Session Information
09 SES 11 B, Issues in Formative and Alternative Assessments
Paper Session
Contribution
Most European schools invite parents to conferences or meetings with the teacher, to be informed of the student’s learning outcomes. Swedish school law (Skollagen 2010:800) stipulates that student and parents should be invited to conferences twice a year. The conference is by tradition led by the teacher, and research show that most of the talking is done by the teacher and the parent, with small opportunities for the ideas and questions of the student (Hofvendal, 2006). Most conferences tend to focus on the shortcomings of the student. The teacher seems to use the conference to negotiate a “student personality”, a school identity that strengthens the student’s positive attitude to school (Granath, 2008). The conferences and their documentation become means to show the student expected ways to behave properly, rather than to focus on his/her knowledge and skill development (Mårell-Olsson, 2012).
Ten years ago theoretical framework, objectives, and routines for student led parent conferences were constructed in a cooperative project by the researcher and the staff at a compulsory charter school in Stockholm (Pihlgren, 2006). The routines have since then spread throughout schools, as a method to enhance student democracy by shifting the dialogue in favor of the student’s voice and opinions. The suggested working order starts with a thematic unit during 1-2 weeks, where the students will self-assess and peer-assess their abilities and knowledge in each subject area. Each student and his/her teachers will discuss results and plan future learning goals and activities (Pihlgren, 2006). The thematic unit ends with each student leading a conference, where his/her parents will be informed of the student’s present knowledge and abilities and of the learning goals and activities suggested henceforth. The teacher will participate when the goals are agreed on, but will otherwise stay in the background during the conference.
The underlying ideas are to be understood as socio-cognitive, socio-constructive, and formative: If the student understands what he/she knows, what the next step will be, and where they are heading, they will learn more effectively (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). By using reflective dialogue and a systematic and recurrent working order the students are meant to think meta-cognitively, something proved to have a impact on learning (Black et al., 2003: Hattie, 2009: Hetland et al., 2007).
This paper will present the results from an ongoing research project assessing effects of using the student led parent conferences systematically for several years. The following research questions have guided the research:
How do the respondents describe the effects of the student led parent conferences, compared to the teacher led conferences, on information, student’s educational and social development, on interaction and cooperation parent-student-teacher, and on conference procedure?
How (if so) do leaders and teachers describe that the student led parent conferences have changed teachers’ and the schools’ pedagogical planning, the schools’ results (national tests, grades), and administration?
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Bek, A. (2012). Undervisning och reflektion. Om undervisning och förutsättningar för studenters reflektion mot bakgrund av teorier om erfarenhetslärande. D. diss. Umeå University. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning. Putting it into practice. Berkshire: Open University Press. Granath, G. (2008). Milda makter! Utvecklingssamtal och loggböcker som disciplineringstekniker. D. diss. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Gothenburg University. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. Lomdon: Routledge. Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, pp. 81-112. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S. & Sheridan, K.M. (2007). Studio Thinking. The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Hofvendahl, J. (2006). Riskabla samtal – en analys av potentiella faror i skolans kvarts- och utvecklingssamtal. D. diss. Linköping University. Lundahl, C. & Folke-Fichtelius, M. (eds) (2010). Bedömning i och av skolan – praktik, principer, politik. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Jönsson, A. (2011). Lärande bedömning. Malmö: Gleerups. Mårell-Olsson, E. (2012). Att göra lärandet synligt. Individuella utvecklingsplaner och digital dokumentation. D. diss. Umeå University. Pihlgren, A. S. (2006). Dialog som läromedel – Elevledda utvecklingssamtal. In: IUP och utvecklingssamtalet i praktiken. Solna: Fortbildningsförlaget, pp. 17–24. Pihlgren, A. S. (2012). Demokratiska arbetsformer – värdegrundsarbete i skolan. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Skollagen (2010:800) SFS 2010:800. Utbildningsdepartementet [The Scool Law, Swedish Department of Education]. Skolverket (2010). Klass viktigare än kön för goda skolresultat. www.skolverket.se. 2010-01-11, [Swedish National Board of Education].
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.