Transition Work Between School Years K-3 and 4-6 in Sweden : - The Importance of Teacher Collaboration in the Subject of English.

Master of Arts in Primary Education, 240 credits Examiner: Chrysogonus Siddha Malilang English Studies and Education Supervisor: Shaun Nolan

2021-03-28

Master’s Degree Project with Specialisation in English Studies and

Education

15 Credits, Second Cycle

Transition Work Between School Years

K-3 and 4-6 in Sweden

- The Importance of Teacher Collaboration in the Subject of English.

Övergångsarbetet mellan låg- och mellanstadiet i Sverige

- Vikten av lärarsamarbete gällande Engelskämnet.

Mikaela Linder

Lena Åkerman

1

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the respondents for taking the time to participate in this study with their perceptions, opinions, and engagement in suggestions for improvements. A special thanks to the two teachers and the one principal who participated in follow-up interviews. Lastly, we would like to thank our supervisor Shaun Nolan for his guidance, commitment, and comments.

2

Abstract

This study has a fourfold focus. Firstly, the study aims to fill a gap in research regarding teachers and principals’ perceptions on transition work and collaboration in school years K-3 and 4-6 in the subject of English. Secondly, the study explores how these views affect students' academic achievement in the subject. Thirdly, the gathered data is compared to previous research and Swedish national governing documents and guidelines on the matter. Lastly, the study collected suggestions for improvements with regards to transition work and collaboration based on previous research and our respondents’ views.

The basis for the study is data collected from 42 teacher and 10 school principal respondents who answered qualitative and quantitative questions regarding the issue. The findings indicate that teachers and principals' views do not always align regarding transition work. The study shows a great discrepancy in how Swedish schools collaborate around transition, where some Swedish teachers report well-functioning transition work and collaboration and some report the complete opposite. Furthermore, the findings indicate that students' academic performance is affected by the quality of teachers transition and collaboration work. Lastly, the study identifies some key factors that are necessary for well-functioning transition and collaboration work to transpire.

Key words: years K-3, years 4-6, teachers’ perceptions, principals’ perceptions, students’ academic performance, transition work, transition collaboration, collegial learning, national governing documents, collective efficacy.

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 5

2. Aim and Research Questions 7

2.1 Hypothesis 7

3. Background 8

3.1 Key Terminology 8

3.1.1 Transition Work and Collaboration 8

3.1.2 Collective Efficacy and Collegial Learning 9

3.2 Theory and Research Overview 9

3.2.1 Benefits of Effective Teacher Collaboration 9

3.2.2 Hindrances to Effective Teacher Collaboration 11

3.3 Governing Documents and Guidelines 11

4. Method 13

4.1 Choice of Method and Instrument for Data Collection 13

4.1.1 Procedure for Surveys 13

4.1.2 Quantitative Questions 14

4.1.3 Qualitative Questions 14

4.1.4 In-Depth Interviews 14

4.1.5 Grade Averages in English for Grade 6 15

4.2 Selection of Participants 15

4.2.1 Selection Process: Facebook 16

4.2.2 Selection Process: Email 16

4.2.3 Procedure for Interviews 17

4.4 Method for Analysis 17

4.5 Ethical Considerations 18

5. Results 19

5.1 Teacher Survey 19

5.1.1 Overview of Informants 19

5.1.2 Teachers on Transition Coordinators 21

5.1.3 Teachers’ Views on Transition Work and Collaboration 22 5.1.4 Perception of Collaboration vs. Grade Averages in English for Year 6 23 5.1.5 What Facilitates Well Functioning Transition Work and Collaboration 25 5.1.6 Hindrances to Well-Functioning Transition Work and Collaboration 26

4

5.1.7 Teacher’s Suggestions for Improving the Transition Work and Collaboration Across

Age-Groups 28

5.2 Principals’ Survey 29

5.2.1 Overview of Informants 29

5.2.2 Principals on Transition Coordinators 30

5.2.3 What Principals do to Ensure Students' Learning Development and to Help Facilitate

Teachers’ Transition Work and Collaboration 31

5.3 Email Interview with Teachers 33

5.3.1 Teacher for Years 4-6 Email Interview 33

5.3.2 Teacher for Years K-3 Email Interview 33

5.4 Telephone Interview with a School Principal 34

5.4.1 Set Routines and Time 34

5.4.2 Seamless Pedagogy and Teaching Across Age-Groups 35

5.4.3 Perceived Issues with Transition Work 36

6. Discussion 37

6.1 Overview of Informants 37

6.2 What Hinders and What Facilitates Transition Work 37

6.2.1 Time 37

6.2.2 Set routines 38

6.2.3 Collaboration between School Forms and Seamless Pedagogy 40

6.2.4 Raise the Status of the Subject of English 42

6.3 The Data in Relation to Students’ Academic Achievements 43 6.4 The Data in Relation to Governing Documents and Guidelines 44

6.4.1 Transition Coordinators 45

6.5 Suggestions for Improving Transition Work and Collaboration 46

7. Conclusion 48

References 50

5

1. Introduction

Most Swedish children complete 13 years of school (from age 6 to age 18), and during these years they will transition between school forms, and teachers, multiple times. School form will in this study be used as a term that signifies, for example, K-3 (ages 6-9) and 4-6 (ages 10-12) as different stages of school. To date, there is no national rule in Sweden as to how teachers should manage these transitions. Instead, it is up to the principal of each school to decide how the process should transpire, and whether they take the guidelines provided by The Department of Education (hereafter Skolverket) into consideration when doing so is up to them (Skolverket, 2014). According to Skolverket (2014) many teachers see the transition between years K-3 to years 4-6 as one of the more critical ones since it often means an increase in workload for the students as the lesson content becomes more advanced and text-intensive.

Furthermore, Skolverket (2021b) writes that structures present in the organisation for collegial learning are necessary for it ‘to occur and become more than mere collaboration’. They also highlight that by working alone, teachers risk missing important aspects of an issue that could have been identified in collaboration with their peers. Collegial processes like systematic planning, developing pedagogy and didactics, discussing key issues, questioning set ways, and observing others, create a common understanding among teachers about their students’ status quo and what they need to progress in their learning. According to Skolverket (2021b), ‘these collegial processes are a condition for turning experience into proven experience’, which is what Swedish teachers are required to base their teaching on.The benefits of collegial learning are shown in a study by Durksen, Klassen and Daniels (2017) who urge that teachers’ professional development and learning are benefitted by them collaborating and communicating with their colleagues, and that this in turn benefits students’ learning.

English is one of three core subjects, along with Swedish and Mathematics, in which Swedish students need a passing grade to be eligible for Upper Secondary School (Upper Secondary School Guide, 2021). Despite this, English has only 60 hours of lesson time during years K-3, in comparison with Mathematics and Swedish that get 420 and 680 hours respectively (Skolverket, 2021a). Furthermore, one of the aims in this paper is to explore how students’ grades in the subject of English could be affected by functioning or non-functioning collaboration and transition work. To investigate this, this study compares these two factors. Statistics from

6

Skolverket (n.d.) show that the grade average for the subject of English in Sweden from the school year 2018/2019 was 14.1. The highest possible value is 20 and the lowest is 0, setting this value slightly above the middle. Furthermore, the average grade for English lies above both Swedish (13.5) and Mathematics (12.5) for the same year. However, while English in Spring term 2020 was the core subject in which the most students scored the highest grade, it was also one in three of all subjects that had the highest number of students fail the subject (Skolverket, 2020). Showing that students’ abilities in English vary quite drastically in Sweden, for which students’ extracurricular interests may be a deciding factor. Meaning that those who score a high grade in English may do so due to an already existing knowledge base. Since students receive such limited lesson time in the subject in years K-3, any attempts to level this knowledge gap will mainly occur in years 4-6. Gibbons (2015, p. 92) describes students’ prior knowledge of a language as a ‘“cognitive hook” upon which to “hang” new language’, thereby making successful collaboration and transition work between teachers in K-3 and 4-6 an important tool for aiding teachers in bridging this gap and providing students with a seamless road to language development which may help improve their final grade in the subject.

The discrepancy in lesson time between English and the other two core subjects provides

students with less exposure to the subject, which may have a detrimental effect on their academic performance (Lundberg, 2007), thereby not giving students equal conditions to succeed in all core subjects. This low prioritisation of the subject of English can also be seen in education programmes for teachers for years K-3 in Sweden, who are only obliged to finish one course of English studies, compared to a minimum of two courses in Swedish and Mathematics. Lundberg (2007, p 40) writes that all teachers are expected to teach English after finishing their education and mentions a survey where ‘many of the interviewed years K-3 school principals [claim that] it is not a problem that teachers teach subjects they have not been educated in, at least not at earlier ages’. Part of teachers’ professional mission is to ensure equal learning opportunities for all students (Skolverket, 2021d). This study aims to bridge an existing gap in research regarding discrepancies within transition work for the subject of English between K-3 and 4-6 that may lead to unequal opportunities for students. The perceived low priority of the subject of English in years K-3 despite it being a core subject cements the importance of a successful transition between school forms. Therefore, teachers’ and principals' views on what does and does not constitute successful transition work and collaboration is investigated through surveys and interviews that target key issues presented in the research questions in Chapter 2 of this study.

7

2. Aim and Research Questions

This essay has a fourfold focus, where the purpose of our study will be to investigate how teachers’ transition work and collaboration between years 3 and 4 transpire in different schools throughout Sweden in the subject of English. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following questions:

● What efforts do the respondents identify that hinders versus facilitates transition work and collaboration?

- Based on this, to what extent does this affect their students’ academic performance? ● To what extent is this view consistent with current practices and governing documents

for the transition between school years K-3 and 4-6?

● In what way could the transition work and collaboration be improved?

2.1 Hypothesis

We hypothesise that school staff perceive transition work and collaboration across school forms as functioning well when there are specific routines in place for this that are adhered to by all school staff. Furthermore, we hypothesise that students' academic achievements in the subject of English are impacted by the quality of their teacher's transition work and collaboration. Lastly, we investigate whether nationally governed ordinances ought to be established by Skolverket to facilitate transition between school forms in the subject of English.

8

3. Background

This chapter is divided into three sections presenting key terms, an overview of theory and previous research, and governing documents relevant to this study.

3.1 Key Terminology

The following terminology is crucial to form an understanding of the issues presented in this study.

3.1.1 Transition Work and Collaboration

The term transition work, in this study, refers to any type of work that principals and teachers do to facilitate the transition when students move from years K-3 to years 4-6 in the subject of English. Transition work can take the form of single documents, student information collected over time in paper form or on digital platforms, meetings, and collaboration among school staff that aim to ease students’ transition between school forms.

In this study, collaboration refers to the transition collaboration that takes place between teachers across different school forms in the passage between years 3 and 4 in the subject of English. Whether it takes place over time as an integrated part of teaching or is a single handover meeting. The Curriculum for Compulsory School (2019) states that the individual teacher must ‘during transitions pay special attention to students who are in need of extra adaptations or special support’ (Skolverket, 2019, p. 17). Thus, the Curriculum for Compulsory School (2019) does not specifically mention teacher collaboration in transition work to benefit all students' learning. Worth noting is that the phrasing of ‘special attention’ can be interpreted to mean that a ‘normal level’ of attention still needs to be given to all students during transitions. Furthermore,

Skolverket (2021b, p. 14) urges ‘collaboration’ as essential, and that ‘in order to strengthen teachers' subject knowledge and didactic competencies, schools must create conditions for collegial, long-term and structured competence development’.

9

3.1.2 Collective Efficacy and Collegial Learning

Durksen, Klassen and Daniels (2017) determine well-functioning teacher collaboration as an important factor in creating collective efficacy at a school. Goddard, Skrla and Salloum (2017) explain the term collective efficacy as pertaining to the beliefs of group members (in this case teachers) concerning their social collective’s performance capability as a whole. In this study, collaboration amongst teachers is part of what facilitates collective efficacy at schools, and as such impacts the efficiency of transition work.

In this study, collegial learning refers to the transition collaboration in the subject of English that occurs between K-3 and 4-6 teachers when this collaboration takes advantage of all available competencies to benefit student learning and development in the subject. According to Skolverket (2021b) collegial learning is an umbrella term for different types of structured work where colleagues develop their knowledge together. The key is to harness already existing knowledge within the team to properly take advantage of all teachers’ competencies and experiences. Through collegial learning teachers expand their perspectives in a way that may contribute to their professional development. Central to the idea is that collegial learning is beneficial to student learning and development.

3.2 Theory and Research Overview

Primary sources that deal directly with the transition between years 3 and 4 in the subject of English do not appear to exist. Instead, some of the previous research included in this study covers the transition between Preschool (ages 1-5) and Preschool Class (age 6), but where parallels can be drawn to this area of research. Furthermore, research regarding the importance of teacher collaboration and the role the principal plays in facilitating such collaboration is lifted. This research overview aims to highlight an identified issue and find support in previous research from international, Scandinavian, and Swedish studies in connected areas. The section is divided into two subsections presenting benefits of and obstacles for effective teacher collaboration.

3.2.1 Benefits of Effective Teacher Collaboration

Goddard, Skrla and Salloum (2017) studied the effect of collective efficacy among teachers on student achievement and if this could possibly reduce achievement gaps. Furthermore, they looked at the role of the principal in facilitating collective efficacy through encouraging

10

collaboration among teachers. Pertaining to the effect on student achievement, the study shows a positive link between teachers reporting high collective efficacy and a reduction in achievement gaps among students. Pertaining to the role of leadership, their results showed that schools where the collective efficacy was seen as high, teachers reported that the principals’ leadership was closely linked to them feeling empowered to nourish teacher collaboration. Another study by Durksen, Klassen and Daniels (2017) examined how teachers' beliefs about self and collective efficacy and commitment affect their professional learning. The highlights of their results showed that setting aside time and space equally for all teachers facilitates professional learning, and heightens collective efficacy. This idea is relevant to the present study as it raises awareness that setting aside time is an important factor for successful collaboration regarding students’ transition to occur.

DeMeo and Levine Coley (2019) note in their study that there is a remarkable lack of empirical information regarding transitions and which methods are most effective for building continuity between school systems and promoting successful transitions for children. Their results showed that successful transitions have positive effects on students' future learning. This study indicates that successful transition work happens when the receiving school is informed of and utilises students’ prior schooling experiences and when school forms align their pedagogy, policy standpoints, curriculums, and coordinate their practices. Alatalo, Meier and Frank (2017) also stressed the importance of continuity between school forms to favour students’ long-term learning. In their study on the process of Swedish Preschool children transitioning to Preschool Class, they argued that a smooth transition is important for students’ sense of security since it could lessen the perceived gap between school forms. They suggested that this can be achieved through a seamless pedagogy. Their study showed that there is a disconnect in how Preschool and Preschool Class teachers reason about student language development, and thereby in their communication regarding it. Furthermore, the responses indicated a perceived distance between the two different institutions due to a mutual lack of knowledge about one another.

Moreover, Mora-Ruano, Heine and Gebhardt (2019) investigated the extent to which different forms of teacher collaboration may improve student achievement. Their conclusion was that students benefit academically from teacher collaboration when this collaboration specifically involves teachers talking and consulting with each other about students' school performance. Therefore, their study is relevant to this one since their results clearly showed that teacher collaboration benefits students when it results in discussions about students' performance. Currently, there are no national ordinances in Sweden detailing that such collaboration should

11

take place on a subject-to-subject basis, which connects to the point made by Skolverket (2021b) regarding the risk of teachers missing key aspects of issues related to students’ learning and development.

3.2.2 Hindrances to Effective Teacher Collaboration

According to a survey conducted by the Swedish Teachers’ Association (hereafter Lärarnas Riksförbund) (as cited by The School World, hereafter Skolvärlden, 2020a) Swedish teachers' ‘workload’ is constantly growing. They claim that teachers' job description is constantly receiving new additions, without increasing their resources. The survey also showed that the majority of teachers believe that they do not have enough time to prepare (61%) and process (75%) lessons and/or teacher collaboration. In the study, most teachers affirmed that they did not have any time specifically set aside for collaboration with colleagues regarding planning.

Rautavuori, Karila and Kupila (2019) executed a study investigating possible obstacles to teacher collaboration around students’ transition from Preschool to Preschool Class. The context for their study aimed at creating a seamless transition for students via inter-professionally planned joint learning activities. The study found that the Preschool staff’s contributions to the

discussions were valued less than, and overwritten by, those of the Compulsory school. This undervaluing of all participants' contributions, due to built-in hierarchies between professionals from different school forms, hindered the group from taking full advantage of this type of interprofessional collaboration. Which pertains to the present study as such hierarchies may impede to what extent English teachers from K-3 and 4-6 collaborate to bridge students transitioning between school forms.

3.3 Governing Documents and Guidelines

The Swedish school system is governed by various governing documents; laws and ordinances, such as The Education Act and the Swedish national Curriculum for the Compulsory School. The Curriculum for the Compulsory School (2019, p. 14) states that ‘there should be forms of cooperation aimed at preparing students and their guardians for transitions’. Furthermore, the curriculum emphasises the importance of teachers exchanging knowledge regarding the content of education in order to create context, continuity and development in students' learning (Skolverket, 2019). The task of exchanging knowledge and experiences between transitions to promote children's development and learning is thus clearly formulated in the school curriculum.

12

Skolverket (2014) states that the principal should work preemptively to remove obstacles that may occur in students’ transitions from one school form to another. Furthermore, they highlight the importance that ‘principals lead their staff in showing the benefits of well-functioning transitions, give mandates and create good conditions so that their staff can implement the transition work, both logistically and time-wise’ (Skolverket, 2014, p. 18). Thus, the ultimate responsibility to ensure that this transpires lies with the principal. To facilitate the process, Skolverket (2014, p. 37) claims that a transition coordinator can be appointed by the principal to be able to be act as an ‘guarantor’ on a central level of issues such as ‘how information transfer can be ensured’ and to ‘raise awareness of children and students who may need more extensive adaptations and support in the future’.

Skolverket (2021b) provides an inclusive picture of transition work on their website by writing that different school forms should ‘collaborate with each other [...] to support students’ development and learning. This [collaboration] is, among other things, about exchanging experiences and information leading up to transitions. However, the template for transition documents provided by Skolverket only focuses on the subjects in which individual students have received extra adjustments or special support (2015, see appendix 1). Meaning that, if schools only use this template, valuable information that could help facilitate students’ learning is at risk of being lost in the transition work.

The lack of previous research regarding the transition between K-3 and 4-6 stands in stark contrast to it being mentioned by Skolverket (2014) as one of the more critical transitions during students’ schooling. What remains to be investigated in this field is vast, but this study represents a first exploratory step.

13

4. Method

This study aims to investigate teachers’ and principals’ perceptions on transition work and collaboration in the transition between K-3 and 4-6 in the subject of English. These perceptions will be analysed and contrasted with what the governing documents detail. Furthermore, the study aims to explore whether there is a relationship between how the respondents perceive the transition work to function and their students’ academic achievements in the subject. Lastly, from the collected data and previous research, this study compiles suggestions for how the transition process between years K-3 and 4-6 in English can be improved.

Two surveys form the basis for the data collection in this study, and they use a combination of both quantitative and qualitative questions. Further qualitative approaches used in this study are email and telephone interviews. Alvehus (2013) postulates that adding a qualitative element to the study produces a broader and deeper understanding of the quantitative data. By using different methods for data collection, also called triangulation, we aim to create a more complex picture of the object for our study (Alvehus, 2013). The following sections will discuss the choice and utilisation of each of our chosen methods for data collection, the selection processes used to find our participants, the methods we have elected to use when analysing the collected data, and any ethical considerations relevant for this study.

4.1 Choice of Method and Instrument for Data Collection

4.1.1 Procedure for Surveys

To answer our research questions, we chose to collect our data using a survey aimed at teachers. Due to time constraints, a pilot study was sent out to only two teachers making the reach and scope of this pilot study quite limited. Even so, the responses and critiques they provided resulted in small but significant adaptation to the questions in the survey. Apart from a few rephrasing suggestions, the main change from the pilot study was the addition of the questions regarding whether the teachers work at a school that does not house both years K-3 and 4-6. This question was deemed significant as collaboration practices may be hindered by teachers not operating under the same principal or in the same school. Furthermore, a cursory analysis of the responses to the teacher survey revealed a need to send out a similar survey to principals with

14

specific questions relating to their view of the matter. Both surveys were conducted in Google Forms as we already used Google Drive to collaborate, and Google Forms provides the functions to convert the collected data into charts as well as transferring the data to Google Sheets.

4.1.2 Quantitative Questions

Christoffersen and Johannessen (2015) claim quantitative surveys to be advantageous as a method when you want to compare answers without considering individual participants or contexts. This method was used to measure as broadly as possible and estimate how predominant different views, relationships, and perceptions were within the target group. Moreover, they write that in a quantitative survey identical questions are asked in the same order to all participants and the answer alternatives are given in advance, which limits the flexibility of the respondents and allows for a more direct comparison of answers independent of individual contexts. To create a reliable survey, a systematic and clear structure is required, and the

preparation phase is important when it comes to obtaining as credible data as possible (Eliasson, 2018).

4.1.3 Qualitative Questions

Alvehus (2013) writes that qualitative methods are favourable when wanting to investigate the complexity and nuance of an issue. Since this study aims to examine teachers' perceptions of transition work and collaboration in their own words, qualitative questions were also added to the survey. This provided the respondents with the possibility of providing a more complex picture of how this work takes place in their individual contexts.

According to Alvehus (2013) qualitative research methods are a good success factor when it comes to getting answers to questions that are relevant to ask to see connections and meanings, but also to questions such as how and why. Hence, the qualitative questions provided this study with teachers’ personal views on the issue and how to improve it.

4.1.4 In-Depth Interviews

To gain a deeper understanding of the respondents’ survey answers, qualitative interviews took place with selected participants from the survey. Due to the ongoing pandemic, none of the interviews took place face-to-face. Instead, the two teacher interviews were conducted via email,

15

and the interview of a principal was conducted over telephone. The use of email as an interview method affects the flexibility of the answers, as it removes the possibility of asking the

interviewee to explain or develop their answers (Fritz & Vandermause, 2018). Additionally, the participation in the qualitative interview was selected based on who provided us with their email in the teacher survey in order to be contacted with further questions.

Noteworthy is that the principal that participated in an in-depth interview responded to the teacher survey, not the one for school principals. Furthermore, this interview was originally also intended to be in a structured interview format via email. However, the principal requested that the interview be performed via telephone instead, due to time constraints. The principal

preferred to speak freely instead of following the intended format, making the interview format

semi-structured. A semi-structured interview is a type of interview where the questions are few and

open, and where the respondent has quite a lot of leeway in setting the course for the interview based on the themes set by the interviewer (Alvehus, 2013).

4.1.5 Grade Averages in English for Grade 6

In the interest of finding patterns concerning how teacher collaboration could possibly affect students’ academic achievements in the subject of English, teachers’ views on how transition work functions in their schools needed to be compared with their students’ final English grades in year 6. To facilitate this, the survey asked the teachers to volunteer in which municipality they worked along with the name of their school. Knowing both factors enabled the use of

Skolverket’s website to find final grade 6 averages for English for their respective schools. These grades were found in a document called ‘Compulsory School - Grades per subject in year 6’ (authors’ translation, ‘Grundskolan - Betyg per ämne i årskurs 6’), where we elected to use the most recent grade average listed for English for each school. These grade averages were entered into the same Google Sheets document as the responses to the Teacher Survey to be analysed against already existing variables.

4.2 Selection of Participants

For the purpose of this study, teachers from both K-3 and 4-6 were targeted in a survey that was both sent out via emails and posted in relevant Facebook groups. Furthermore, a survey for principals was only sent out via email, as no relevant Facebook groups were found. Noteworthy

16

is that there is no way of knowing what method of selection garnered most respondents, as the question of where they found the survey was not included.

4.2.1 Selection Process: Facebook

We chose to use Facebook as a tool for data collection since this social phenomenon has become a significant part of how people today choose to interact and communicate with each other (Junco, Heiberger & Loken, 2011). Furthermore, Mariappan, Abu and Omar (2017, p. 749) write that ‘Facebook as one of the social networking sites has captured the attention of educators and policy-makers as an alternative tool for language teaching and learning’. Consequently, there are many Facebook groups dedicated to teachers sharing their knowledge and expertise with one another, both in a more general scenery where teachers can brainstorm over ideas and issues and more concrete subject specific groups. The fact that many members of these groups are very active, indicated that the present survey might gather responses despite it not being the true objective of the groups. A study by Rife et al. (2016) showed Facebook to be a viable tool for data collection, and that the demographic composition of the platform makes the sample groups fairly equal to groups targeted by other methods for data collection. The survey was published, and then reposted twice, in 7 different Facebook groups with a combined total of 163 700 members - all aimed at teachers that fit our target group (See Appendix 8 for detailed information).

4.2.2 Selection Process: Email

An email was sent out to a total of 365 principals (or school administrators) around Sweden detailing the aim of our study along with a link to the survey. They were asked to forward the link to any teacher at their school that would fit the scope of the study. The selection of

participants was randomised by the way in which their emails were found. A random selection of municipalities from each of Sweden's 21 counties were selected. Within those, a random

selection of principals or school administrators from school years K-3 and 4-6 were contacted based on the digital availability of their email address. The purpose of the randomisation was to select participants that were as representative as possible of Swedish K-3 and 4-6 teachers, which would provide a more stable basis for drawing general conclusions.

17

4.2.3 Procedure for Interviews

Once the given window for responses on the survey closed on the 10th of February 2021, four teachers and one principal had provided their email addresses for the purpose of a follow-up interview. They were all contacted with follow-up questions based on their responses in the survey. However, only the principal and two teachers responded.

Due to the current pandemic situation (covid-19) putting an unprecedented strain on teachers’ time, the interviews were conducted via email or telephone. Both types of interviews were conducted in Swedish since the respondents are active in Sweden and might therefore be more comfortable with writing in Swedish, thus providing us with more detailed responses. In addition, notes were taken during the telephone call, as it was not recorded. Therefore, it was important to keep notes of what was said, to highlight certain phrases and expressions that we considered to be particularly valuable for our work.

4.4 Method for Analysis

Firstly, the data was read through several times without any attempts of structuring or analysing it at a deeper level. This method is supported by Alvehus (2013) who describes that the first thing to start with when analysing surveys is to go through the material and then sort it. After several read-throughs, the data was sorted into main themes, and these themes became the structure for how the data was subsequently analysed, presented, and discussed. The themes were chosen based on frequently recurring key phrases among the responses in the surveys and interviews.

In order to get a comprehensive picture of the data it was transferred to Google Sheets to provide a better overview and enable a detailed analysis. The initial inclusion of everything allowed a comparison of different variables and ensured that only data that had no bearing on the study was excluded. Analyses that benefited by being shown visually were transformed into appropriate charts and tables.

Furthermore, as previously mentioned, the corresponding grade averages for the teachers who supplied their municipality and school name were also entered into the Google Sheets document. These averages were analysed by sorting them by the categories from ‘no collaboration’ to ‘very well’-functioning collaboration. Thereafter, the lowest and highest values for each category were

18

identified, along with the mean and median values. The mean value was included to show possible progression within the data. Whereas the median value was included to strengthen the findings of the mean value due to the fact that the data contained extreme values at both ends of the spectrum, something which the mean value is not affected by (Statistiska Centralbyrån, n.d.).

4.5 Ethical Considerations

This study adheres to the following guidelines for conducting research: 1) the information requirement, 2) the consent requirement, 3) the confidentiality requirement, and 4) the requirement of usage (Vetenskapsrådet, 2002, p. 7-13). Firstly, the respondents in the survey were informed that it was anonymous and completely voluntary to participate. Secondly, the informants were given the information of what the data would be used for and how it would be presented. It was pointed out that the answers from the survey would only be used to analyse differences regarding the respondent’s experiences, perceptions, and opinions regarding our area of research. Lastly, the respondents were informed that the collected data would be destroyed once it had served its purpose.

19

5. Results

This chapter is divided into four main sections: 5.1. The collected data in the teacher survey, 5.2 The collected data in the principals’ survey, 5.3 The data collected in the email interviews, and 5.4 The data collected in the interview of a school principal. For clarity, each section is divided into subsections that bring up themes identified as relevant to highlight different aspects of our research questions within the respective data sets.

5.1 Teacher Survey

This chapter presents the analysed data and how the informants responded to the questions asked in the teacher survey. Responses that were not deemed relevant to the research questions are excluded. The teacher survey is included as an appendix (Number 2). Within the data, themes were identified which are presented in subheadings below.

5.1.1 Overview of Informants

In total, 43 informants responded to the survey aimed at teachers, one of which was a principal. These participants range in age from 24 to ‘60 plus’, meaning that almost the entire working-life span of a teacher is represented in the data. Of the total informants, 42 respondents supplied their municipality, whereas one supplied their county and is therefore not included in the chart detailing locations below. Additionally, the location spread, as visually presented in Charts 1 and 2 below, show that most respondents come from the southernmost third of Sweden - with a few respondents from the northernmost part. This spread is in line with the population density of Sweden as presented in Chart 3.

20

Chart 1: Location Spread by Municipality.

Chart 2: Location Spread in Teacher Survey Chart 3: Population Density of Sweden

(Statistiska Centralbyrån, 2021)

The teachers were asked when students begin with English lessons at their respective schools. As shown below, this differs between schools, but the majority responded that the students start with English in year 1. The number of respondents for each option are written in their respective pie slice. Four respondents answered that when English lessons start is highly dependent on the teacher in charge of that class.

21

Chart 4

5.1.2 Teachers on Transition Coordinators

Since Skolverket (2014) recommends schools to appoint a transition coordinator where applicable, teachers were asked if they had ever heard about one before. As seen in chart 5 below, 40 teachers answered ‘no’ which represents 93%. Only 2 teachers (4,7%) claimed ‘yes’ and 1 (2,3%) answered ‘not relevant’. The last answer mentioned was a response from a principal. This answer will be explained in the chapter ‘5.4 Telephone Interview of a School Principal’. In chart 6, teachers responded to the question ‘Have you ever had a transition coordinator at your school?’, where 97,7% answered no and 2,3% responded that they did not know.

Chart 5 Chart 6

Moreover, teachers were asked if they believed their transition work would benefit from having a transition coordinator, who would help to organise the transition for years K-3 and 4-6 teachers in the subject of English. As shown in the chart below, most of the informants (67.4%)

22

answered ‘Maybe’ to whether a transition coordinator may be a useful tool in transition work, which might be due to the fact that 40 out of 43 respondents had never heard about a transition coordinator before. The two teachers who responded ‘Yes’ to the question if they had ever heard about a transition coordinator before, both also answered ‘Yes’ to the question if they believed that the transition work would be benefited by this, and ‘No’ to whether they had ever had a transition coordinator at their school before.

Chart 7

5.1.3 Teachers’ Views on Transition Work and Collaboration

The data shows a wide span in teachers' perceptions with regards to how they view the transition work at their individual schools, as seen in chart 8 below. This chapter presents the informants responses regarding questions asked in the survey concerning their view on collaboration and transition work in the subject of English.

23

A comparison was made between how teachers perceived the transition collaboration to function regarding the English subject in comparison with who decided the routines for the transition collaboration, in the interest of searching for patterns that could show a possible correlation between these two variables. The results are presented in table 1 below.

Table 1

Perception of Collaboration vs. Who Set Transition Routines

Perception Who Set Routines

No

Collaboration Not at all well OK Well Very well

The Principal 7* 2 3 4 2 Everyone Together 2 1 0 3 2 The Teachers 0 3 1 3 2 I Do Not Know 3 3 1 1 0

*The values in the above table represent the total amount of responses per option.

As presented in the table above, the column for ‘No collaboration’ has the highest value of principals setting transition routines. Furthermore, ‘No collaboration’ together with ‘Not at all well’ also has the highest value for ‘I do not know’. Additionally, for this column, it has the only non-value for teachers setting the routines. Furthermore, the column for teachers who perceived the collaboration to function ‘Well’ has the second highest values for principals deciding the transition routines, but also the highest values on everyone together as well as the teachers. The ‘Very well’ column has the only non-value for ‘I do not know’, and an equal spread of two respondents per value for the other options.

5.1.4 Perception of Collaboration vs. Grade Averages in English for Year 6

The respondents' perception of how well the transition collaboration functions at their school for the subject of English was compared to their students' final year 6 grade averages in the subject from 2018/2019, provided by Skolverket (2021c).

24

As a point of reference, in Sweden the highest possible grade score is 20 points for the grade A, and the lowest possible passing grade gives 10 points for an E. The average grade in year 6 English for all students in Sweden was 14.1 in 2018/2019.

Note, one school had no value from 2018/2019, and instead the value from 2016/2017 is presented. Additionally, out of 43 respondents, 12 have no grade average values. This occurred when either the value could not be found since the respondent did not provide the name of their school, or Skolverket had not been updated with their school’s grade averages. The comparison is presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Perception of Collaboration vs. Grade Averages is English Year 6

Perception Value

No

Collaboration Not at all well Ok Well Very well Respondents w/o Value 6* 5 0 1 0 Lowest 10.7 11 9.8 10 (y.16/17) 11.5 Mean 10.78 13.65 13.12 14.39 14.01 Median 13.65 13.8 14 14.1 14.15 Highest 14.6 16 17 16 15.8 Total No. Respondents 12 9 5 11 6

*All the presented values represent a year 6 final grade average. Progression Shown in Mean and Median Values

From the grade averages pertaining to this study, only the mean and median value sets from the columns for ‘well’ (14.39 and 14.01) and ‘very well’ (14.1 and 14.15) compares to or exceed the average value for all of Sweden at (14.1). The ‘no collaboration’ column represents the lowest mean value (10.78), whilst ‘well’ and ‘very well’ represent the two highest mean values (14.39) and (14.01). The gap between the highest and lowest mean values is 3.61 points. The column

25

‘Ok’ has a lower mean value (13.12) than the column for ‘Not at all well’ which has (13.65) as mean value. Furthermore, the median values row shows a clear progression from the lowest value (13.65) for ‘no collaboration’ to highest value (14.15) for ‘very well’.

Highest and lowest values

Neither the highest nor the lowest values from this data collection show a clear progression from “no collaboration” to “very well”, compared to what can be seen in the mean and median values. However, a comparison that can be made is that the ‘Very Well’ column has the highest value among the low values (11.5), and that the ‘No collaboration’ column’s highest value (14.6) is a full 1.2 points behind the other columns’ highest values. Additionally, the ‘Ok’ column has both the lowest (9.8) and the highest (17) values out of the entire data set.

5.1.5 What Facilitates Well Functioning Transition Work and Collaboration

Once the results were analysed certain patterns appear in what the teachers describe when they perceive the collaboration and transition work as functioning ‘well’ or ‘very well’. These patterns are divided into sections below.

Set Routines

The collected data showed that the 6 teachers that defined the collaboration as functioning ‘very well’ and the 11 teachers that defined the collaboration as functioning ‘well’ all described their schools as having set routines for transition collaboration and documenting. These teachers stated that these routines are followed by their colleagues, and that the school leadership set aside time for discussions and collaboration regarding transitions. This created, in their view, a more seamless transition for the students.

Seamless Pedagogy and Teaching Across Age-Groups

7 teachers that participated in the teacher survey claimed they either transfer with the students from year 3 to 4 or that they, as teachers for school years 4-6, teach a few lessons in their prospective class as early as in year 3. By following the students from year 3 to 4, 3 teachers claimed that this makes it easier for both parties, as the teacher gets to know the students and what they can do; what teaching aids and methods they are used to; and how the students have progressed. One teacher answered, ‘We are a team called ‘3-4’ and all educators in the team teach only in years 3 and 4, no other year groups’. Another teacher says that ‘sometimes teachers who

26

have had the year 3 class, continue to teach the same students in grade 4, as it is a ‘tough’

transition. We have seen great advantages with the ‘old’ teacher following the students from year 3-4’. Another teacher perceived the collaboration to work ‘very well’ as ‘I, as a teacher in years 4-6, am continuously consulted on what the students need to know. Last school year, I taught all years in English’. To continue, there were two teachers who also answered that their respective K-3 and 4-6 teachers go in and teach a few lessons of English in school years K-3. One teacher answered that they have a subject network with active English teachers where they ‘discuss working methods [...]. This means that we have a fairly good view of how the students have worked before’. Something that could also be discerned from the teachers' answers was that digital platforms are used by these teachers where they all have easy access to each other's student documentation, students' results on knowledge tests, individual adaptations, and are able to take part in the learning material used. Two teachers pointed out in their answers that their schools use the same teaching materials for English in both school years K-3 and 4-6.

5.1.6 Hindrances to Well-Functioning Transition Work and Collaboration

Regarding how teachers perceive collaboration to function regarding the transition between K-3 and 4-6 in the subject of English, a total of 26 teachers perceived the collaboration to function as either ‘no collaboration at all’ (12 respondents), ‘not at all well’ (nine respondents) or ‘ok’ (five respondents). The option of ‘Ok’ garnered answers that indicated that the collaboration

functioned both well and not well. Therefore, some examples of the latter are included from the ‘Ok’ respondents as well. Through analysis, certain patterns appeared in what the teachers described when they perceived collaboration as either not existing or not functioning poorly. These patterns are divided into themes below.

Time

Five teachers from the data set clearly stated that lack of time is usually a main contributor to poor or non-existing collaboration. The lack of time presented a further issue when it came to transition work, as the perceived low status of the subject means that the more high-status subjects of Swedish and Mathematics were often prioritised in discussions. The following

citation from one respondent is an example of this: ‘There is basically no transition done [for the subject of English]. I do not perceive that English is a prioritised subject in school years K-3, since a large focus lies with developing the Swedish language in the students’. They add: ‘We have a large proportion of students that do not have Swedish as their first language and / or has a limited vocabulary in Swedish and therefore that subject is prioritised’. The majority of the

27

teachers who felt that the collaboration did not work or did not exist also referred to the English subject being ‘not prioritised’ due to the fact that Mathematics and Swedish have comparatively more lesson hours in years K-3. Moreover, many teachers also list the focus on students that either need extra support or challenge as what takes up most of the discussion time set aside for transition work. Furthermore, two informants responded that they had no set of guidelines for the transition work or the documents are very brief in their instruction.

The Low Priority of the Subjects of English

Six teachers’ responses highlight the perceived low status and thereby low priority of the subject of English in the transition between school years K-3 and 4-6. For example, one teacher wrote about only having specific handovers in the subject of Swedish and Mathematics. Another teacher lists their experience of English often being taught by unqualified instructors up until year 6, when grading by law requires qualified teachers, as to why they perceive the subject as having low priority and status. Additionally, one teacher wrote that there is a need for more nationally directed lesson time for English in years K-3 as ‘More time provides the students with more possibilities to learn which can result in a smaller gap in knowledge between school years K-3 and 4-6’.

Lack of Trust and Collaboration between school forms and Lack of Seamless Pedagogy

Six teachers in total gave different perspectives on how they viewed the collaboration around transition as flawed regarding 4-6 teachers properly applying the information they received during transitions. For example, two K-3 teachers voiced they experienced that the receiving teacher in years 4-6 did not value the transition information that they provided. One of them continued: ‘[...] had a very detailed handover for my latest students in year 3. The document was accepted, but no questions were asked about it neither then nor later. However, we often hear about how little the students know when they start year 4, while we wonder what [transition information] they really are after and in what way but get no response’.

Regarding the lack of seamless pedagogy, one teacher who responded that the transition work functions ‘Ok’ also responded that the main problem was constituted by the discrepancy in the curriculum goals and the teaching aids between year 3 and 4 in English, and that they had to solve this by forgoing the teaching aids for most of the first term of year 4, to level the discrepancy.

28

5.1.7 Teacher’s Suggestions for Improving the Transition Work and Collaboration

Across Age-Groups

Time

Time was the most frequently mentioned key phrase in the data pertaining to how transition work and collaboration could be improved. This includes the setting aside of specific time/ days for English teachers in K-3 and 4-6 to confer about the planning, documentation, and transition processes. For example, one teacher suggests that more time should be allocated to transition work due to there being many subjects to be discussed and handed over.

Trust and Collaboration between school forms and Seamless Pedagogy

In the study, two questions were about what either the teacher themselves or their colleagues could do to improve collaboration dealing with the transition between years 3 and 4 in the English subject. Out of the total of 43 respondents, 22 answered at least one of these two voluntary questions with a suggestion for improvements.

The majority of the answers regarded efforts to either communicate their own and/ or harness their colleagues’ knowledge and experience or create a seamless pedagogy throughout years K-6. The first type of answer was characterised by either a suggestion to initiate this exchange of knowledge between colleagues or a critique that when such knowledge is exchanged it should be harnessed and valued. For example, one teacher writes that they could: ‘Take it upon myself to get in touch with the mentors that are handing over [the class to me] to get more information’. Another one writes that the receiving teacher could: ‘Ask us who have had [the students] for at least three years how we have worked groupwise but also at an individual level. [...]’. The second type of answer had a more varied focus but can be summarised by the need to bridge the discrepancy in teachers’ methods, materials, task level, and expectations on students’ knowledge levels between K-3 and 4-6 teachers. Another teacher wrote that K-3 and 4-6 teachers could: ‘Make a joint subject outline [for years] 1-6’. Yet another wrote: ‘One thing we notice is that very few students in year 3 are marked as risking not to reach the goals for English in year 6. Then, when they reach year 4 these numbers increase significantly. This is not at all as clear in Swedish and Math. Students with difficulties in English need to be detected earlier than in year 4’. Which bridges over to the next theme for suggestions.

29

Set routines

Another pattern that emerged from the data was that many of the respondents considered set routines and structures to be a critical part of successful transition work. One teacher wrote that a suggestion for improvement would be to: ‘Have a dialogue with the teachers from years K-3 and 4-6. A dialogue initiated by the school management, so that it is clear that this is something that is expected from us pedagogues. [...]’. In summary, the respondents list the need for set routines and structure when it comes to:

● meetings regarding transition work,

● cohesive planning based on the national curriculum,

● having seamless pedagogy in students’ English education from years K to 6,

● clearer documentations of lesson planning and outcomes on online school-platforms, ● subject-group meetings about pedagogy and didactics,

● documentation regarding students’ abilities in English.

5.2 Principals’ Survey

Through the analysis of the data from the Principals’ Survey, recurring themes to their responses were identified and are presented below. Responses that were not deemed relevant to the

research questions are excluded and are instead included as an appendix (Number 3).

5.2.1 Overview of Informants

9 respondents in total participated in the survey addressed to principals, for which this section presents an overview. Their age span ranges from 39 to 60 years, and the location spread is presented in chart 9 below.

30

The second variable that is highlighted and presented in chart 10 below, is ‘for what kind of school form are you principal for’, which demonstrates that the majority of the informants work at K-6 schools. Therefore, the majority were also able to answer our questions that concerned both K-3 and 4-6 schooling.

Chart 10

5.2.2 Principals on Transition Coordinators

Since almost no respondents from the Teacher Survey knew what a transition coordinator was, despite their prominent role in the material from Skolverket (2014), the Principal Survey aimed to gain principals' views on the matter.

Chart 11

31

As shown in chart 11, the majority of the respondents claim that they have never heard about a transition coordinator. Even so, as shown in chart 12 below, five out of nine principals believe that the transition work would benefit from having a transition coordinator. Noteworthy is that the two respondents who had heard about a transition coordinator before answered that they did not think transition work would benefit from the role.

Chart 12

5.2.3 What Principals do to Ensure Students' Learning Development and to Help

Facilitate Teachers’ Transition Work and Collaboration

Time

All informants were asked to respond to the question about how much time they, as principals, set aside for their K-3 and 4-6 teachers in order to collaborate about planning.

The informant that states the most amount of time spent at collaboration around planning for all subjects at their school claims that teachers use around 6 hours per week of the communal planning time, and all of their individual planning time (10 hours) for this purpose. One informant answered that the question was not applicable to their school, since the teachers function as Subject Teachers and, thus, teach all years of English - making transition work a moot point.

The majority of principals claim that time is in fact set aside for planning. However, they were not able to specify how much time since they transfer the responsibility for planning and collaboration to their individual teachers. One principal stated that there is no collegial planning

32

currently taking place at their school and does not give a reason as to why. However, from their answers in previous questions it can be deduced that this might be due to them being the principal at a school where there is only years K-3.

Set Routines

A similar pattern to that in the teachers’ responses was also identified in the principals’ contributions. Which was that set routines is a recurring phenomenon in what is perceived as well functioning transition collaboration and work. Four principals specified that they have set routines that they expect their teachers to adhere to. One principal responded that they have set routines where time is set aside for information relevant for the transition to be communicated between the teachers from both school forms. Another principal writes that their routines are structured so that: ‘teachers in year 4 meet with teachers in year 3, and [also] visit their students during their last term in year 3’. One principal, who is the head for a K-3 school, writes that they have ‘established transition routines in consultation with the principal at the receiving school’, however they do not specify what these routines entail.

Leadership

Leadership presents as a main concept in the collected data, where 6 out of 9 principals note their role in regards to creating and ensuring adherence to transition work routines. These routines are created to ease their teachers’ workload when it comes to transitions. One principal details what these routines entail by giving the examples of ‘meetings and documentation’, another goes into more detail by saying ‘I organise, structure and lead the work. This means, for example, that time is set aside for meetings before the term starts, that the participating teachers know what is expected of them leading up to the meeting and in the transition work’.

Additionally, one principal showed a student perspective by stating that they ‘track their students' learning development in the subject English, lead pedagogical discussions about education and its forms, and acknowledge the available learning environment [...]’.

33

5.3 Email Interview with Teachers

Note that only relevant answers from each interview is presented in this section, see appendices 5 and 6 for the complete interviews.

5.3.1 Teacher for Years 4-6 Email Interview

The first teacher that responded to the email interview was a year’s 4-6 teacher. The answers were received on the 11th of February 2021. In the survey, this teacher responded, ‘Not at all well’ to question number five ‘How do you perceive the collaboration between K-3 and 4-6 to function in the subject of English?’. In contrast, their schools’ grade average for English in year 6 from 2018/2019 was 16.0, whereas the average of the grade averages for schools where the respondents answered ‘no collaboration’ or ‘not well at all’ is 13.33.

One of the follow-up questions asked, ‘What could your principal do to facilitate collaboration?’ to which the teacher responded: ‘Set aside time for this. Since we are currently focusing on [the social and natural science subjects] I think that English may come [into focus] soon’.

To the question about whether they thought: ‘repetition [of lesson content from school years K-3] would be more qualitative if the years 4-6 teacher had been informed about what the students have done previously prior to taking over [the class] and planned thereafter?’. To which the teacher responded: ‘Of course that could have been good [...] as you can get to the students that haven’t understood [the] content from before, and then you also develop the students'

knowledge within the same areas that they have worked on in previous years’. However, in the remainder of the response, this teacher maintained what they wrote as a response in the survey: that all repetition is beneficial for students, even that which the teacher for years 4-6 is unaware is just that.

5.3.2 Teacher for Years K-3 Email Interview

The second respondent is a K-3 teacher. The answer was received on 16th of February 2021. This teacher responded with ‘Ok’ to the question on ‘How do you perceive the collaboration between K-3 and 4-6 to function in the subject of English?’ asked in the survey. At this teacher's school, the average for final grades in year 6 in English is 14.0 (2021c). The teacher was asked three questions, but the teacher chose to write their answers in a coherent text, which does not make it completely clear which answer is associated with each question.

34

Firstly, this teacher wishes that there had been a better collaboration regarding the transition work, since they perceive it merely to be a general handover, not specific to each subject, due to time constraints. Furthermore, as a response to a question in the interview regarding using digital platforms for transition work, the teacher raises concerns that the submitting teacher, in their view, often wants to include everything. This becomes a perceived problem since the receiving teacher then ‘may have difficulty forming their own image’.

In the interview, the teacher writes that ‘our school works hard to make sure that the transitions between school forms are as qualitative as possible’, by handing in ‘transition work in a

document at group level, where we describe the group's strengths, weaknesses, routines, etc. We gather and go through new classes where the principal, special educator, new and old teachers are involved’ and that they ‘have follow-up meetings’.

The teacher continues: ‘At our school, you go from about thirty minutes a week [of English] in school years K-3, to almost two hours in year 4. A pretty big difference! [...]. No less important is that the teachers have a collaboration around teaching and strategies. As said; these are great thoughts but unfortunately it is not prioritised’.

5.4 Telephone Interview with a School Principal

The principal that answered the teacher survey was, as previously stated, interviewed by phone. They spoke quite freely and with conviction about their views on transition work. The interview has been sorted into sections below reminiscent of themes present in the survey data.

5.4.1 Set Routines and Time

The principal sees their mission as making sure to structure their operation to both make use of their staff’s pre-existing skills, and to develop these skills to mesh with the principal's vision for the school. The leadership the principal depicts in the interview is empathetic to both teachers and students. The principal listens to how the teachers themselves want to work and try to ‘puzzle it all together as much as possible’, an example is a year’s 4-6 teacher of theirs that expressed a desire to try out a Preschool class.

35

As referred to in section 5.4.2, the principal said the way they have organised their operation makes most set routines for transition work redundant, such as having a transition coordinator. In the survey, the principal thus answered that a transition coordinator is not relevant to their context and added that they hope it is not something other schools should ‘invest in’. Even so, the principal has set aside two hours per week for what they call ‘category meetings’, which are separated into the professions of Recreation Pedagogues and Compulsory School Teachers in order for them to discuss matters pertaining to their particular profession. The purpose of this, according to the principal, is twofold where it fosters a healthy culture among colleagues when they all know each other, and it cultivates a collective view on pedagogy and didactics among the educators.

5.4.2 Seamless Pedagogy and Teaching Across Age-Groups

This principal says transitions are ‘the worst’, seeing as they are both time consuming and, in their experience, often not ultimately used by the receiving teacher. To avoid this, the principal tries to create a seamless pedagogy where ‘the children should recognise the teaching regardless of which teacher at the school instructs them’. The aim is for the school to have the same pedagogy and didactics throughout. For example, all teachers should document what goes on in their classroom and use the same methods coherently and consistently.

Furthermore, ‘the teachers at the school are hired as teachers - not teachers for a particular age-group’. By this, the principal indicates a key element in their vision for the school: the teachers should have the knowledge, experience, and competence to teach all school years. Often teachers keep their class from Preschool class all the way up to year 6, and if this is not possible the 4-6 teachers are instead scheduled to teach a lesson per week in their prospective class while they are still in year 3. This method, in the principal’s view, provides the teachers with experience of students in all school years so that K-3 teachers know what to work towards, and 4-6 teachers know what prior knowledge levels they should plan for. According to the principal, the fact that the teachers become ‘knowledgeable in each other’s areas’ increases the respect teachers of different ages have for their colleagues' workloads and methods, while fostering collegial collaboration across age-groups. The principal advocates for progression instead of transition, where the transition work instead is a constant collaboration between teachers that takes place throughout their students’ school years.

36

5.4.3 Perceived Issues with Transition Work

In the principal’s experience, there is often a skewed focus in transition meetings. Firstly, in their opinion, teachers discussing how the class and its individual students function socially is a moot point since: ‘A ‘problem-class’ for one teacher can be a ‘dream-class’ for another’. Furthermore, to talk in terms of ‘this is what we have done’ is, in the principal’s view, dangerous since what students have done and what they have learnt are separate matters. Instead, the principal urges that the teacher should always talk in terms of ‘what the students know and their difficulties’.

37

6. Discussion

This chapter discusses the results from the analysed data in relation to the research questions, the aims and previous research relevant for this study. For clarity, the subsections attempt to follow the same themes and structures as in the presentation of the results.

6.1 Overview of Informants

As presented in subsection 5.1.1, the teacher respondents represent a wide spread of municipalities in Sweden, and their ages cover almost the entire working-life of a teacher. Similarly, despite having a significantly smaller number of school principal respondents, subsection 5.2.1 also shows a relatively widespread in location among the respondents. Due to the fact that the focus of the present study is, as far as we can see, completely unexplored, we cast our proverbial net as wide as possible. In our view, the study thereby includes representative respondents that can form a stronger basis for generalisations about this issue in Sweden.

6.2 What Hinders and What Facilitates Transition Work

In order to answer our RQ1 ‘What efforts do the respondents identify that hinders versus facilitates transition work and collaboration [in the subject of English]?’ previous research was compared to the respondents’ perceptions on the issue.

6.2.1 Time

The concept of time had the highest frequency of mentions by the respondents in the collected data. Lack of both time in their schedule and time set aside for transition work seemed to be the main issue when collaboration in their view, either did not exist or did not function. For those who experienced ‘well’ or ‘very well’ functioning collaboration, time set aside in their schedule for this particular type of transition work was prevalent. As mentioned at the beginning of this essay, Lärarnas Riksförbund (cited by Skolvärlden, 2020) showed that a majority of teachers in their survey experienced heavy workloads that did not allow enough time for the work involved in collaboration with other teachers. In our survey, we therefore asked teachers what they thought could be improved concerning transition work and collaboration, where the most common response was the importance of time and how time should be earmarked for teachers