Norrtälje: Norna förlag.

[44] Pihlgren, A. S. (2011a). Att planera för utveckling och lärande – Individuella utvecklingssamtal och IUP [Planning for development and learning – teacher-parent-student conferences and IUP]. In L. Lindström, V. Lindberg, & A. Pettersson (Eds), Pedagogisk bedömning (s. 85–107). Stockholm: Stockholm University Publishing.

[45] Pihlgren, A. S. (2011b). Barns inflytande och värdegrund [Children's influence and fundamental values]. In A. S. Pihlgren (Ed.), Fritidshemmet (s. 143–187). Lund: Studentlitteratur.

[46] Pihlgren, A. S. (2013a). Det tänkande klassrummet [The thinking classroom]. Stockholm: Liber.

[47] Pihlgren, A. S. (2013b). Planning for Thinking and Cognitive Development of Students. Paper and keynote speech presented at The 5th International Conference of Cognitive Science ICCS 2013, Tehran, Iran.

[48] Prunty, A. (2011). Implementation of children's rights: what is in the best interest of the child in relation to the Individual Education Plan (IEP) process for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD). Irish Educational Studies, 30(1), 23–44.

[49] Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual Character. What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[50] Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.

[51] SENCo-Forum. (2001). Points from the SENCo-Forum. When is an IEP worth the paper it is written on? British Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 45–46.

[52] SFS 2010:801 Lag om införande av skollagen (2010:800) [Swedish school law]. Svensk författningssamling SFS. Stockholm: Norstedts juridik.

[53] Skolverket (2008). Allmänna råd. Den individuella utvecklingsplanen med skriftliga omdömen [General advice. The individual development plan with written assessment]. Stockholm: Liber distribution.

[54] Skolverket (2009). IUP–processen – Arbetet med den individuella utvecklingsplanen med skriftliga omdömen [The IUP process – Working with the individual development plan with written assessments]. Stockholm: Fritzes.

[55] Skolverket (2010). Skriftliga omdömen i grundskolans individuella utvecklingsplaner. En uppföljning och utvärdering av skolornas arbete ett år efter reformen [Written assessments in individual development plans in compulsory school]. Stockholm: Fritzes.

[56] Skolverket (2011). Kunskapsbedömning i skolan – praxis, begrepp, problem och möjligheter [Assessment of knowledge in school – praxis, concepts, problems, and possibilities]. Stockholm: Fritzes.

[57] Skolverket (2013). Betydelsen av icke-kognitiva förmågor. Forskning mm om individuella faktorer bakom framgång [The importance of non-cognitive abilities]. Stockholm: Skolverket.

[58] Stagg Peterson, S., & McClay, J. (2010). Assessing and providing feedback for students writing in Canadian classrooms. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 86–99.

[59] Stråle, G. (2011). Elevledda utvecklingssamtal, ur ett elevperspektiv [Student led parent conferences from a student perspective]. Kalmar: Technical Institution, Linnaeus University.

[60] Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken, ett sociokulturellt perspektiv [Learning in reality, a sociocultural perspective]. Stockholm: Prisma.

[61] Tennant, G. (2007). IEPs in mainstream secondary schools: an agenda for research. Support for Learning, 22(4), 204–208.

[62] Tholander, M., & Norrby, F. (2008). Elevledda utvecklingssamtal i praktiken [Student led parent conferences in practice]. LOCUS, 8(3–4), 65–81.

[63] Vallberg Roth, A.-C., & Månsson, A. (2008). Individuella utvecklingsplaner som uttryck för reglerad barndom. Likriktning och variation [Individual development plans as an expression of regulated childhood. Mainstreaming and variation]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 13(2), 81–102.

[64] Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment, Designing Assessment to Inform and Improve Student Performance. California: Jossey-Bass.

[65] Wirström Nilsson, G. (2010). Mål i sikte – Från styrdokument till praktisk handling [Goals ahead – From steering documents to practical actions]. Lund: Gleerups.

[66] Vygotskij, L. S. (1995). Fantasi och kreativitet i barndomen [Fantasy and creativity in childhood]. Göteborg: Daidalos.

[67] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Metrics

0

Crossref logo

0


260

Views

95

PDF (Czech) views