”Du har skött dig bra”: Återkoppling inom arbetsplatsförlagt lärande utifrån yrkeselevers upplevda läroplan
[‘You’re doing good’: Feedback in workplace-based learning from a perspective of the experienced curriculum]
The article examines upper secondary students’ experiences of assessment in workplace-based learning. The research question is how the students express their self-experienced progression through their participation in feedback in workplaces. In a focus group interview study, 70 students from the Child and Recreation Programme in 10 Swedish schools participated when they were halfway through their education. Four themes emerged as the students reconciled and bridged over the discontinuities between assessment in school and in workplace-based learning. These comprised making sense of 1) explicit and 2) inconspicuous feedback, 3) a suitability for the job, and 4) a vocational attitude that was childcare or customer-oriented. The students engaged in self-assessment directed at open-ended goals of personal self-discovery and in relation to people-cantered service occupations. In line with the findings, a more generous and encompassing or divergent view of assessment of vocational becoming in workplace-based learning is advocated.
Andrée, M. (2007). Den levda läroplanen: En studie av naturorienterande undervisningspraktiker i grundskolan. Diss. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.
Aoki, T.T. (1993). Legitimating lived curriculum: Towards a curricular landscape of multiplicity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(3), 255–268.
Askew, S. & Lodge, C. (2000). Gifts, ping-pongs and loops: Linking feedback and learning. I S. Askew (Red.), Feedback for learning, (s. 1–17). London: Routledge.
Bakkevig Dagsland, Å.H., Mykletun, R.J. & Einarsen, S. (2015). “We’re not slaves – we are actually the future!” A follow-up study of apprentices’ experiences in the Norwegian hospitality industry. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 67(4), 460–481.
Barone, T.E. (1980). Effectively critiquing the experienced curriculum: Clues from the “New Journalism”. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(1), 29–53.
Billett, S. (2002). Workplace pedagogic practice: Co-participation and learning. British Journal of Educational Studies 50(4), 457–481.
Billett, S. (2006). Constituting the workplace curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies 38(1), 31–48.
Billett, S. (2014). Learning in the circumstances of practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(5), 674–693.
Billett, S., Wärvik, G.-B. & Choy, S. (2018). Concepts, purposes and practices across national curriculum. I S. Choy, G.-B. Wärvik & V. Lindberg (Red.), Integration of vocational education and training experiences. Purposes, practises and principles (s. 327–344). Singapore: Springer.
Bronkhorst, L.H. & Akkerman, S.F. (2016). At the boundary of school: Continuity and discontinuity in learning across contexts. Educational Research Review, 19, 18–35.
Brooker, R. & Butler, J. (1997). The learning context within the workplace: As perceived by apprentices and their workplace trainers. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 49(4), 487–510.
Conway, M.-L. & Foskey, R. (2015) Apprentices thriving at work: Looking through an appreciative lens. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 67(3), 332–348.
Dewey, J. (1938/1946). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. & Deen, P. (2012). Unmodern philosophy and modern philosophy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182.
Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P. & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65.
Gibbs, A. (2012). Focus groups and group interviews. I J. Arthur (Red.), Research methods and methodologies in education (s. 186–192). London: Sage.
Goodlad, J.I. (Red.) (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Green Lister, P. & Crisp, B.R. (2007). Critical incident analyses: A practice learning tool for students and practitioners. Practice 19(1), 47–60.
Hammarsley, M. (2008). Assessing validity in social research. I P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman & J. Brannen (Red.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Research, (s. 42–53). London: SAGE.
Kvale, S. (2008). A workplace perspective on school assessment. I EARLI/Northumbria Assessment Conference, Balancing dilemmas in assessment and learning in contemporary education, (s. 197–208). New York: Routledge.
Larsson, S. (2005). Om kvalitet i kvalitativa studier. Nordisk Pedagogik, 25(1), 16–35.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindberg, V. & Löfgren, R. (2010). Provkonstruktion och bedömning som aspekter av kemilärares bedömningspraktik. I I. Eriksson (Red.), Kemilärande i två finlandssvenska klassrum: Rapport från projektet Kemitexter som redskap för naturvetenskapligt lärande (s. 175–189). SKIP-rapport nr 8/2010. Stockholm: Stockholms universitetsförlag.
Marsh, C.J. (2009). Key concepts for understanding curriculum (4 uppl.). Abingdon & New York: Routledge.
Mårtensson, Å. & Andersson, P. (2017). Tid för handledning. I A. Fejes, V. Lindberg & G.-B. Wärvik (Red.), Yrkesdidaktikens mångfald (s. 125–138). Stockholm: Lärarförlaget.
Nielsen, K. (2008). Scaffold instruction at the workplace from a situated perspective. Studies in Continuing Education, 30(3), 247–261.
Sandal, A.K., Smith, K. & Wangensteen, R. (2014). Vocational students experiences with assessment in workplace learning. Vocations and Learning, 7(2), 241–261.
Schubert, W.H. (2008). Curriculum inquiry. I M.F. Connelly & J. Phillion. (Red.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (s. 399–419). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Schwandt T.A. (2005). On modeling our understanding of the practice fields. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 13(3), 313–332.
SFS 2010:2039. Gymnasieförordningen. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
Shuichi, N. (2016). The possibilities and limitations of assessment for learning: Exploring the theory of formative assessment and the notion of “closing the learning gap”. Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, 79(10), 79–91.
Skolverket. (2011). Gymnasieskola 2011. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Skolverket. (2012). Bedömning och betygssättning i gymnasieskolan. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Tanggaard, L. (2006). Situating gendered learning in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(4), 220–234.
Tanggaard, L. (2007). Learning at trade vocational school and learning at work: Boundary crossing in apprentices’ everyday life. Journal of Education and Work, 20(5), 453–466.
Tanggaard, L. & Emholdt, C. (2008). Assessment in practice: An inspiration from apprenticeship. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 52(1), 97–116.
Taras, M. (2013). Feedback on feedback: Uncrossing wires across sectors. I S. Merry, M. Price, D. Carless & M. Taras (Red.), Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students, (s. 30–40). Abingdon Oxon: Routledge.
Copyright (c) 2021 Martina Wyszynska Johansson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
NJVET is an open access journal, this means anyone can access, freely download and read the journal. There are no commercial interests for Linköping University Electronic Press or the Nordic network for vocational education and training (NordYrk) in publishing the journal. From 2021 NJVET publishes all articles under the Creative Commons License CC-BY 4.0.
The core idea of open access is that copyright remains with the authors. However, we publish with the agreement of the authors that if they decide later to publish the articles elsewhere, the publisher will be notified, prior to any acceptance, that the article has already been published by NJVET.
When publishing with NJVET, it is with the agreement of the authors that if they make their articles available elsewhere on the internet (for example, on their own websites or institutional websites), that they will do so by making links to the articles as published in NJVET using the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) numbers of the articles and acknowledge in the text of the sites that the articles have been previously published in NJVET.