23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
The Emergence of the Physical Learning Environments
Siv Stavem
Norconsult AS, Norway
Presenting Author: Stavem, Siv
School buildings all over the world have countless designs, resulting from collaborations among experts in many different disciplines. The school building endures for many years as teachers and students come and go. Schools may also reside in buildings that were constructed for other purposes, and the physical learning environment may find its place in former museums, factories or offices. The school’s physical learning environment can seemingly take any shape anywhere. The aim of this study is to explore how physical learning environments emerge in teaching and learning practices within schools built with different standardised design concepts.
With decentralised governance for school buildings in Norway, local governments are responsible for meeting the Education Act’s requirements for school buildings, which states, ‘Schools must be planned, built, arranged and run in such a way that consideration is given to the safety, health, well-being and learning of the students’ (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 1998).
Except for general regulations on the necessity of school libraries and universal design, the central educational authorities have established no regulations or guidelines regarding the purposes of how design and functionality are connected. Local governments must translate the Education Act into design considerations, leading to diversity in school design in Norway. Recent studies have indicated that teachers adapt to and are happy about the usefulness of the school design, independent of the school consisting of classrooms or open learning spaces (Elfmark, 2022; Frøyen, 2018). Research into school design has often focused on its possible effects on student performance, teaching and well-being. However, the relationship between design and practice is crucial to the production of a building that can be and is used effectively (Daniels et al., 2019). From the ANT perspective, I want to explore how people and things appear in heterogeneous relationships which contribute to the emergence of physical learning environments.
The following research questions guide this article:
RQ1: What relations emerge between the built environment, the teachers and other actors?
RQ2: How do the physical learning environments emerge in the relations between the built environment, the teachers and other actors?
The conceptual framework must consider that the actors in this study speak with neither movements nor human voices. As a member of the posthumanist family, Actor-Network Theory (ANT) blurs the distinction between humans and non-humans and sees actors as effects of relationships and networks in a world that is constantly changing (Callon, 2001; Law, 2009). Walls, furniture, students, books and teachers do not appear as constant categories with specific characteristics. In fact, März et al. (2017) wondered, “How can the artefact as actor speak with authority, demand changes in practice or effectively alter existing practices or routines or establish new ones?” (p. 443). ANT supposes that there is no clear distinction between social phenomena and material forces that assemble and reassemble (Fenwick, 2015), highlighting how people and things are simultaneously actors and networks. Thus, ANT is useful in exploring how material practices and arrangements are necessary to establish governing and action. The ANT approach is not about giving artefacts human status but rather investigating and understanding relations to what is not us (Asdal, 2011). This paper aims to explore how the physical learning environments emerge in the interrelation between different building designs, teachers’ agency and other actors. I chose a comparative approach to investigate schools within a Norwegian educational context.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedI selected one school each from Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim municipal local governments in Norway. The three sampled schools were all built based on local standardised architectural design briefs. To be selected, the school building must have been completed within the last 4 years and have replaced an old building or appeared as an appendix to an older school building. I assumed that these requirements indicate an increased focus on the physical learning environments among teachers. The scope of this paper is classrooms and adjacent spaces or equivalent spaces in schools with open and flexible spaces. I chose to narrow my scope to the schools’ Grades 3 and 4, as teaching and learning areas for Grades 5–10 draw more on specialist rooms like science labs and art rooms.
I conducted observations and interviewed teachers and learning spaces. For the observations, I drew on the technique of behavioural mapping as explored and described by Sandra Horne Martin (Martin, 2002) . The observations also included documentation of the type, place and use of furniture in the spaces, use of walls for showing different kinds of material, and placement of windows and glazed walls.
For the interviews, I drew on elements from post-occupancy evaluation and conducted semi-structured walk-through interviews with groups of teachers at the schools. I recorded the interviews and wrote field notes.
In analysing the learning spaces, I drew on the interview of objects with the heuristics described in ‘Listening for the invitational quality of things’ (Adams & Thompson, 2016a, p. 40) as guiding principles. Every artefact can be seen as an actor network or assemblage itself, as it is connected to several networks that might not be obvious to every other actor. With object interviews, I seek to better understand how the learning spaces in relation with other actors ‘inform, but also deform, conform or transform practice’ (Adams & Thompson, 2016b, p. 89). Drawing on data from semi-structured group interviews and observations, including mapping of how teachers used their learning spaces, I seek to report on the interrelation between the teachers and the learning spaces to enable the voice of the physical environment.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAn assumption is that different school designs provide different opportunities for teaching and learning activities. A second assumption is that the teachers consider different opportunities in the learning spaces and artefacts available based on their background, skills and competence. Using ANT as a lens in this article highlights how the physical learning environment is as much a product of social construction as of technical innovation and devices in the built environment. Expected outcomes are how the relations between the actors are central to the building’s translation process, turning the process into transitions rather than transferences. Policy, physical infrastructure, technology availability, user-friendliness, economic models, culture and competence are factors that influence the physical learning environment. ANT provides a framework for describing the process of how the physical learning environments emerge as a practice through networks and relationships.
The empirical findings of this paper may contribute to (1) governance of school design, (2) school leadership for appreciation of the opportunities in the school design and (3) architects for school design.
For a consistent and meaningful policy for the design of physical learning environments, there is a need for more knowledge about how these environments are used.
ReferencesAdams, C., & Thompson, T. L. (2016a). Attending to Objects, Attuning to Things. In C. Adams & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Researching a Posthuman World: Interviews with Digital Objects (pp. 23–56). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57162-5_2
Adams, C., & Thompson, T. L. (2016b). Interviewing Objects as Co-researchers. In C. Adams & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Researching a Posthuman World: Interviews with Digital Objects (pp. 87–106). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57162-5_4
Asdal, K. (2011). Politikkens natur—Naturens politikk [Politic’s Nature—Nature’s Politics]. Universitetsforlaget.
Callon, M. (2001). Actor Network Theory. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 62–66). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03168-5
Daniels, H., Tse, H. M., Stables, A., & Cox, S. (2019). School Design Matters. In H. Daniels, H. M. Tse, A. Stables, & S. Cox (Eds.), Designing buildings for the Future of Schooling. Routledge; 41-66.
Elfmark, E. T. H. (2022). Fysisk læringsmiljø. Hvordan lede arbeidet med å gjøre klasserommet til en aktør i elevenes læring? [Physical Learning Environment. How to lead the work in making the classroom an actor in the students’ learning?] [Master Thesis, NTNU]. https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3024602/no.ntnu%3ainspera%3a116464037%3a49795550.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Fenwick, T. (2015). Sociomateriality and Learning: A Critical Approach. In D. Scott & E. Hargreaves, The SAGE Handbook of Learning (pp. 83–93). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473915213.n8
Frøyen, R. D. (2018). To skoler. To konsepter. Uike erfaringer. [Two Schools. Two concepts. Different Experiences] [Master Thesis, NTNU]. https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2569374/2018_EVU_Masteroppgave_RitaDFr%C3%B8yen.pdf?sequence=1
Law, J. (2009). Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotic. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory (pp. 141–158). Wiley-Blackwell. http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf
Martin, S. H. (2002). The Classroom Environment and its Effects on the Practice of Teachers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1–2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0239
März, V., Kelchtermans, G., & Vermeir, K. (2017). Artifacts as authoritative actors in educational reform: Routines, institutional pressures, and legitimacy in student data systems. Journal of Educational Change, 18(4), 439–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9309-9
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (1998). Lov om grunnskolen og den vidaregåande opplæringa [The Education Act]. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Selective Traditions and the (Re)Production of Educational Spaces in School Building Policy
Hanna Hofverberg, Hanna Hofverberg
Malmö University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Hofverberg, Hanna;
Hofverberg, Hanna
In Europe there are many new schools to be built. In Sweden, for instance, 1000 new schools are to be built between year 2020 – 2025, which is a substantial amount in relation to the size of Sweden. As a response to this need of new school buildings, there are policies emerging. One example is the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (SNBHP), who published guidance by presenting a digital collection of seven built schools (Boverket, 2021).
School building can be many things. For example, a school building is a place that children and students go to every day to socialize. A school building can thus be thought of as a social space. A school building is also a place for knowledge production and different teaching and learning activities. From this perspective, a school building is a space for teaching and learning. Several educational researchers (see for example Biesta, 2015; Dewey, 1938/1997, Englund, 1987; Popkewitz, 2007) have shown that a school is also a place that shapes the coming generation, and a school building can thus be thought of as a space for societal change. All in all, school building must be understood as educational policy that operate in different ways.
The aim with the paper is to acknowledge school building policy and discuss the consequences for what is possible to change (and not) through school building policy. Two research questions have been formulated: 1) What is the policy of school building aiming to solve? 2) What educational spaces are constituted in the policy, with at specific focus on (i) the social, (ii) teaching and learning and (iii) societal change.
Research on school building show a close connections between pedagogical change and school buildings (Alerby et al, 2006; Björklid, 2010; Bjurström, 2003; Blackmore et al. 2011, Grannäs & Stavem, 2021; Krupinska, 2022). One major shift of change is a so called a ‘teacher-centred egg-crate classroom’ to that of a student-centred learning environment (Fisher, 2007). The reasons for the shift is, according to Bjurström (2003), a separated perspective on educational activities to a more integrated perspective. Another connection between pedagogical change and school buildings, is the use of a new vocabulary in educational policy. Wood (2020), for instance, points out that by labelling a space a ‘learning environment’ rather than a classroom, the perception of the room changes. The perception of a space is not always the same even if similar words are used, such as the words “variation” or “flexibility” (Rönnlund, Bergström & Tieva, 2021). Thus, what words that are used to describe an educational space becomes important to acknowledge but also how the words or ideas materialise perceptions of what one can do in a specific educational practice.
When paying attention to school buildings and pedagogy, school culture, or what Williams (1958/1963) defined as “selective traditions” is also relevant to acknowledge (Gislason, 2010). A selective tradition, according to Williams (1958), points to the process by which we select from the legacy of the past to explain, support and justify actions in the present. Therefore, a new school building will never operate on its own as a neutral space but is always connected to its past. Thus, when examining the school building policy, it becomes relevant to explore what selective traditions that are (re)produced in the policy, in our case with a focus on the social, in teaching and learning, and as societal change.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo answer our research questions, the analysis is made with the aid of Carol Bacchi’s (2009; Bacchi and Goodwin, 2016) framework on policy analysis, ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’ (WPR). The core of the analysis is to identify how a need for change is produced and made, in our case, what SNBHP wants to solve with their policy on school building. By addressing a policy document as a solution for something and by identifying what and how this something came to be, the analysis shows the production of policy, or what Bacchi defines as ‘What is the problem represented to be?’. For the analysis, four of Bacchi and Goodwin (2016, 20) analytical questions are used: Q1. What’s the ’problem’ represented to be in a specific policy? Q2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ’problem’? Q3. How has this representation of the ’problem’ come about? Q4. What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences? Can the ’problem’ be thought about differently?
The analysis started by reading the policy document several times to identify problems and solutions. Here, three analytical concepts were used: (1) binaries, pointing to words that are described in contrast, (2) key concepts, significant indicative words that constitute a specific meaning, and (3) categories, which is a concept that plays a central role in governing the policy, for example, how people are described. When the problems and solutions were identified we linked them together to find a pattern that could answer the analytical Q1 and Q2. In doing this, the problem representations were identified which answers to our first research question: What are the problem representations in the policy of school architecture?
By turning to the concept of “selective traditions” (Williams, 1958/1963), and specifically focusing on the social, the teaching and learning, and societal change we deepened the analysis to discuss Bacchi and Goodwin’s analytical question Q3 and Q4. The result of this analyze, answers our second research question: What educational spaces are constituted in the policy, with at specific focus on (i) the social, (ii) teaching and learning and (iii) societal change.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSeven examples school are presented by SNBHP and out of this data, four problem representations were identified: (1) the school as solving inequity in society, (2) the whole school/preschool as a learning environment (3) the careful designed school (4) and movement allure school. There are also a veriety of educational space constituted in the policy that involve the social, teaching and learning activities and how schools can produce societal change. These finding will be elaborated on and discussed in the paper. For example, problem representation 2 highlights how students are learning everywhere and there is no limitation of where a learning environment can be. This challenges a selective tradition of governance of pedagogical space, but the policy becomes logical when the design of the school has gone from subject specific learning to designing life milieus.
In the paper, we will argue that school building policy cannot be reduced to the individual but must start in an understanding of how material design always intertwines with collective habits and selective traditions. This argument has consequences of how school building policies are talked about and used. For example, sometimes one can hear that teachers or a school must “choose” a pedagogy so the school architecture can be designed accordingly. However, this argument rests on a false premise as a pedagogy is always relational and situated in a specific practice where there are collective habits and selective traditions. Another misunderstanding is that “teachers do not use the space as intended”, which is an utterance that black boxes the selective traditions that are reproduced in school practice. In the discussion, we will further discuss the consequences of school building policies and what happens when educational research is neglected.
ReferencesAlerby, E., Bengtsson, J., Bjurström, P., Hörnqvist, M-L and Kroksmark, T. (2006). Det fysiska rummets betydelse. Resultatdialog. Accessed 2 April 2020: https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:993617/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Bacchi, Carol Lee (2009). Analysing policy: what's the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson.
Bacchi, C.L. & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: a guide to practice. Palgrave Pivot.
Biesta, G. (2015). Beyond Learning. Democratic Education for a Human Future. Taylor and Francis.
Bjurström, P. (2003). Att avskaffa klassrummet – om skolans föränderliga arkitektur. In S. Selander (red). Kobran, Nallen och majjen. Tradition och förnyelse i svensk skola och skolforskning. Forskning i fokus nr 12. Stockholm: Myndigheten för skolutveckling
Björklid, P. (2010). Learning and the physical environment – A research overview from Scandinavia. In Knapp, E. & Noschis, K. (Eds) Architectural Quality in Planning and Design of Schools Current issues with focus on Developing Countries. Comportements: Lausanne
Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., and Aranda, G. (2011). Research into the connections between built learning spaces and student learning outcomes: A literature review. Melbourne: State of Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development).
Boverket (2021). School and preschools – examples. Accessed 1 May: https://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/arkitektur-och-gestaltad-livsmiljo/arbetssatt/skolors-miljo/skolor-och-forskolor/
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York; Touchstone.
Englund, T. (1987). Curriculum as a political problem: changing educational conceptions, with special reference to citizenship education. Dissertation. Uppsala University.
Fisher, K. (2007). Pedagogy and Architecture. Architecture Australia, 96(5), 55–58.
Frelin, A., Grannäs, J. & Rönnlund, M. (2021) Transitions in Nordic school environments: An introduction, Education Inquiry, 12(3), 217–224.
Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environ Res 13, 127–145.
Grannäs, J. & Stavem, S. M. (2021). Transitions through remodelling teaching and learning environments. Education Inquiry, 12(3), 266–281.
Krupinska, J. (2022). Skolarkitektur – formar den oss? Stockholm: Appell förlag.
Popkewitz, T. (2007). Cosmopolitanism and the Age of School Reform. Science, Education, and Making Society by Making the Child. New York: Routledge
Rönnlund, M., Bergström, P. & Tieva, Å. (2021) Tradition and innovation. Representations of a “good” learning environment among Swedish stakeholders involved in planning, (re)construction and renovation of school buildings, Education Inquiry, 12(3), 249–265.
Wood, A. (2020) Built policy: school-building and architecture as policy instrument, Journal of Education Policy, 35(4), 465–484. DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2019.1578901
Williams, R. (1963/ 1958). Culture and Society 1789 – 1950. Harmondsworth; Pengui
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Extended School Hours as the Nordic Solution: Policy for Equality or Individual Achievement?
Stina Hallsen1, Tatiana Mikhaylova2, Elisabeth Rønningen3
1Uppsala university, Sweden; 2University of Gävle, Sweden; 3NTNU, Norway
Presenting Author: Mikhaylova, Tatiana;
Rønningen, Elisabeth
Homework has traditionally been, and still is, a common practice in Swedish and Norwegian schools (Karlsson et al, 2019; Rogde et al, 2019; Westlund, 2004), serving as one of the key links between home and school (Borgonovi & Montt, 2012; Karlsson et al., 2019). Nevertheless, this practice is currently not regulated on a national level and is not even mentioned in curricula in neither Norway nor Sweden. Instead, every school, or even every teacher, has its own policy regarding homework.
The absence of national regulatory frameworks on homework may have to do with uncertainty about its effect on students’ learning (Skolverket, 2014). While some researchers argue that homework has a positive effect on achievement (Cooper et al, 2006), others have questioned that conclusion. For example, Hattie’s (2012, p.13) meta-analysis of factors that reinforce academic achievement indicates "...that homework has a much more positive effect for high-achieving secondary school students, but low or even negative effect on younger children". Furthermore, research shows that homework can also widen social segregation as it tends to favour students from families with high economic, social, and education capital (Nilsen & Bergem, 2016; Rønning 2011).
Yet, according to recent amendment proposals in both Sweden and Norway, state regulation of homework, or at least regarding homework support in schools, is likely to change. For example, from 2010, Norwegian municipalities were imposed by law to offer homework support to students from grades 1-4 and from 2014 this was extended to grades 1-10. A proposal for a new Norwegian education law suggests giving schools the option of mandating school assignments outside of school hours (homework) (Høringsnotat, 2021). Similarly, the Swedish Education Act, amended in 2022, stipulates that schools are obliged to offer students in grades 4-9, who wish extra help with their schoolwork, teaching time outside of regular school hours (SFS 2010:800). Moreover, after the latest parliamentary elections and the power shift in Sweden, proposals have been made to make extra school hours and vacation school mandatory for students and that the latter should be offered in lower grades than at present (proposition 2022/23:1; Tidöavtalet 2022).
In this paper we will situate the developments outlined above in historical and contemporary perspectives. By tracing how and why these law amendments came about, we want to explore what knowledges, assumptions and beliefs are embedded in them. Or put differently, if extra school hours and mandatory homework support is a solution, what problem is it intended to solve?
To address this question, we draw on Foucault’s notion of problematisation, by which he meant a “set of discursive or nondiscursive practices” (Foucault, 1988, pp. 456) through which previously unproblematic things, conducts, phenomena, and processes become a problem (Foucault, 2001, p. 171). Crucial for Foucault is an understanding of problematisation as a creative, rather than a strategic, process (Foucault, 2001, pp. 172–173) in that it initiates new ways of taking care of things and requires (new) techniques and solutions to be developed in order to govern them. For that, it is necessary to create a story about the “true” cause of the problem – a “diagnosis” – which entails a particular solution (Bacchi, 2009). Furthermore, this paper elaborates on the wider implications of these problematisations and the solutions they have produced.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedEchoing Foucault, Bacchi (2009) argued that “we are governed through problematizations” (p. 263). From her perspective, there are no given problems to which the government must respond; rather, problems are shaped by policies or policy proposals (Bacchi, 2018). Hence, to understand how governing takes place, we need to inquire into problematizations on which policies are based. For that, Bacchi (2009) developed an analytic scheme for policy analysis – What's the Problem Represented to be? (WPR) – which guided our analysis. For the sake of clarity, however, in this paper we focus mainly on the questions concerning the genealogy of policy problems.
To achieve the stated goals, we first identified key policy documents regarding homework, homework support and extra school hours (SFS 2010:800; Høringsnotat, 2021; Endringslov til opplæringslova og privatskolelova, 2010). These documents define what has to be solved and how, making the ‘diagnosis’ of the problem to appear natural and given. More precisely, at this stage we examine the new wording regarding the obligation of both countries' school systems to provide, or even mandate, students with homework support/extra school hours.
After that, in line with WPR, we “worked backwards” and examined the preparatory work of the Education Acts to explore what assumptions, facts, truths, knowledges and beliefs are involved in the construction(s) of (a) particular problematisation(s). By that we illuminate how this problematisation came about and what conditions made it possible and intelligible. To answer these questions, we have analysed parliamentary hearings, propositions, and white papers (e.g., Prop 2021/22:111; SOU 2021:30; Prop 95L 2009/2010; NOU 2019:23).
Finally, we discuss what effects are produced by specific problematizations. We focus primarily on discursive effects. Studying these effects means, according to Bacchi and Goodwin (2016), paying attention to the specific vocabularies (terms, concepts, binaries, classifications) established by a particular problematisation and to the limits they impose on what can be said and thought. Specifically, we examine how shifting terminology – from homework support (läxhjälp) to extra school hours – constrains our thinking of the nature of the ‘problem’ and how it should be resolved.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe preliminary results indicate that the solutions proposed in both countries are related to the Nordic logic of equality (Forsberg et. al, 2021), yet the problematizations on which these solutions are based have changed over time. Moreover, the political debates in these countries have taken different paths to arrive at these solutions.
In a Swedish perspective, for example, we can see that the new formulation is a consequence of political decisions regarding the private market of homework support, combined with low school results and inequality. In Norway, the argument used to require local authorities to offer homework support in the Education Act of 2010 (Prop. 95 L 2009/2010, 2010) was one of strengthening the school’s role as a means of social equalization. This argument, however, has been later questioned and does not appear in the current amendments.
Overall, our initial analysis reveals that in both countries homework support and extended schools hours have in some ways become a given solution to problems that are no longer clearly defined.
ReferencesBacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Pearson.
Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Borgonovi F., Montt G. (2012). Parental involvement in selected PISA countries and economies (OECD Education Working Paper No. 73). OECD Publishing
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement? A Synthesis of Research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62.
Endringslov til opplæringslova og privatskolelova. (2010). Lov om endringar i opplæringslova og privatskolelova (leksehjelp m.m.). (LOV-2010-06-25-49). Lovdata.
Forsberg, E., Hallsén, S., Karlsson, M., Bowden, H. M., Mikhaylova, T., & Svahn, J. (2021). Läxhjälp as Shadow Education in Sweden: The Logic of Equality in “A School for All.” ECNU Review of Education, 4(3), 494–519.
Foucault, M. (1988). The concern for truth. In L. D. Kritzman (Ed.), Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977–1984 (pp. 255–270). Routledge.
Foucault, M. (2001). Fearless speech (J. Pearson, Ed.). Semiotext(e).
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
Høringsnotat (2021, 21. august). Forslag til ny opplæringslov og endringer i friskoleloven. Kunnskapsdepartementet.
Karlsson M., Hallsén S., Svahn J. (2019). Parental involvement in Sweden exemplified through national policy on homework support. In Paseka A., Byrne D. (Eds.), Parental involvement across European education systems: Critical perspectives (pp. 120–132). Routledge.
Nilsen, T. and Bergem, O. K. (2016). 9 Hjemmebakgrunn. I T. Nilsen, O. K. Bergem, and H. Kaarstein (Red.), Vi kan lykkes i realfag (p. 158-172). Scandinavian University Press (Universitetsforlaget).
NOU 2019: 23 (2019). Ny opplæringslov. Kunnskapsdepartementet.
Prop. 95 L 2009/2010. (2010). Endringar i opplæringslova og privatskolelova (leksehjelp m.m.). Kunnskapsdepartementet.
Regeringens proposition 2021/22:111. Mer tid till lärande – extra studietid och utökad lovskola.
Rogde, K., Daus, S., Pedersen, Vaagland, K. and Federici, R. A. (2019). Spørsmål til Skole-Norge. Analyser og resultater fra Utdanningsdirektoratets spørreundersøkelse til skoler og skoleeiere våren 2019. (Reports 8/2019). NIFU
Rønning, M. (2011). Who benefits from homework assignments. Economics of Education Review, 30(1), 55-64.
SFS 2010:800. Skollag [Swedish code of statutes no. 2010:800. Education act]
Skolverket (2021). Läxor i praktiken – ett stödmaterial om läxor i skolan. Skolverket.
SOU 2021:30. Kampen om tiden – mer tid till lärande. Betänkande av utredningen om mer tid till undervisningen. Utbildningsdepartementet
Tidöavtalet 2022 (Coalition government agreement)
Westlund, I. (2004). Läxberättelser – läxor som tid och uppgift. Linköpings universitet, UniTryck 2004
|
