Sorry, this entry is only available in Svenska.
Paper presented at the TA Teachers Conference ‘Thinking as a Key Competence: Implications for Learning, Teaching and Management’ in Riga 23-24 September 2016.
Read paper here: keeping-order-pihlgren
See slideshow here: pihlgren-keeping-order
This paper is part of a larger study where more than two hundred teachers have been observed and interviewed. The questions guiding this part of the study focus on how the teacher’s way of keeping order is connected to the cognitive quality of what is taught.
A ‘thinking and learning environment’ presupposes that the teacher acts with strong focus on fostering students’ habits of mind, keeping order at the same time. However, there is no automatic relationship between orderliness and learning. Two factors are of importance: The teacher’s way of exercising control and if the system is perceptible for the students. Five types of learning environments were identified, three less successful in supporting cognitive development of students, and two more successful. The strongest learning outcomes are achieved when teachers use a clear and visible system during the lesson, so the students understand what is expected, a system that promotes their self-control.
Keywords: Cognition, order, praxis theory, teaching environments, thinking
Paper presented at ECER, the European Conference on Educational Research, 23-26 August 2016, Dublin, Ireland.
Research Director, dr. Ann S. Pihlgren, Ignite Research Institute
Box 116, SE-761 22 Norrtälje, SWEDEN
See slideshow: Slideshow Teaching environments
Read the paper: Teaching Environments in Preschool, Pihlgren
This paper analyzes how preschool teachers and caretakers meet the demands for cognitive and creative development of children. Observations of 40 sessions in preschools for 1-5-year-old children, and staff interviews were used. The questions guiding the analysis concern how preschool staff describe the considerations they make when planning, how this is represented in the observed activities, and how the results compare to the school and afterschool material analysis.
Teaching thinking and creativity presupposes that the teacher plans, assesses, chooses activities and tools, and arranges the setting carefully, with focus on fostering children’s habits of mind. The contextual and communicational interactions play a vital part of support. Evidence of the anticipated criteria was difficult to ascertain in the observed preschools as well as in the previously observed classrooms and afterschools. All previously found teaching environments were found in the preschool material, with a bulk of the child-investigative teaching environment. This environment is similar to Pramling’s description of ‘child centered pedagogy’. A few preschool teachers present successful planning models and interactional activities to improve children’s thinking and creativity, and was found similar to Pramling’s ‘development pedagogy’.
See and listen to researcher and board member of the National Paideia Center reflect on the effects of Socratic seminars on students’ Reading abilities and thinking:
Paper presented at ECER, the European Conference on Educational Research, 8-11 September 2015, Budapest, Hungary.
By: PhD Ann S. Pihlgren, Ignite Research Institute, Master of Theology Malin Pihlgren Nylander, Church of Sweden.
See slide show: Presentation Discussing religion ECER
This paper analyzes discourses in method materials for thoughtful dialogues in the classroom. It focuses on materials presenting religious and moral subjects. ‘Thoughtful dialogues’ refers to a family of interrelated methods for philosophizing with students, e.g. philosophy for/with children, and Socratic seminars, using open-ended questions, and an investigating and collaborative interlocution. The questions guiding the study were:
- What discourses can be found in methodological materials for thoughtful dialogue addressing the subject religion?
- Are questions in the materials used to address faith, morality, and teaching? If so, how?
- How are the discourses found in the methodological materials related to the discourses in religious education in a highly secularized country (Sweden)?
In this study a social constructionist/poststructuralist approach is taken, where knowledge is considered contextual and social, and where an action or stance therefore can be considered as impossible or natural depending on how the world is perceived within the dominating discourse. Our analysis was carried out by using a revised version of Fairclough’s (2013) three-dimensional conception of discourse, presenting an analytical frame for empirical discourse research: Analysis of texts, of discursive practice, and of discursive events as instances of social practice.
The results show three discourses in the material. The discourse of critical thinking in school is the most frequent, and aims at transforming teaching. Faith is normally not a part of the agenda. The teaching philosophy in school discourse does not address faith, and moral questions and the egalitarian dialogue are elements used to justify the teaching of philosophy in school. The third discourse addresses faith and suggests a critical thinking in religion discourse, challenging the present hegemonic discourse in western societies. Religious education in secular countries tends to focus on teaching about the world religions from an outsider’s perspective whereas the methodological materials for thoughtful dialogues tend to focus on moral questions when exploring religious texts.
Religious education in school could be considered from two factors: 1.) The attitude toward questions of faith and 2.) The approach to knowledge. Questions of religious faith might be addressed in education, or not. Knowledge might be seen from a fundamentalist point of view, where a set of true facts are presented to the students, or, as in the opposite position, attaining knowledge includes critically examination of facts and values. This will give four different approaches to religious education in school: Dogmatic religion, dogmatic atheism, examining theology, or examining philosophy excluding theology.
Questions of faith and religion need to be discussed with others: Thoughtful dialogues could be used in classrooms and other contexts for dialogues about faith, and religious and theological questions, and thus helping the individual to form a relationship or grounded base on which he or she can reflect on matters of faith and belief or disbelief, both on her or his own and with others. This approach is in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Paper presented t the ICOT, The International Conference o Thinking, 1st of July 22015, In Bilbao, Spain, by Assistant professor Ali Nouri, Malayer University, Iran, and Research Director Dr Ann S. Pihlgren, Ignite Research Institute, Sweden.
Read the paper: Dialogue and Autism Noori, Pihlgren
See slideshow: An overview Noori Pihlgren
This paper presents the theories and rationales guiding a forthcoming project of testing a dialogic program, using Socratic dialogue, to enhance social and emotional abilities of children diagnosed as autistic. The main study will be performed next year. The aim of this paper is to outline and examine the possibilities of Socratic dialogue as a basis for pedagogical thinking and practice when teaching students with autism, and to present a model for doing so in remedial classes. First, an introduction of the Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs), and the current educational interventions for children diagnosed with these disabilities is presented, using research from different sources. Research results from using Socratic dialogues as a pedagogical method with students in regular classes is presented, showing that systematic Socratic dialogue enhance the social and emotional skills of students, as well as their critical thinking. This is followed by a discussion where we show the potential advantages of dialogic learning as an effective strategy for intervention and remidiation of individuals diagnosed with autism. The hypothesis is that Socratic Dialouge can be used to enhance the social and emotional development also of children diagnosed as autistic. The argument is presented based on evidences on the impact of dialogue on typical and atypical students’ learning and thinking. It is generally considered that the social nature of dialogic learning may equip children with specific abilities to effectively interact with others and perceive their emotions. However, the method might have to be revised to function with children diagnosed as autistic. Accordingly, the paper ends by introducing a dialogue based teching design that is compatible for children diagnosed with ASD, using weekly seminars in class.