hig.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Grannäs, Jan
Publications (10 of 62) Show all publications
Frelin, A. & Grannäs, J. (2018). Changing school environments through the eyes of the students. In: AERA abstract repository: . Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting 2018, 13-17 April 2018, New York, NY, USA.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Changing school environments through the eyes of the students
2018 (English)In: AERA abstract repository, 2018Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

1. Purpose This paper draws on socio-material and spatial theories to open up new possibilities for understanding how school practices are in play: the interior of the school buildings, the outside playground and different artefacts being part of the school environment. More specifically, we have used a spatial perspective for analyzing students’ photo stories describing spaces that supports and impede their learning as well as safe and unsafe spaces in a newly opened school.

2. Theoretical framework In discussions about educational practices, cognitive, social and cultural concepts tend to dominate. These concepts are often based on notions about humans using various kinds of tools and that social interaction is played out in a context. Notions like this can easily obscure the significance of material objects (Fenwick, Edwards, & Sawchuk, 2011). A sociomaterial perspective entails viewing interactions in school as more than social processes, but materializing processes in and with material objects. This involves envisioning, enacting and experiencing education in relation to its material, social and discursive aspects (Mulcahy, Cleveland, & Aberton, 2015). Stables (2015) argues that there is a need to regard the school environment as “part of the life story of its users”. School environments are appropriated by their users who respond to their environment in different ways.

3. Methods The case school, Maple Grove, is a newly opened secondary school. The fieldwork was conducted over the course of one school year (Yin, 2009). The main data used in this paper consists of students’ photo stories. According to Banks (2007), visual research methods are appropriate for the study of youth and their contexts.

4. Data sources Digital stories (using the software Sway) was collected by means of classroom assignments. Combinations of images (photographs, screenshots etc.) and texts supported the socio-material analysis.

5. Results Preliminary results show variations in both the areas that students view as safe and unsafe, and the reasons for their choice of area. This means that one area may be depicted as safe by one student, but unsafe by another. They also pointed to various social and physical features that affected their learning environment. Students also point out vital places in school buildings that neither architects nor school staff could foresee in the original design.

6. Conclusion A conclusion that can be drawn is that the school administration and staff need to be sensitive to the views of the students in the transition from design to dynamic practice.

National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-26990 (URN)
Conference
AERA Annual Meeting 2018, 13-17 April 2018, New York, NY, USA
Available from: 2018-06-13 Created: 2018-06-13 Last updated: 2018-06-18Bibliographically approved
Frelin, A. & Grannäs, J. (2017). Changing school environments through the eyes of the students. In: : . Paper presented at NERA 2017, The 45th Congress of the Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA) 'Learning and education – material conditions and consequences', 23-25 March 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Changing school environments through the eyes of the students
2017 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This paper draws on socio-material and spatial theories to open up new possibilities for understanding how school practices are in play: the interior of the school buildings, the outside playground and different artefacts being part of the school environment. The purpose of this case study is to enhance our understanding of different students’ views of their educational environment, inside and outside of the classroom. The focus lies on their experiences of safe and unsafe places, along with spaces that supports and impede their learning. More specifically, we have used a spatial perspective for analyzing students’ photo stories in a newly opened school.

National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-23855 (URN)
Conference
NERA 2017, The 45th Congress of the Nordic Educational Research Association (NERA) 'Learning and education – material conditions and consequences', 23-25 March 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark
Projects
Hur byggs en hållbar utbildningsmiljö upp?
Note

Contribution to the symposium Changing Design of School Environment is Changing Education - Changing processes through the eyes of the stakeholders Part 2

Available from: 2017-04-06 Created: 2017-04-06 Last updated: 2018-03-13Bibliographically approved
Fransson, G., Frelin, A. & Grannäs, J. (2017). Exploring a conceptual framework to understand how principals balance the partly contradictory tasks of evaluating and supporting newly qualified teachers. In: : . Paper presented at The European Conference on Educational Research (ECER2017), 22-25 August 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Exploring a conceptual framework to understand how principals balance the partly contradictory tasks of evaluating and supporting newly qualified teachers
2017 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation only (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In many countries it is argued that the “quality of teachers” is the most important school-related factor in pupils’ learning (Hattie, 2009; 2012). Teacher quality has become a key argument for teachers’ professional development. When it comes to newly qualified teachers (NQTs), in many countries the call for “teacher quality” has either led to reforms that support NQTs or reforms requiring an evaluation of their competence. In some countries these approaches are combined, with induction systems and mentoring that support NQTs and an evaluation of their skills to ensure quality. However, some research suggests that if the same person performs both roles it is more difficult to create and maintain a relationship based on confidence, openness and mutual trust that promotes risk-free learning (Author 1, 201*, Jones 2009). In some countries or states mentors perform both these roles (cf. Yusko & Feiman Nemser, 2008), whereas in others these two roles are separated so that mentors support and principals evaluate.

The latter kind of system was introduced in Sweden in 2011, with mentors supporting NQTs and principals performing the evaluation (Government Bill, 2010/11). However, previous research shows that when the Swedish principals performed the assessment they also supported the NQTs (Author 1, Author 2, Author 3, 201*) in that they partly applied an instructional leadership (cf. REF) and gave post-observation feedback. However, being both an evaluator and supervisor can be challenging. For instance, Hinchey (2010) claims that teachers only improve their practice in relatively non-threatening contexts and that the assessment may challenge this (cf. Author 1, 201*; Range, Young & Hvidstone, 2013).

A review of the research literature reveals that there is an urgent need for theoretical development in order to understand how principals enact and balance their roles as evaluators of NQTs and pedagogical leaders. In responding to this call, the purpose of the paper is: (a) to elaborate and discuss a conceptual framework that captures how principals enact and balance their roles as evaluators and pedagogical leaders in the context of evaluating NQTs and (b) to exemplify how data can be related to the framework.

Theoretical framework

The emphasis on and combination of supportive and evaluative dimensions are contained in the framework of a four-way table that includes “formal and structured evaluation” vs. “informal evaluation” and  “strong instructional leadership” vs. “weak instructional leadership”.

The evaluation dimension is defined as the extent to which evaluations are scheduled, planned, directed by guiding formulae, how the different issues of the national standards are focused, time spent on the evaluation, the structure and focus of the follow-up discussions etc.   

The instructional dimension is defined as how and how much guidance is given and how the NQTs professional development are facilitated. Here the focus is on guidance and feedback that contribute to developing the instructional skills or pedagogical thinking of the NQT. Positive feedback relates to the content included in the table. Positive feedback in a general sense, without connection to instruction, thinking or a situation, is not included. For instance, positive feedback heard in the corridor, such as: ‘colleagues say you perform well’, is not included in this dimension. Guidance can be absent or present, more or less extensive, or constructive and detailed.

Methods/methodology

The framework is developed by reviewing the research literature in the areas of teacher induction (cf. (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009), evaluation of NQTs (cf. Yusko & Feiman Nemser, 2008) and principals’ instructional leadership (cf. Neumerski, 2013; LaPointe Terosky, 2016). Most of the literature relating to principals’ instructional leadership focuses on teachers in general and not specifically NQTs (cf. Tuytens & Devos, 2017), but is nevertheless valuable.

Drawing on and combining supportive and evaluative dimensions result in a four-way table framework with the following axes:  “formal and structured evaluation” vs. “informal evaluation” and “strong instructional leadership” vs. “weak instructional leadership”.

This framework is then used in explorative analyses of data from a longitudinal research project in which five principals conducting a formal evaluation of NQTs are followed in the year of the evaluation. These five principals are regarded as cases. The NQTs being evaluated teach Years 4-6.

Each principal is interviewed at least twice during the year (in total between 73-158 minutes), which forms the main data for the analysis. The interviews and analysis explore principals’ self-reported information regarding their strategies to enact and balance their role as evaluators and the support they provide. Using the software NVivo, codes are created based on content analysis (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014).

Self-reported data needs to be looked at critically (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). To validate this kind of data: (i) observations and recordings of post-observation conversations (tot. 72 minutes) are performed with two of the principals (A and C) and their NQTs, (ii) joint interviews are conducted with three principals (A, C and E) and their NQTs (in total 130 minutes) and (iii) observations of three of the principals’ observations (B, C, D) are carried out. A coherent design of these validating strategies is not possible due to ethical and practical reasons. Three of the NQTs did not feel comfortable with the participation of an external researcher during the observations and/or post-observation conversations. Some of the planned observations were cancelled due to illness, the unavailability of the informant or were performed ad hoc and informally and were not observed or recorded.

Expected outcomes/results

Positioning the principals in the framework of the four-way table with the axes “formal and structured evaluation” vs. “informal evaluation” and “strong instructional leadership” vs. “weak instructional leadership” enables their actions to be positioned differently. Four out of the five teachers are positioned more towards “strong instructional leadership” and “formal and structured evaluation”, albeit with different emphases on the two dimensions. The fifth principal (E) is positioned more towards “informal evaluation” and “weak instructional leadership”. This principal describes his/her leadership as ‘leadership on the run’.

The overall conclusion is that the theoretical framework enables principals to be positioned according to how their evaluative and supportive roles vary. Also, the quality of the data, for instance with regard to quantity, focus on relevant issues and different kinds of data (e.g. self-reported narratives, narratives from other actors such as NQTs, and first-hand information from the researchers’ direct observations) gives a much more informed analysis of the positioning in the framework. However, in this small-scale study, the different kinds of data do not contradict each other, but strengthen the conclusions and the positioning.

Thus, the framework facilitates an understanding of how principals facilitate NQTs professional development in a context in which evaluative and supportive dimensions are applied. The framework could also be used to analyse how mentors balance the supportive and evaluative dimensions.

References

Author 1 (201*). [details removed for peer review]. Article published in international peer-reviewed journal.

Author 1, Author 2 & Author 3 (201*). [details removed for peer review]. Paper presented at an International Annual Conference.

Government bill 2010/11:20 Legitimation för lärare och förskollärare [Registration for Teachers and Pre-School Teachers]. The Swedish Government.

 Hattie, J. 2009. Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: New York: Routledge.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge.

Hinchey, P.H. (2010). Getting teacher assessment right: What policymakers can learn from research. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.

Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: what we know and what we don't. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 207-216.

Jones, M. (2009). Supporting the supporters of novice teachers: An analysis of mentors’ needs from twelve European countries presented from an English perspective. Research in Comparative and International Education 4, no. 1: 4–21.

LaPointe Terosky, A. (2016): Enacting instructional leadership: perspectives and actions of public K-12 principals, School Leadership & Management,

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. (3. ed.) Los Angeles: Sage.

Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking Instructional Leadership: A Review of What Do We Know About Principal, Teacher, and Coach Instructional Leadership, and Where Should We Go from Here? Educational Administration Quarterly 49 (2): 310–347.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. 

Range, B. G., Young, S. & Hvidston, D. (2013) Teacher perceptions about observation conferences: what do teachers think about their formative supervision in one US school district?, School Leadership & Management, 33:1, 61-77.

Tuytens, M. & Devos, G. (2017) The role of feedback from the school

leader during teacher evaluation for teacher and school improvement, Teachers and Teaching, 23:1, 6-24,

Yusko, B., & Feiman Nemser. S. (2008). Embracing contraries: Combining assistance and assessment in new teacher induction. Teacher College Record 110, no. 5: 923–53.

National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-25228 (URN)
Conference
The European Conference on Educational Research (ECER2017), 22-25 August 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark
Projects
RAOL-projektet (Rektors arbete och lämplighetsprövning av ny lärare)
Funder
AFA Insurance, 120292
Available from: 2017-09-13 Created: 2017-09-13 Last updated: 2018-07-03Bibliographically approved
Frelin, A. & Grannäs, J. (2017). Exploring the Support Function ”School Host” as Equalizer of Educational Opportunity in the School Environment. In: : . Paper presented at 2017 AERA Annual Meeting, 27 April - 1 May, 2017, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Exploring the Support Function ”School Host” as Equalizer of Educational Opportunity in the School Environment
2017 (English)Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In this paper a spatial perspective is used to explore the support work of school hosts in the common areas of the school environment aimed at equalizing educational opportunities and preventing social exclusion. Recent investments in student support staff are aimed at improving student care and boosting students’ academic performances. Interviews from two case schools, complemented by observations and documents, were compared in order to determine how the hosts relate to physical, conceived and social spaces in schools. Results show ways in which spatial aspects such as the physical layout of the school enable or limit their work. Their actions are the outcome of the relations between the school environment and their task perceptions. Moreover, they draw upon established relationships.

Keywords
Desegregation, Equity, School culture, School organization, Social context, Learning environment
National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-22691 (URN)
Conference
2017 AERA Annual Meeting, 27 April - 1 May, 2017, San Antonio, TX, USA
Projects
Hur byggs en hållbar utbildningsmiljö upp?
Note

Pilotprojekt som finansierats med rektorsmedel.

Available from: 2016-11-03 Created: 2016-11-03 Last updated: 2018-03-13Bibliographically approved
Grannäs, J. & Frelin, A. (2017). Highlighting educational support professionals’ indirect contributions to the educational environment. Nordic Studies in Education, 37(3-4), 217-230
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Highlighting educational support professionals’ indirect contributions to the educational environment
2017 (English)In: Nordic Studies in Education, ISSN 1891-5914, E-ISSN 1891-5949, Vol. 37, no 3-4, p. 217-230Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article contributes to the discussion about educational environments. Drawing on Dewey’s and Hansen’s work, the point of departure is that the educational environment is dynamic and connected to educational purposes, and that educational relationships can be both direct and indirect and connected to norms, values and subject matter. In a case study, using interviews and observations, the periphery of educational environments is explored. Distinctions between the intended and actual functions, and between environment and surroundings in different parts of the municipal administration, and the resulting shortcomings of using an atomistic rather than an ecological perspective in education, are also discussed.

Keywords
Dewey, Educational environment, New Public Management, School Ecology, School staff
National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-23891 (URN)10.18261/issn.1891-5949-2017-03-04-07 (DOI)2-s2.0-85036531698 (Scopus ID)
Funder
AFA Insurance, 110145
Available from: 2017-04-19 Created: 2017-04-19 Last updated: 2018-03-13Bibliographically approved
Frelin, A. & Grannäs, J. (2017). Professional territories in open learning environments: – examining collaborations between teachers and social pedagogues. In: : . Paper presented at AARE annual international conference ‘Education: What’s politics got to do with it?’, 26-30 November 2017, Canberra, Australia.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Professional territories in open learning environments: – examining collaborations between teachers and social pedagogues
2017 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-24785 (URN)
Conference
AARE annual international conference ‘Education: What’s politics got to do with it?’, 26-30 November 2017, Canberra, Australia
Available from: 2017-08-02 Created: 2017-08-02 Last updated: 2018-03-13Bibliographically approved
Fransson, G., Frelin, A. & Grannäs, J. (2017). Rektorer och lämplighetsprövningen av nyutbildade lärare: En rapport från forskningsprojektet Rektors arbete och lämplighetsprövning av nya lärare: En studie av rektorers förändrade arbetsvillkor efter införandet av lärarlegitimation. Gävle: Gävle University Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Rektorer och lämplighetsprövningen av nyutbildade lärare: En rapport från forskningsprojektet Rektors arbete och lämplighetsprövning av nya lärare: En studie av rektorers förändrade arbetsvillkor efter införandet av lärarlegitimation
2017 (Swedish)Report (Other academic)
Abstract [sv]

Den 2 mars 2011 beslutade riksdagen att införa en legitimation för lärare och förskollärare samt att nyexaminerade lärare och förskollärare skulle genomgå en introduktionsperiod. Under denna introduktionsperiod skulle de få stöd av en mentor samtidigt som rektor eller förskolechef skulle bedöma deras lämplighet för yrket.

För rektorerna innebär lämplighetsprövningen av nyexaminerade lärare nya arbetsuppgifter och ett formaliserat uppdrag att bedöma lärares skicklighet. Detta i samband med att rektorers arbetssituation har befunnits vara intensiv med en uppsplittrad vardag där många snabba beslut måste tas väcker frågor kring hur arbetets förutsättningar påverkar lämplighetsprövningen, och hur lämplighetsprövningen påverkar arbetsförhållanden och yrkesroller.

I juni månad 2014 inbjöds 646 rektorer att besvara en enkät rörande lämplighetsprövningen. 248 rektorer svarade vilket ger en svarsfrekvens på 39 % (n=248). 159 kvinnor (64 %) och 89 män (36 %) besvarade enkäten. Nästan 60 % av rektorerna hade varit rektor på sin nuvarande enhet i tre år eller mindre. 77 % av rektorerna var verksamma vid kommunala skolor medan 23 % var verksamma vid fristående skolor.

Resultaten visar att rektorernas upplevelse av lämplighetsprövningen är att den i huvudsak, om än i varierade grad, upplevts meningsfull och att rektorerna känt sig tillfreds med de lämplighetsprövningar de genomfört. Det förekommer mer spriddaåsikter om i vilken mån lämplighetsprövningen varit väl investerad tid och kraft. Lämplighetsprövningen har konkurrerat med många andra arbetsuppgifter men det finns ändå en tendens att rektorerna som grupp anser att den investerade tiden och kraften varit värt utfallet.

Det råder oenighet kring i vilken mån lämplighetsprövningen bidragit till mer positiva relationer mellan rektor och den nya läraren, men att det råder relativt stor enighet om att lämplighetsprövningen inte nämnvärt försämrat relationerna. En sammantagen tolkning av detta är att något mer positiva relationer med de nya lärarna etablerats och att båda parter lärt känna varandra såväl professionellt som privat. Endast 12 % av rektorerna anger att de har fått någon utbildning i att genomföra lämplighetsprövningen. Rektorerna har haft ett begränsat stöd av huvudman eller andra rektorer vilket skapat ett frirum att genomföra lämplighetsprövningen på sitt eget sätt. Samtalen med mentorn har varit viktiga för rektorns bedömning. Vidare framträder lärarkollegiets informella bedömning dels som en viktig komponent i rektors formella bedömning, dels som ett viktig komplement till i rektors formella bedömning. Av de 137 lämplighetsprövningar som genomförts rådde viss tveksamhet i 10 fall och i två fall uppgav rektorerna att det råddestor tveksamhet. Samtliga 137 lärare bedömdes dock efter introduktionsperiodens slutsom lämpliga.

Rektorers tilltro till politiker har påverkats negativt av alla turer kring lärarlegitimationen och att lämplighetsprövningen slutligen avvecklades. 73 % av rektorerna anser att deras förtroende för politiker minskat, medan 6 % anser att förtroendet ökat.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Gävle: Gävle University Press, 2017. p. 56
Series
RD-report, ISSN 1403-8749 ; 45
Keywords
Arbetsmiljö, introduktionsperiod, lärare, lämplighetsprövning, lärarlegitimation, mentor, rektor, skola, skolledare
National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-23825 (URN)
Available from: 2017-08-10 Created: 2017-08-10 Last updated: 2018-03-13Bibliographically approved
Frelin, A. & Grannäs, J. (2017). Skolans mellanrum: Ett relationellt och rumsligt perspektiv på utbildningsmiljöer. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 22(3-4), 198-214
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Skolans mellanrum: Ett relationellt och rumsligt perspektiv på utbildningsmiljöer
2017 (Swedish)In: Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, ISSN 1401-6788, E-ISSN 2001-3345, Vol. 22, no 3-4, p. 198-214Article in journal (Refereed) Published
National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-23892 (URN)
Projects
Hur byggs en hållbar utbildningsmiljö upp?
Available from: 2017-04-19 Created: 2017-04-19 Last updated: 2018-03-13Bibliographically approved
Grannäs, J. & Frelin, A. (2017). Spaces of student support: comparing educational environments from two time periods. Improving Schools, 20(2), 127-142
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Spaces of student support: comparing educational environments from two time periods
2017 (English)In: Improving Schools, ISSN 1365-4802, E-ISSN 1475-7583, Vol. 20, no 2, p. 127-142Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article sets out to explore how and whether the physical, social and conceived conditions in schools facilitate or disrupt support work aimed at improving student learning and preventing social exclusion (cf. Author 1 & Author 2, 2013). This is accomplished by comparing student support practices in the common areas of two newly renovated secondary schools built in two different time periods.

The focus is on the student support staff’s (exemplified by student welfare officers and school hosts) enactment of support for students’ learning and well-being.This enactment takes place in a designed school environment, where teachers and support staff appropriate spaces for educational purposes in different ways (cf. Stables, 2015). The interview and observational data come from two qualitative case studies. A spatial analysis perspective is used is to investigate the physical, social and conceived aspects of space (Author 1 & Author 2, 2014, 2015). The case schools, located in two municipalities, were originally built in the 1910s (Maple Grove) and the 1960s (Pine Bay). Both schools serve mixed to low SES (socio-economic status) communities and have organized student support functions in the schools’ corridors, cafeterias, recreation areas and other common spaces. These functions include the school host, the student coach and the student welfare officer.

The ways in which the support staff claim the locales show that they transcend the initial design functionality by appropriating spaces for their everyday practices (Stables, 2015). Their task perception thus delineates a certain professional territory, a task perception that is taking place, so to speak. The results show that this professional territory can vary, even among those in the same profession. The support functions expand their professional territory by being mobile in the school building and thereby creating more and larger surfaces for social interactions with students and other support functions.

Keywords
Case study, Compensatory task, Educational environment, School design, School improvement, Spatial theory, Student support staff, Task perception
National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-23119 (URN)10.1177/1365480216688547 (DOI)000409359700004 ()2-s2.0-85021320872 (Scopus ID)
Projects
Hur byggs en hållbar utbildningsmiljö upp?
Available from: 2016-12-20 Created: 2016-12-20 Last updated: 2018-03-13Bibliographically approved
Grannäs, J. & Frelin, A. (2017). Task Perception Taking Place: Comparing Student Welfare Officers in Differing School Environments using Spatial Perspectives. In: : . Paper presented at 2017 AERA Annual Meeting, 27 April - 1 May 2017, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Task Perception Taking Place: Comparing Student Welfare Officers in Differing School Environments using Spatial Perspectives
2017 (English)Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This paper sets out to explore how and whether the physical conditions in schools facilitate or disrupt support work aimed at and preventing social exclusion in a designed school environment. This is accomplished by comparing student support practices conducted by student welfare officers in the common areas of two secondary schools built in two different time periods. Student welfare officers are included in the school's student health team and support students' social and psychosocial well-being. The results show that the design of the school buildings both enables and limits what, how, when and where the student welfare officers conduct their work, but that their actions are the outcome of the relation between the school environment and their task perceptions.

Keywords
Learning environments, Holistic education, School culture, School organization, Social context
National Category
Didactics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-22692 (URN)
Conference
2017 AERA Annual Meeting, 27 April - 1 May 2017, San Antonio, TX, USA
Note

Pilotprojekt finansierat med rektorsmedel.

Available from: 2016-11-03 Created: 2016-11-03 Last updated: 2018-03-13Bibliographically approved
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications