05. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Paper
The Concept of Young People as Citizens in Discourse and Practice of Schools of Border Regions Around Citizenship Education
Nicolas Martins da Silva, Sofia Marques da Silva
CIIE - FPCEUP, Portugal
Presenting Author: Silva, Nicolas Martins da
This proposal aims to discuss the concept of youth as citizens that emanates from discourses and practices of secondary schools in border regions of Mainland Portugal around citizenship education. This is done based on the analysis of structural school documents (educational projects, annual activities plan, schools’ citizenship education strategies) and based on interviews with teachers who coordinate citizenship education in their contexts.
Citizenship education has assumed a central role in the promotion of global democratic citizenship (UNESCO, 2015), with schools emerging as a central space for the promotion of citizenship and youth participation (Biesta, 2011). These concerns are also reflected in Portugal, in the National Plan for Youth (2018, 2022) and in the National Strategy for Education for Citizenship (2017), enacted through Decree-Law 55/2018, which has as assumptions, among others, a logic of co-responsibility of young people, assuming itself as a space for the promotion of a humanistic training in the guarantee of democratic values (PORTUGAL, 2017). At the European level, the Strategy for European Youth 2019-2027 follows this vision that it is necessary to promote a culture of participation and active democratic citizenship among young people (EU, 2018).
Literature has suggested that the way citizenship is perceived influences the way citizenship education is developed in different educational contexts (Alzina, 2008). A logic that is more co-participatory and focused on students' experiences, and therefore less centred on the rhetorical transmission of values, has been advocated (Menezes, 2007; Biesta, 2011). In this, it has been argued that citizenship education presupposes the involvement of students in order to make them participate critically in the roles that are reserved to them, i.e., an involvement that recognizes them as full citizens (Nogueira, 2015; Menezes, 2007), in a vision of citizenship that is built in practice, in which the process is concerned with the conditions in which young people live (Pais, 2005; Lawy & Biesta, 2006), which contradicts an idea of citizenship as achievement (Lawy & Biesta, 2006) and often a result of a vision that is built from an adult-centred point of view (Pais, 2005).
This proposal is part of a PhD research project (Ref: SFRH/BD/143733/2019) under development that aims to study how different schools, in border regions of mainland Portugal, are developing their work on citizenship education in secondary education. Our intention is to understand how, in this work, dimensions such as the involvement and aspirations of young people and aspects related to local culture are considered in citizenship education in their schools. This PhD project is part of the GROW:UP – Grow Up in Border Regions in Portugal: Young People, Educational Pathways and Agendas project (PTDC/CED-EDG/29943/2017), also under development, which aims to study how young people construct their biographical and educational pathways and how different contexts seek to respond to young people's aspirations around these pathways.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis proposal is grounded in empirical data from the collection and analysis of school guiding documents and from empirical data from semi-structured interviews conducted with teachers that coordinate Citizenship Education in their schools. Although the border regions of mainland Portugal are composed of 38 municipalities, only 29 have Secondary Education in their educational offer (PORDATA, 2022). In this sense, the guiding documents were considered and the coordinators of these school contexts were interviewed. Among the 29 possible interviews, 24 interviews were carried out. The interviews were conducted online, via zoom and the script included as dimensions: a) the impact of the National Strategy on Citizenship Education and construction of the School Citizenship Project; b) Perceptions and priorities around citizenship education; c) CE and networking with the wider educational community; d) Valorisation of the local culture in the development of initiatives in citizenship education. The main aim of the interviews was to understand how schools appropriated the National Strategy on Citizenship Education (PORTUGAL, 2017) and what school practices resulted from this appropriation, considering the normative of this guiding document.
In addition, three structural documents that all schools have - Educational Projects, Annual Activity Plans and Schools’ Strategy for Citizenship Education – were analysed to understand the educational practices developed by each school regarding citizenship education. 26 Educational Projects, 21 Annual Activity Plans and 18 Schools Citizenship Education Strategies were analysed focusing on the following dimensions: formal aspects around citizenship education; initiatives/projects/areas valued by the school in an EC work; networking strategies around citizenship education; valorisation of local aspects; youth involvement in the citizenship strategy. Since the Citizenship Education Strategy came into force from 2018, through Decree-Law 55/2018, only documents developed by schools from that date were considered.
Content analysis procedures (Bardin, 2011) were performed resulting in 5 dimensions of analysis that contribute to understand aspects that bring together and differentiate the different contexts regarding the appropriation of educational policy: a) perceptions and priorities of the school regarding citizenship education; b) approaches to develop citizenship education (disciplinary, transdisciplinary); c) network with the surrounding community to develop CE; d) integration of local specificities and local cultural heritage in citizenship education; e) openness and inclusion of young people in decision-making processes regarding CE.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsData points to the fact that most schools share discourses around citizenship education and youth participation, aligned with national and international guiding documents (e.g. Forum on Citizenship Education (2008), National Strategy for Citizenship Education (2017), Global citizenship education: Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century (2015), which assume a citizenship education for young people that promotes an active democratic citizenship (Hoskins et al., 2006) in three key axes: Individual civic attitude; Interpersonal relationship; Social and intercultural relationship. Thus, it denotes a vision not only of young people as citizens under construction, but also a vision of citizenship focused particularly on democratic responsibility and common and social well-being (Ross, 2012), in a national perspective.
However, it can be seen in some contexts, through the coordinators' speeches or in the intentions expressed in the school guiding documents, a vision of citizenship education as a tool where young people are recognized as agents for their contexts, in a work that focuses on the resolution of problems of local order, in a vision of participatory citizenship in the community (Menezes & Ferreira, 2014), and where work takes place in a procedural way (Lawy & Biesta, 2006), in a practical dimension built with and by young people. In this co-construction, they develop projects (proposed and designed by them and based on their own priorities) that seek to solve problems not only of a local order (of the context, of the territory), but also of problems and priorities for themselves as young people (Silva et al., 2022).
In short, despite what seems to be some alignment with the guiding documents, some schools seek, for their contexts, to provide answers to local and youth needs, which seems to denote a vision of citizenship that, in contexts of global citizenship, also focuses on the local dimension.
ReferencesAlzina, R. (2008). Educación para la ciudadanía y convivencia: El enfoque
de la Educación Emocional. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer.
European Union (EU) (2018). Estratégia da união europeia para a juventude 2019-2027,
Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70.
Biesta, G.(2011). Learning Democracy in School and Society: Education, Lifelong
Learning, and the Politics of Citizenship. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hoskins, B.; Janmaat, J. G & Villalba, E.(2012). Learning citizenship
through social participation outside and inside school: An international,
multilevel study of young people’s learning of citizenship’, British Educational Research Journal, 38, 419–446.
Lawy, R. & Biesta, G.J.J. (2006) Citizenship-as-practice: the educational implications of an inclusive and relational understanding of citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies. 54(1), 34-50.
Menezes, I. (2007). A evolução da cidadania em Portugal. Actas do 3º Encontro de
Investigação e Formação: Educação para a Cidadania e Culturas de Formação, 17-34.
Menezes, I. & Ferreira, P. (2014). Cidadania participatória no cotidiano escolar: a vez e a voz das crianças e dos jovens, Educar em Revista, n. 53, 131-147.
Nogueira, F. (2015). O espaço e o tempo da cidadania na educação. Revista
Portuguesa de Pedagogia, 49-1, 7-32.
PORDATA (2022). Retrato de Portugal. Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos.
PORTUGAL (2017). Estratégia Nacional de Educação para a Cidadania.
Ross, A.(2012). Education for Active Citizenship: Practices, Policies, Promises.
International Journal of Progressive Education, vol. 8, 3, 7-14.
Silva et al. (2022). Agendas para a juventude e as suas comunidades: propostas de jovens a crescer em regiões de fronteira. Porto: CIIE.
UNESCO (2015). Educação para a Cidadania Global: Desafios para os jovens no Séc. XXI. (Trad. P. Almeida). Brasília: UNESCO
05. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Paper
Student Experiences of Urban Vertical Schools: Diversity of Voices
Jenna Gillett-Swan, Prudence Miles
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Presenting Author: Gillett-Swan, Jenna;
Miles, Prudence
New schools around the world are being built in vertical form to cope with growing populations and limited land in urban contexts. Verticality means rethinking how students move between floors to avoid crowding, find connections to light and fresh air and green spaces. Verticality brings pedagogical and physical design challenges in effectively catering for diverse learners in constrained spaces and opportunities for innovation. While urban vertical schools are not new in USA, UK, and European urban environments, they are in Australia (Swinburn 2017; Taylor & Wright 2020). There exists little research about them especially in relation to students’ wellbeing (Carroli et al 2022).
Students should be central to urban school design processes given that schools are created for them, with schools’ core business being student learning and student outcomes. Student voice is an opportunity to inform school design and empower students through inviting them to identify and examine important issues relevant to their school experience and taking these views seriously. Therefore, student voice “connect(s) the sound of students speaking not only with those students experiencing meaningful, acknowledged presence, but also with their having the power to influence analyses of, decisions about, and practices in schools” (Cook-Sather 2006:363).
Each students’ experience of school spaces is unique, so adults must find a range of inclusive ways to listen to diverse student voices and ensure students feel supported expressing their perspectives in ways comfortable and meaningful to them.
This project positions ‘voice’ in three ways; voice as process, voice as atmosphere, and voice as impact. Together, voice is positioned as a multivocal engagement through:
- Seeking and eliciting views and perspectives, a methodological decision and action [Process]
- Enabling students to communicate their point of view/layers of meaning more fully through student produced creative works (e.g., narration/voice-over, text on screen, camera work, editing choices) [Atmosphere]
- Positioning voice as something with value, extending beyond a process, and committing to “voice that matters” (Couldry 2010:3). To matter, voice needs to be taken seriously and acted upon (Lundy 2007) [Impact].
Student evaluations of school learning spaces are valued in school design research as assumptions about design, construction, and use of school spaces can be challenged. However, the diversity of student voices are not often represented, with student voice usually reported in one register. For example, it is well established that children and young people consistently prefer connections to nature and fresh air, and express frustrations with crowded and stuffy classrooms (Dudzinski, 2019; Taylor & Wright 2020). Choices about where and how to collaborate, opportunities for movement, integrated technology and elements of fun are student preferences being incorporated into many new school buildings (Truong et al 2018). Rarely are student voices acted on, or represented as diverse perspectives.
There are three interrelated objectives of this study.
(1) Understand and capture diverse student experiences of school spaces through the lens of enablers or constraints for student thriving in urban vertical contexts. Franz’ salutogenic design framework (Franz 2019) offers a ‘sense of coherence’ for understanding built environments in terms of their manageability, meaningfulness, and comprehensibility. The framework provides a way for young people to communicate diverse experiences of urban vertical spaces in the language of ‘thriving’/‘not thriving’.
(2) Address the disconnect between seeking voice [Process] and doing something meaningful with the perspectives shared [Impact]. The Lundy Participation Model (2007) informed project design decisions ensuring student voice is heard by appropriate audiences, such as architects, builders, and educational decision-makers, and acted upon to influence decisions.
(3) Enable students to tell their stories of their school spaces through multiple creative methods in ways that encouraged depth and breadth of student voice [Atmosphere].
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis paper combines Franz’ salutogenic framework with the multivocal positioning of voice and articulates how the use of multiple modalities enabled deeper exploration of diverse student perspectives of their urban vertical school experiences.
The Thriving in Urban Vertical Schools project is a three year (ongoing) mixed-methods project funded by an Australian Government Linkage grant that seeks to understand the impacts of high-density urban schooling on student capability and wellbeing, and how these school spaces are experienced by diverse student cohorts. Occurring in three schools across three different educational jurisdictions, this project involves university researchers in five disciplines (education, architecture, design, IT, and community engaged research), high school students, educators, school designers, builders, architects, as partners and collaborators. This paper focuses on the findings from the first year of the study.
The student data collection process included students first participating in an online survey before engaging in a one-day data collection workshop. The workshop involved brainstorming sessions, student analysis of qualitative student survey responses, photo elicitation, drawings and annotations, sound experiments, construction experiments and storyboarding. Following this, students engaged in weekly lessons that were teacher /researcher co-designed and embedded in the curriculum. This timetabled class supported student’s deeper exploration and engagement with thriving in physical, social, and digital environments, and developing video productions with guidance from industry experts. These activities culminated in the production of student digital narratives that were screened and discussed during student-partner reflective conversations with school leaders, project collaborators, and students. Viewing student produced digital narratives, still images and drawings, decision makers can glean an embodied perspective of student experience of school spaces.
Alongside these student-centred activities, interviews were conducted with teachers and adult partner collaborators, as well as a post-occupancy evaluation and observational walkthrough. Two student focus groups concluded the data collection where students provided interpretive commentary on early themes. Alongside these student-centred activities, interviews were conducted with teachers and adult partner collaborators, as well as a post-occupancy evaluation and observational walkthrough. The choice and sequencing of the qualitative methods enabled depth and breadth in the exploration of student experiences over time, while the intersections between them led to the stories about students’ lived experiences of the school spaces to be told in different ways.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe inclusive and intentionally sequenced choice of methods allowed the researchers to identify deeper and layered insights that would not have been possible with isolated methods or at single timepoints. Students shared complementary and divergent aspects of their experiences that brought to the surface the sometimes conflicting ways that different school spaces either (1) enabled, (2) constrained, or (3) both enabled and constrained their capabilities. Commonalities and divergent experiences were reiterated through the different communicative mediums chosen. For example, data from the first workshop showed that the sensory experience was one of the things that was important to young people as they navigated their daily school lives. The different methods used in the workshop provided visual, verbal, and auditory depictions of diverse student perspectives of interior and exterior school spaces that they associated with an enabling and/or constraining sensory experience.
The student created video narratives captured the atmosphere and immersive/experiential look and feel of their high school spaces that were not necessarily expressed through written, drawn, or spoken word alone. The creative work of the digital narratives enabled students to share experimental stories through their use of images, text, and sound. Student focus groups allowed the research team to dive deeper into student explanations for some of the tensions or emerging dominant themes and for the students to engage with one another in conversation and debate. The combination of creative and visual qualitative methods extended the voice opportunities for children and young people and challenged the research team to extend their theoretical concepts in response to more nuanced insights into diverse student experiences of thriving in urban vertical schools with implications for broader schooling. These multivocal findings also provided decision makers opportunities to act on student voice and to create change through rethinking design, consultation, and building school spaces differently.
ReferencesCarroli, L., Willis, J., Franz, J., et al. (2022). What conversations are evident in research and commentary about Vertical Schools? A discussion paper. Queensland University of Technology. https://research.qut.edu.au/tvs/wp-content/uploads/sites/387/2022/12/TVS-Final-Discussion-Paper-November-2022_published.pdf
Cook-Sather, A. (2006) Sound, Presence, and Power: “Student Voice” in Educational Research and Reform, Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359 – 390.
Cook-Sather, A. (2009) Translation: An Alternative Framework for Conceptualizing and Supporting School Reform Efforts. Educational Theory, 59(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2009.00315.x
Couldry, N. (2010) Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism. SAGE Publications.
Dudzinski, A. (2019). Human scale in architecture of schools located in dense urban fabric. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 788). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 94199-8_36
Franz, J. (2019). Towards a spatiality of wellbeing. In Franz, J, Hughes, H, & Willis, J (Eds.) School spaces for student wellbeing and learning: Insights from research and practice. Springer, Singapore, pp. 3-19.
Lundy, L. (2007). ). ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualizing Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33, 927-942.
Taylor, H., & Wright, S. (2020). Urban Schools: Designing for high density (H. Taylor & S. Wright, Eds.). London: RIBA.
Truong, S., Singh, M., Reid, C., Gray, T., & Ward, K. (2018). Vertical schooling and learning
transformations in curriculum research: points and counterpoints in outdoor education and sustainability. Curriculum Perspectives, 38(2), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-018-0053-y
Swinburn, A. (2017). Vertical School Design: Strategising the spatial configuration of a multi-storey typology to facilitate education in dense city environments. Retrieved from https://www.architects.nsw.gov.au/download/Vertical School Design_AdamSwinburn.pdf%0A
05. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Paper
Group Analysis in Educational Research and Practice – Results of a New Student Survey Instrument
Lars Dietrich, Petra Weber
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Presenting Author: Dietrich, Lars;
Weber, Petra
Today, psychoanalysis looks back on a long-lasting tradition of impacting educational theory and practice. In fact, from its very inception psychoanalytic thinking has been applied to educational settings (e.g., Freud, 1914; Freud, 1960). However, despite a long and very rich tradition, psychoanalysis in education remains a niche area in educational research and practice in Europe, North America, and beyond (Taubman, 2011). In academia, it has been almost entirely pushed out of the mainstream of educational research, with the exception of special needs education.
In this presentation, we argue that today there is an opportunity opening up for psychoanalytic thinking to (re-)emerge from the margins of educational research and practice. In the course of the past two decades, there has been a growing acknowledgment that social-emotional learning and development is a crucial part of a modern educational experience (CASEL, 2023), and an essential precondition for more effective academic/cognitive learning, and the advancement of meta-cognitive skills (Pianta, 2012). At the same time, meta-analyses of social-emotional learning/development program evaluations, based on theories and methods of the educational sciences’ mainstream, show only small effects (Corcoran et al., 2018). From a psychoanalytic perspective this is hardly surprising, because most of these programs resort to behavioral condition strategies that ignore latent/unconscious factors impacting human development. Hence, an opportunity is opening up for psychoanalysis in education to show that it can deliver better results.
However, in order to be successful, psychoanalysis in education needs to accept the methods and quality standards, which currently dominate the mainstream of educational sciences, despite their obvious limitations. Specifically, psychoanalysis in education needs to work with and show appreciation for the methods and contributions of quantitative empiricism with its focus on social ecological factors impacting development, and integrate them – which is not the same as giving up its traditional focus on qualitative and in-depth analyses of the unconscious. Initial successful and encouraging steps in this direction have been made in clinical psychoanalysis (Fonagy & Bateman, 2013).
This presentation focuses on our first attempts to bridge the gap between psychoanalysis in education and quantitative empiricism in educational research and practice. From our point of view, group analysis (Foulkes, 1983; Bion, 1991), which combines psychoanalytic and social-ecological/sociological theory and thinking, is the best-suited practice and methods framework for this endeavor. In early 2022, we began working as group analytic coaches in schools. Specifically, we have provided group analytic supervision sessions in two schools in the greater Berlin metropolitan area. In the course of this work, we have also developed a new student survey instrument, which has been theoretically derived from psychoanalytic and group analytic theory (e.g., Hirblinger, 2017; Naumann, 2014). The purpose of this instrument is to support teachers' self-reflective practices in the context of group analytic school coaching and professional development training.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo evaluate the new instrument's validity and reliability, we apply hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), exploratory, and confirmatory factor analysis using Stata 17 and Mplus 8.8.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis presentation summarizes preliminary quantiative-empirical results of the new survey instrument. We expect the variables to show significant correlations with several standardized social-emotional outcome variables: Academic and social efficacy, mentalizing, self-esteem, externalizing behavior, feelings of class belonging (e.g., Minter & Pritzker, 2015; Ha et al., 2013; Bollen & Hoyle, 1990; Veiga & Leite, 2017; Brown & Evans, 2002).
ReferencesBion, W. R. (1991). Experiences in groups and other papers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479-504. doi:10.2307/2579670
Brown, R., & Evans, W. P. (2002). Extracurricular activity and ethnicity: Creating greater school connection among diverse student populations. Urban Education, 37(1), 41-58. doi:10.1177/0042085902371
Corcoran, R. P., Cheung, A. C. K., Kim, E., & Xie, C. (2018). Effective universal school-based social and emotional learning programs for improving academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Educational Research Review, 25, 56-72. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.12.001
Fonagy, P., & Bateman, A. (2013). A brief history of mentalization-based treatment and its roots in psychoanalytic theory and practice. In M. B. Heller & S. Pollet (Eds.), The work of psychoanalysts in the public health sector (pp. 168-188). New York, NY: Routledge.
Foulkes, S. H. (1983). Introduction to group-analytic psychotherapy: Studies in the social integration of individuals and groups. New York, NY: Routledge.
Freud, A. (1960). Psychoanalysis for teachers and parents. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Freud, S. (1970). Zur Psychologie des Gymnasiasten (1914). In A. Mitscherlich, A. Richards, & J. Strachey (Eds.), Sigmund Freud Studienausgabe (Band IV): Psychologische Schriften. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag.
Ha, C., Sharp, C., Ensink, K., Fonagy, P., & Cirino, P. (2013). The measurement of reflective function in adolescents with and without borderline traits. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1215-1223. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.09.008.
Hirblinger, H. (2017). Lehrerbildung aus psychoanalytisch-pädagogischer Perspektive [teacher education from a psychoanalytic-pedagogical perspective]. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.
Minter, A., & Pritzker, S. (2015). Measuring adolescent social and academic self-efficacy: Cross-ethnic validity of the SEQ-C. Research on Social Work Practice, 27(2), 1-9. doi:10.1177/1049731515615677
Naumann, T. M. (2014). Gruppenanalytische Pädagogik: Eine Einführung in Theorie und Praxis [group analytic pedagogy: An introduction to theory and practice]. Gießen: Psychosozialverlag.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
Taubman, P. M. (2011). Disavowed Knowledge. Psychoanalysis, Education, and Teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.
Veiga, F. H., & Leite, A. (2016). Adolescents’ self-concept short scale: A version of PHCSCS. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 631-637. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.079
05. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Paper
Diverse Learners’ Experiences and Learning Outcomes - How Does the NouHätä! Safety Programme Meet 8th Graders?
Mikko Puolitaival, Eila Lindfors, Brita Somerkoski, Emilia Luukka
University of Turku, Finland
Presenting Author: Puolitaival, Mikko
In The Finnish basic education curriculum (National core curriculum for basic education 2014, 2016), goals related to safety education are emphasized in a total of 11 different subjects at different grade levels. Safety-related goals mainly focus on prevention and preparedness in everyday life. (Puolitaival & Lindfors, 2019; Somerkoski & Lindfors, 2021.) Finnish schools have strongly relied on cooperation with authorities and organizations in safety education. Rescue services are one of the schools' essential partners. Accident prevention is a statutory task of the rescue services (Rescue Act (379) 2011).
An excellent example of long-term cooperation in the field of safety education is the NouHätä! safety training programme, which is aimed at middle school 8th graders. The main goal of the NouHätä! programme is to prevent fires and other accidents, respond to emergencies and prepare for social disruptions. In the programme, training is carried out in interprofessional cooperation between the rescue services’ personnel and school teachers (Mertsalmi & Kivelä, 2020). Even though the Nouhätä! programme has been implemented for more than a quarter of a century, it has received little scholarly attention. The success of the programme, like many others, is measured mainly by the number of participants. The aim of the study is to identify groups of learners with diverse learning outcomes and goal orientations and to find out how the materials and methods used in safety education meet the needs of diverse learners.
In addition to having different backgrounds, pupils are also oriented towards different learning goals. Individuals can have many different goal orientations simultaneously and these are formed through social interaction, for example, through the interpretation of expectations, feedback and comments. Over the years, several different classifications of goal orientation have been formulated, differing mainly in the number of goals and their justification (e.g. (Dweck, 1986; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Nicholls, 1984). In this study, achievement goal orientations are divided into mastery goal orientation, performance goal orientation, and avoidance goal orientation.
Achievement goal orientation as a concept describes an individual’s attitudes towards and expectations of their performance. Identical learning situations can be perceived differently by different students. Pupils may have multiple achievement goal orientations at play simultaneously. These vary according to students’ motivational factors, desired learning outcomes and interpretations of various situations. Specific goal orientation profiles can be generated according to specific, qualitatively different characteristics. Individual differences in goal orientation are associated with academic performance and well-being (Lerang et al., 2019; Niemivirta et al., 2019; Tuominen-Soini et al., 2008; Volet et al., 2019). Studies on goal orientation provide insight into why certain circumstances and methods have a varying impact on students. In their study, Volet, Jones and Vauras (2019) conclude that students’ favourable attitudes towards learning are more important than whether students have prior knowledge of the subject or not. They also point out that if some students in a group setting are determined to learn, they influence their peers to be proactive learners also (Volet et al., 2019). Students with different goal orientations benefit from different kinds of learning assignments and methods of instruction. Recognizing students’ goal orientations is a key factor for teachers when adapting their teaching to meet students' needs.
The research questions for the study are:
- What variables explain students’ learning outcomes in the NouHätä! safety education programme?
- What learning methods and materials of the safety education programme did students with different goal orientations prefer?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe target group of this study was 8th-grade students who participated in the NouHätä! programme during the spring term of 2020. We collected the data immediately at the end of the programme. The survey data were collected online with a Webropol questionnaire, which was sent to all the schools that took part in the programme. Participation was voluntary. The questionnaire consisted of four parts: background variable questions, goal orientation questions, a safety test measuring safety competence, and questions related to the implementation of the NouHätä! programme; such as materials and methods used in schools. The data examined in this study is part of a larger study that examined learning outcomes in a fire safety programme.
Respondents' safety competence was measured with a set of 12 statements and their goal orientation (Volet ym., 2019), which was assessed based on a set of 20 questions. The reliability of the goal orientation questions was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, after which summary variables were constructed. In order to get a more accurate picture of the different types of students' learning abilities, we decided to group the respondents into clusters using cluster analysis. In addition to goal orientations, the clustering accounted for school performance and learning outcomes of the programme.
A quantitative research design was used in this descriptive study. As the responses were relatively normally distributed and the data were large, it was possible to use parametric methods in the analysis. In addition to basic descriptive and cluster analysis, correlation and regression analyses were performed on the data. (Tähtinen et al., 2020; Whatley, 2022)
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsA total of 1398 (N=1398) comprehensive school 8th grade students responded to the survey. Of all respondents, 701 reported being girls and 639 boys. The average value of the respondents' previous school report as 8.17 (scale is 4-10) and the safety test average score was 6.4 (scale is 0-12).
The study grouped the learners into three clusters. Students in cluster one (n=706) performed well in school and got good learning results in the safety education test. They also most often had a high mastery goal orientation. This cluster included 50,5 % of all students. Students in cluster two performed weakly in school and most often had a low mastery and performance goal orientation. However, their learning outcomes in the safety education test were satisfactory. This cluster included 22,0 % of all students. Students in cluster three performed the weakest in school and had high performance and avoidance goal orientation. In the test they also performed the weakest. This cluster included 26,5 % of all students.
Overall, the results show that those who performed well in school, also did well on the safety test. The way in which teaching and learning situation was organized resulted a significant positive correlation with the learning outcomes. Thus, practical training was clearly linked to better performance in the NouHätä! programme. Moreover, the interprofessional collaboration seems to lead better results than safety teaching carried out by a school teacher or a rescue authority alone.
The results challenge teachers’ and experts’ collaboration in safety education. In addition, there is a clear demand to guide diverse learners’ towards using materials and methods that meet their needs and benefit their interest and motivation to achieve better learning outcomes.
ReferencesDweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational Processes Affecting Learning. The American psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and Avoidance Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation: A Mediational Analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461
Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Pearson.
Lerang, M. S., Ertesvåg, S. K., & Havik, T. (2019). Perceived Classroom Interaction, Goal Orientation and Their Association with Social and Academic Learning Outcomes. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 63(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1466358
Lindfors, E., Lundberg, A., & Kuusisto, S. (2021). Students’ Goal Orientations During a Pedagogical Innovation Process—A study in craft, design and technology teacher education. Technology in our hands. Creative pedagogy and ambitious teacher education. 221–232. https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/techneA/article/view/4381/3852
Mertsalmi, A., & Kivelä, E. (2020). NouHätä! Käsikirja. Suomen Pelastusalan Keskusjärjestö SPEK.
National core curriculum for basic education 2014. (2016). Finnish National Board of Education.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological review, 91(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
Niemivirta, M., Pulkka, A.-T., Tapola, A., & Tuominen, H. (2019). Achievement Goal Orientations: A Person-Oriented Approach (ss. 566–616). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823279.025
Nilsen, P., Hudson, D. S., Kullberg, A., Timpka, T., Ekman, R., & Lindqvist, K. (2004). Making sense of safety. Injury Prevention, 10(2), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2004.005322
Pelastuslaki (379) 2011. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2011/20110379
Puolitaival, M., & Lindfors, E. (2019). Turvallisuuskasvatuksen tavoitteiden tilannekuva perusopetuksessa – dokumenttiaineistoon perustuvaa pohdintaa. Teoksessa Tutkimuksesta luokkahuoneisiin (ss. 119–138). Jyväskylän yliopisto.
Scheerens, J. (Toim.). (2014). Effectiveness of Time Investments in Education. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00924-7
Somerkoski, B., & Lindfors, E. (2021). Turvallisuuspedagogiikka perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteissa. Teoksessa Opetuksen ja oppimisen ytimessä. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/333969
Ståhlberg, J., Tuominen, H., Pulkka, A., & Niemivirta, M. (2021). Students’ perfectionistic profiles: Stability, change, and associations with achievement goal orientations. Psychology in the Schools, 58(1), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22444
Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). Achievement goal orientations and subjective well-being: A person-centred analysis. Learning and instruction, 18(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.003
Tähtinen, J., Laakkonen, E., Broberg, M., & Tähtinen, R. (2020). Tilastollisen aineiston käsittelyn ja tulkinnan perusteita (2. uudistettu painos.). Turun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden laitos.
Volet, S., Jones, C., & Vauras, M. (2019). Attitude-, group- and activity-related differences in the quality of preservice teacher students’ engagement in collaborative science learning. Learning and individual differences, 73, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.05.002
Whatley, M. (2022). Introduction to quantitative analysis for international educators. Springer.
|
