SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND COMMUNICATION
English for year nine and English 5
A comparative study of curricula and teachers’ approaches
School of Education, Culture and Communication
Essay in English
Supervisor: Elisabeth Wulff-Sahlen Examiner: Karin Molander Danielsson
School of Education, Degree Project
Culture and Communication ENA308 15hp
Autumn 2020
ABSTRACT
This study explores the progression between English for year nine and English 5, based on a textual analysis and comparison of the two curricula, as well as semi-structured interviews with six
teachers about their interpretations and concretisations of the curricula. The analysis of the curricula and the analysis of the interviews were compared to each other and discussed in relation to
interpretation, concretisation, and progression. The results show that, on the same level of education, i.e. in compulsory school or upper secondary school, teachers’ interpretations and preferred methods of working are very similar. Finally, the results show that slight progression is noticeable in the curricula but more so in the teachers’ practices, especially when the courses are taught separately rather than in merged groups.
_______________________________________________________ Saga Oscarsson
English for year nine and English 5: A comparative study of curricula and teachers’ approaches 2020
_______________________________________________________
Keywords: Concretisation, Compulsory school, CEFR, Curriculum, EFL, Interpretation, Teaching
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Aim and research questions 2
2 Background 3
2.1 English education in Sweden 3
2.1.1 A shared framework for language education 3
2.1.2 Regulatory documents for English for year nine and English 5 4
2.2 Research background 5
2.2.1 CEFR and the curricula for English for year nine and English 5 5
2.2.2. Interpretation 6
2.2.3 Concretisation 7
2.2.4 Progression 8
3 Method and materials 10
3.1 Selection of participants 10
3.2 Data collection 11
3.3 Method of analysis 12
3.3.1 Method of textual analysis 12
3.3.2 Interview analysis 12
3.3.3 Method of comparison of interviews and textual analysis 12
3.4 Ethical research principles 12
4 Results and discussion 13
4.1 Textual analysis of the curricula 13
4.1.1 Aims 13
4.1.2 Core content 14
4.1.3 Knowledge requirements 16
4.2 Teachers’ interpretations and concretisations of the curricula 18
4.2.1 Teachers’ interpretations and concretisations of the aim 18
4.2.2 Teachers’ interpretations and concretisations of the core contents 19 4.2.3 Teachers’ interpretations and concretisations of the knowledge requirements 22
4.3 Visible progression between the curricula 24
4.3.3 Progression between the knowledge requirements 26
5. Concluding discussion 26
6. Conclusion 28
References 30
Appendix 1 Core content 33
Appendix 2 Knowledge requirements 34
1 Introduction
In my teacher training I have met students who blame their difficulties with the English subject on their previous education in compulsory school. I have also encountered several upper secondary school teachers that share this sentiment and place the responsibilities, for the issues students encounter when trying to reach a passing grade, on their previous education. This made me wonder if the step between English for year nine and English 5 is that big, to cause these issues.
In a pilot study of the differences between the curriculum for English for year nine (EN) in 1
compulsory school and English 5 (Eng 5) in upper secondary school, I discovered that the courses are fairly similar in aim, core content, and knowledge requirements. Even if the results of the pilot study made this visible, it still begs the questions if these courses are more different than what is present in the curricula. However, there has been little to no research on the matter of progression between these courses in practice. Therefore, the pilot study as well as this study relies on research from neighbouring fields to shed some light on the matter at hand. The lack of research on this current matter might be due to the fact that both courses are based on the Common European framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), thus similarities are expected (Council of Europe, 2001; Skolverket, 2011a; 2018) . However, since they are two separate courses, there should be a 2
progression between EN and Eng 5.
Furthermore, some students who have not passed English in year nine (the last year of compulsory school) have the possibility to receive dispensation and study the compulsory school subject in upper secondary school. Perhaps the similarities between English for year nine and English 5 are the reason for the two courses sometimes being taught simultaneously, in so called merged groups, 3
in upper secondary school. Even if the courses are very similar, there are differences set in place by Skolverket (The Swedish National Agency of Education) that would create difficulties teaching the courses simultaneously, e.g. the difference in educational hours. EN requires 200 hours of education whereas Eng 5 requires 100 hours of education (Skolverket, 2011a; 2018 ). 4
Because the knowledge requirements are aimed at year nine as the final grade of compulsory school, the term English
1
for year nine (EN) is used, even though the subject spans of the three last years of compulsory school (Skolverket,
2018).
As this study is written, the curriculum for English 5 is being revised, therefore page numbers are not provided in this
2
study when quoting Skolverket, 2011.
I use courses as a collective word even if English for year nine is considered a subject rather than a course.
3
Skolverket has both the regulatory documents for English for year nine and English 5 in English. The English versions
4
When it comes to students who have received dispensation, Skolverket (2011b) provide
recommendations for teaching EN in upper secondary school. They recommend that, if possible, the students should be given the opportunity to study EN in parallel with Eng 5 (p. 22). Nowhere is it mentioned that the two courses could be taught in merged groups. Even if Skolverket’s (2011b) recommendations are on the basis of the students being able to both receive a grade in EN and passing the requirements for their programme, this is not always the case. In my experience, merged groups are more common. One the one hand, this is perplexing since it is not one of the
recommendations for these types of solutions. On the other hand, it makes sense that schools choose to assume that students, who have a hard time with English, would not be able to pass two courses at the same time if they were taught separately. This also then begs the question if there is
progression between the courses in practice, especially if they are deemed by schools to be able to be taught in merged groups.
Even if the curricula are similar, there is yet another factor to take into consideration, i.e. the people who interpret and concretise the curriculum in their daily profession. From personal experience, I know that it is a major difficulty teaching merged groups with EN and Eng 5. Not only is it difficult to tailor a course to a group of students who are studying towards the same goal, it is even harder to tailor two courses into one course in a reliable and valid way. Teachers’ interpretations are therefore an important factor. The teachers might be influenced by their own personal preferences and values, their experiences, and their own personal interpretation of what the curricula state.
1.1 Aim and research questions
This study aims to investigate whether or not there is a noticeable progression between English for year nine and English 5, both in the curricula and teachers’ practices. A textual analysis of the curricula for English for year nine and English 5 and semi-structured interviews with six teachers were conducted to answer the following research questions:
1. Is progression between English for year nine and English 5 noticeable in the curricula? If so, in what way?
2. Do three compulsory school teachers interpret and concretise the curriculum for English for year nine differently than three upper secondary school teachers interpret and concretise the curriculum for English 5?
3. Is progression between the two courses visible through the teachers’ interpretations and concretisations?
2 Background
2.1 English education in Sweden
Four quarters of English speakers in the world are non-native speakers (Seidlhofer, 2015), such as most of our Swedish students. In Sweden, English has been an influential language since around World War II when the English language became established in the country and its education (Andersson, 2013, p. 11-12). For the non-native speakers of English, e.g. Swedish students, English could be regarded as either a second language (ESL) or a foreign language (EFL). According to Skolverket (2011a; 2018), English is to be viewed as a foreign language. However, Broughton, Brumfit, Pincas & Wilde (2002) discuss that it might be a difficult determination. According to Broughton et al. (2002)
Official policies in, […] Sweden […] are aiming towards a bilingual position where all educated people have a good command of English, which is rapidly becoming an alternate language with Swedish […] —a position much closer to ESL on the EFL/ESL continuum. (p. 7).
Broughton et al. (2002) also clarify their definition of the two terms: EFL is “taught in schools, often widely, but it does not play an essential role in national and social life” (p. 6), and ESL is defined as “the language of the mass media: newspaper, radio and television […] official
institutions […] and of education.” (p. 6). Based on this distinction between the terms and the fact that the Swedish regulatory documents define English as a foreign language, English teaching will be regarded as foreign language teaching in the present study.
2.1.1 A shared framework for language education
When it comes to foreign language teaching, the educational systems of Europe have a shared framework: The Common European framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Since the curricula for EN and Eng 5 are based on the CEFR (Skolverket, 2011a; 2018), it is important to understand what it is. The goal with this framework is an equal education and measure of language proficiency across Europe, thus CEFR provides the common reference levels, as well as four language activities (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 14).
The common reference levels are six levels of language proficiency and are grouped into three over-all measures: A, B, and C. A represents the basic user, B the independent user, and C the proficient user (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 23). Thus, the six common reference levels are called: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2. According to Oscarson’s (2015) study of the Swedish educational steps in language teaching and the CEFR’s levels, the CEFR levels can also be divided into high and low. However, it is important to note that the CEFR’s levels are not absolute:
Not two users of a language, whether native or foreign learner, have exactly the same competences or develop them in the same way. Any attempt to establish ’levels’ of proficiency is to some extent arbitrary, as it is in any area of knowledge or skill. However, for practical purposes it is useful to segment the learning process for the purposes of curriculum design, qualifying examinations, etc (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 17).
CEFR’s four language activities are reception, production, interaction, and mediation (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 14). These four language activities evaluate the students’ abilities through reading and listening, speaking and writing, and interaction and are the same ones that the curricula for English in Sweden is based on.
2.1.2 Regulatory documents for English for year nine and English 5
English is taught from year one to year nine in compulsory school (CS), where the English subject is divided into 1) three sets of central goals for year 1-3, year 4-6, and year 7-9, and 2) two sets of knowledge requirements aimed at year six and nine. EN is required 200 hours of education because it spans over three years in CS (Skolverket, 2018).
In CS, English is considered a subject, while in upper secondary school (USS) it is considered a course. Courses in USS are point-based, meaning that the points they are prescribed reflect the educational hours. English 5 is a 100-point course, which means that it requires 100 hours of education and spans over one school year (Skolverket, 2011a). There are three courses offered in USS; English 5, English 6, and English 7, and they are each divided into 1) central goals and 2) knowledge requirements.
English for year nine and English 5 both share a core focus on reception, production, and
interaction (Skolverket, 2011a; 2018). Furthermore, the same grading scale applies for both EN 5
and Eng 5: F, E, D, C, B, and A. However, not all of the six grades have corresponding knowledge requirements, only E, C, and A do. This is due to the fact that F equals a failing grade and D and B
The same language activities found in the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001).
are in-between grades. D or B can only be reached if students fulfil one grade and the majority of the higher grade, e.g. B can only be reached if all of the criteria for C and the majority of the criteria for A are fulfilled.
2.2 Research background
There has been very few, if any, studies focusing on progression between very similar and currently used curricula. Thus, this study relies on Oscarson’s (2015) study regarding the Swedish
progression model and the corresponding CEFR levels, as well as previous research from neighbouring fields such as how to investigate interpretation, concretisation and progression.
2.2.1 CEFR and the curricula for English for year nine and English 5
Swedish English education is a complex and intricate system. Moreover, when it is compared to the CEFR it is even more complex. In this section, the Swedish English curricula and their
correspondences and differences to CEFR will be explained with a basis in Oscarson’s (2015) comparative study of the seven Swedish educational steps and the CEFR levels.
During the nine years of English education in CS, the first four steps of the seven successive steps in Swedish English education are represented, beginning on CEFR reference level A1 (high) and finishing on B1 (low) (Oscarson, 2015, p. 140). In USS, the last three steps of the seven successive steps are represented in the courses English 5, English 6, and English 7. However, not all of the CEFR levels correspond to the seven steps in Swedish English education (Oscarson, 2015, p. 139). According to Oscarson’s (2015) study, the seven successive steps of English education correspond to the common reference levels A1 to B2 (p. 141). In Table 1, a general overview of the
corresponding reference levels to Swedish education is presented:
Table 1. General overview of common reference levels in Swedish schools.
As you can see in Table 1, the English education of compulsory school stops at the common
reference level B1 and the English education of upper secondary school starts at common reference
School form CERF level
Compulsory school A1-B1
level B1. Oscarson (2015) explains that the common reference levels can be divided into high and low. Therefore, according to Oscarson (2015), English for year nine’s corresponding common reference level is B1 (low) and English 5’s corresponding common reference level is B1 (high). However, as the CEFR levels are more developed than the seven successive steps of Swedish English education, these two scales are not completely comparable (Oscarson, 2015, p. 140; 146). With regard to the CEFR language activities, three of the four are also prominent in the curricula for English, with a core focus on reception, production, and interaction (Skolverket, 2011a; 2018). These language activities can be seen in the core content and knowledge requirements of EN and Eng 5 (Skolverket, 2011a; 2018).
Based on Oscarson’s study (2015), it is evident that EN and Eng 5 are similar since they correspond to the same common reference level. However, since EN corresponds to B1 (low) and Eng 5 to B1 (high), there should be some differences and a progression, even if slight.
2.2.2. Interpretation
Since teachers are the the ones implementing the curricula in their practices, it is of importance to examine their interpretations. Interpretation is, according to Oxford learner's dictionaries (2020) ”to explain the meaning of something”, and is subjective to the person interpreting the particular subject matter. To explain how teachers’ interpretation has been studied before, this study has its basis in the fact that interpretation is a cognitive function depending on several aspects.
Borg (2003) has identified such aspects in his review study. His definition of teacher cognition as ”the unobservable dimension of teaching - what teachers know, believe, and think” (p. 81) can be connected to how teachers interpret the curricula, even if it is not explicitly mentioned by Borg (2003). Borg (2003) has identified three major aspects that affect teachers in their profession: ”cognition and prior language learning experience”, ”cognition and teacher education”, and ”cognition and classroom practice” (p. 86), which in turn can affect teachers’ interpretations. Even if these three are not completely separable, cognition and classroom practice is the most relevant aspect for this study, since this study focuses on teachers’ interpretations and concretisations in their practice.
Within cognition and classroom practice, Borg (2003) presents factors that influence teachers in their decision making: pedagogic principles and experience (p. 95-95). These factors may also
influence teachers in their interpretations. The pedagogical principles deal with the similarities and differences between selected practices and principles of teaching, on both an individual and group level (Borg, 2003). Borg refers to the study by Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver & Thwaite (2001), which shows that even if an individual teacher’s practice is unique, there are some shared practices, especially in shared contexts. This might then influence teachers who work in similar contexts, e.g. teaching EN, Eng 5 or merged groups, as well as influence teachers’ interpretations of e.g. curricula. If a group of teachers share a belief, an individual teacher might interpret e.g. a curriculum in the same way as another teacher, based on their shared collective beliefs. This in turn might create a consensus where teachers at the same level, e.g. USS, work in a similar way based on their shared pedagogic principles.
Furthermore, experience is another factor that influences teachers in their practice ”[a]lthough no studies of language teachers have specifically examined the issue” (Borg, 2003, p. 95). Borg (2003) continues and states that
novice teachers were less skilled at: (a) thinking about the subject matter from the learner’s perspective; (b) having a deep understanding of the subject matter; (c) knowing how to present subject matter in appropriate ways, and (d) knowing how to integrate language learning with broader curricular goals. (Borg, 2003, p. 95).
As the quote above clearly shows, experience has an impact on how teachers interpret curricula. Teachers with less experience might find it hard to interpret the curricula and then connect it to their concretisations.
2.2.3 Concretisation
Some parts of the curricula are not open for interpretation, but how they are concretised in teachers' practices is based on interpretation. How teachers concretise the curriculum has not been studied to a great extent. However, there are a few factors that can elude to teachers' concretisations. Such factors are context, materials and teaching methods.
Borg (2003) presented another factor within cognition and classroom practice that influenced teachers, i.e. context (p. 94-95). Context is e.g. working hours, parents, curriculum and resources (p. 94) that might affect teachers to work in a different way than they would like (Borg, 2003, p. 94). Therefore, depending on the context teachers might work in different ways, even if they would not like to.
Furthermore, in his undergraduate thesis, Torell (2017) focused on what material teachers prefer to use in their practices. Based on teachers’ preferences in teaching material, it is possible to deduce a difference in their concretisation of the curricula. As for instance, Torell (2017) found that Swedish English teachers in upper secondary school did not prefer using textbooks but used them
nevertheless. Another finding was that teachers had a preference of working with other materials, such as more authentic video and audio clips. However, even if Torell’s (2017) study could be interpreted as showing that the teachers preferred authenticity, that was not something the teachers in his study mentioned explicitly (p. 18-26). The debate on whether to use textbooks or not seemed to be one of the issues in his study, with a basis in difficulty. In Englund’s (1999) article, she provides the argument that textbooks create structure to the teaching as well as provide students with the knowledge they need in order to reach the knowledge requirements, in one book (p. 399). Furthermore, according to Torell (2017) “[a]uthentic material has been argued to increase students’ motivation, be more relevant to the students and better prepare students for real language use.” (p. 4). Even if this would seem very positive, other arguments are that authentic material might be difficult for some students based on the higher difficulty of the language (Torell, 2017, p. 4). The third factor that could elude to teachers’ concretisation of the curricula are the preferred teaching methods. There are a few methods closely associated with teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), and they differ slightly in difficulty as well as the preferred materials. Such EFL methods are: The Grammar - Translation method (GTM), Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). GTM focus on vocabulary, grammar and translation which are arguably more simplistic language tasks (Harden, With & Köhler, 2006, p. 11). CLT and CLIL focuses on the authenticity of the language interaction as well as content during language teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Both CLT and CLIL deal with arguably more difficult methods of approaching language learning. These EFL teaching methods show what Harden et al. (2006) mentions as a ”general progression from simple reproductive exercises to more complex communicative […] tasks” (p. 17).
2.2.4 Progression
Progression is defined as ”the process of developing from one stage or state to another” (Oxford learner's dictionaries, 2020) and it is an integral factor of language learning (Harden et al., 2006, p. 11). According to Harden et al. (2006), ”the concept of progression in foreign language teaching and learning normally refers to the structured chronologically determined presentation of items to
be taught or learned” (p. 27). However, it is important to note that discussing progression is
complex, since progression is not something fixed (Harden et al., 2006). To navigate the complexity of progression, this current study has its basis in the book The Concept of Progression in Teaching and Learning of Foreign Languages by Harden et al. (2006), as well as in Muller’s (2006) study of progression in curricula.
Even if most people might consider that progression ”usually [is] from easier linguistic and
grammatical features to more complex ones” (Harden et al., 2006, p. 11), in language learning it is not that easy to determine. There are three prominent ways of defining progression: viewing it on a vertical and a horizontal axis, as linear, or cyclical (Muller, 2006; Harden et al., 2006).
The first way of viewing progression is on a vertical and horizontal axis, something both Harden et al. (2006) and Muller (2006) discusses. Harden et al. (2006) base their axes on material and time during language teaching:
As the learning progress proceeds along the time vector which can be viewed as representing the horizontal axis, the material changes from what can be termed ’easy’ to ’more difficult’ on the vertical axis (p. 27).
Whereas Muller (2006) bases his axes on content and the degree of progression in curricula:
At the vertical end of the spectrum, subjects require strong progression; in roughy the middle of the spectrum, there is moderate progression; at the horizontal end of the spectrum, content is segmental and sequence of lesser importance (p. 72).
Even if they define progression on an axis, the major difference is that Harden et al. (2006) focuses on progression in language teaching and learning whereas Muller (2006) focuses on progression within a curriculum. However, even if they have a different focus, there seems to be a correlation between the two distinctions. The vertical axis of both distinctions deals with material (or the extent of content used) and the horizontal axis deals with less noticeable progression, e.g. time or less content.
The second way of defining progression is as linear progression, where learners go from one point to another, e.g. from easier grammatical features to more complex (Harden et al., 2006, p. 11; 21; 27). This definition of progression seems to be the most recognised. However, Harden et al. (2006) points out that linear progression does not take ”that foreign language learning entails
Lastly, the third way of defining progression is cyclical where ”the items […] occur again and again” (Harden et al., 2006, p. 27). Muller (2006) also touches upon progression being cyclical, especially in what he calls content-poor subjects, where ”the same content can convey different concepts, leading to a necessary circulation of the same content through the curriculum” (Muller, 2006, p. 71). Muller (2006) also states that in what he calls content-rich subjects, this circulation of content is not as prominent since ”there is more content in the progression chain, the content sequence becomes of paramount pedagogic importance” (Muller, 2006, p.70-71). He explains it as following:
the more horizontal the subject, the more the same knowledge can be recurrently used […] practically, this means that the same content can be elucidated by different content and, vice versa, the same content can be used to bring home not only different concepts but different levels of concept. (p. 70-72).
This current study takes all these three definitions of progression into account.
3 Method and materials
The aim of this study is to investigate whether or not there is a noticeable progression between English for year nine and English 5, both in the curricula and teachers’ practices. A textual analysis of the regulatory documents for EN and Eng 5 was conducted, followed by a comparison of six English teachers’ perception of their own practices. Elaborations on the selection, method of data collection, and method of analysis are found below.
3.1 Selection of participants
The participants of this study were six teachers, three from compulsory school (CS) and three from upper secondary school (USS). The teachers were contacted via e-mail after I had received
permission to contact them from their respective principals. In the e-mail, brief information about this study was included as well as a question asking if they were willing to participate. All six teachers agreed and partook willingly with knowledge about the study.
The six teachers were from different schools in central Sweden. The schools were chosen partly because of proximity but also because the compulsory schools offer all ten years of education and the upper secondary schools offer introductory programmes as well as national programmes. Aside from approaching teachers of English who are currently teaching either EN or Eng 5, and the same
number of respondents from each level, no other selections of the participants were made. Table 2 shows an overview of the six teachers participating in this study.
Table 2. Overview of the participants
3.2 Data collection
The data for this study were collected through a textual analysis of the regulatory documents for English for year nine and English 5. The textual analysis of the two regulatory documents were then compared in order to examine possible similarities and differences, which laid the basis for the data collected through individual, semi-structured interviews with the teachers.
The interviews were about 30 minutes long and recorded. Private interviews were chosen for this study, even though many of the questions were not of sensitive nature, giving the participants the freedom to answer as truthfully as possible without others hearing their answers. This provided me with a greater certainty that what they said was their honest thoughts and attitudes.
I met with the participants at separate locations, and the interviews were performed with the teachers and me facing each other with the recorder in the middle. During the interview, the
interview questions (see Appendix 3) were asked in chronological order and continued with follow-up questions for discussions based on their answers. The questions were phrased in order for me to answer the research questions for this study. Finally, the interviews were conducted in English since all the participants are proficient users of the language. Had there been questions from the teachers about the definitions of certain phrases or topics, they would have been discussed and explained.
Teacher Age Gender Years of experience Experience of teaching
merged groups
CS1 48 Female 17 No
CS2 32 Male 4 Yes
CS3 29 Female 1 Yes
USS1 28 Male 2 No
USS2 60 Male 30 Yes
3.3 Method of analysis
3.3.1 Method of textual analysis
Firstly, a comparative textual analysis of the regulatory documents for EN and Eng 5 was conducted in order to find possible similarities and differences. The syllabus for both EN and Eng 5 were printed out and the similarities were then highlighted, i.e. marked with a pen, and the differences were left unmarked, thus making the differences easier to spot. The differences were then compiled according to the different sections of the regulatory documents they were from, i.e. aim, core content, or knowledge requirements, in order to notice where they differed the most. When the textual analysis was completed, the study moved on to the interviews.
3.3.2 Interview analysis
The method of analysis for the interviews was first a manual transcription of the recordings, where the teachers’ answers were placed in tables in a document in correlation to which interview question it answered. The transcriptions were then printed out for a manual comparison, in order to make themes, i.e. interpretation, concretisation, and progression, noticeable. The themes were colour-coded in order to make them noticeable. When all themes were colour-coded, the study moved on to find similarities and differences within these themes, i.e. mentioning of textbooks were always coloured yellow. When all similarities and differences were coded, the study moved on to compare the interview answers and the textual analysis.
3.3.3 Method of comparison of interviews and textual analysis
The results from the textual analysis and the interviews were then compared to each other in order to deduce where the differences between EN and Eng 5 were most visible. To see if the differences found in the regulatory documents were noticeable in the teachers’ perceptions of their practices, they were sought for in the teachers’ answers.
3.4 Ethical research principles
This study has heeded the ethical research principles the Swedish Research Council (2017)
emphasises in studies including people. Because this study focuses on the teachers’ own accounts of their practices, information about their identity, other than the already specified information, is
redundant. In accordance with the Swedish Research Council (2017, p. 41) the teachers partook in this study willingly with both knowledge about the study and a promise of anonymity and
confidentiality. This is made possible by the sparse information expressed about the participants. Before the interviews, it was made clear that the recordings and the raw data would only be accessible to the researcher as well as that the answers in this essay would not be able to be traced back to them. The teachers were also informed that their names would be omitted from this study in order to protect their integrity (The Swedish Research Council, 2017, p. 41). Due to the information forwarded in the e-mail, the teachers made an informed decision to be a part of this study with knowledge that participation was voluntary. The teachers could at any time withdraw from the process without having to state a reason. However, they were given a date from which withdrawal would be hurtful for the ability to gather other data if necessary.
In accordance with the Swedish Research Council (2017), the working method in this study has been guided by the information, consent, confidentiality and utilisation requirements. The
information and consent requirements are met by presenting the study in the initial e-mail. Finally, the participants were informed of how the material would be handled and were promised anonymity and this fulfilled the confidentiality and utilisation requirements.
4 Results and discussion
The results will be presented and discussed in correlation to the research questions (see section 1.1).
4.1 Textual analysis of the curricula
The analysis of the curricula was made with regard to the three major parts of the English curricula: aim, core content, and knowledge requirements, and will be presented accordingly.
4.1.1 Aims
The aims for both EN and Eng 5 are very similar. In some cases, the aims are identical. For instance, in both EN and Eng 5 it is stated that the students are supposed to be able to adapt their language to ”different purposes” as well as different ”recipients” (Skolverket, 2011a; 2018). However, the continuation of that statement differs slightly; in EN it is stated that students should adapt their language to ”contexts” (Skolverket, 2018) while in Eng 5 the students should adapt their
language to ”situations” (Skolverket, 2011a). The difference might seem insignificant. However, according to the Oxford learner’s dictionaries (2020) context is: ”the situation in which something happens and that helps you understand it” and situation is: ”all the circumstances and things that are happening at a particular time and in a particular place”. Based on the definitions of the words, they are actually different even though they might be perceived as synonyms. Moreover, this slight difference might be reason enough to speculate that when teachers interpret the regulatory documents, they do so differently since they probably do not search for the definitions of every word existing in a curriculum.
Aside from the slight differences in phrasings, there are a few major differences between the aims for EN and Eng 5. In Eng 5, unlike EN, it is explicitly stated that lessons should ”as far as possible be conducted in English” (Skolverket, 2011a). If the English language should be used to a greater extent in Eng 5, it might show a progression from more difficult language abilities, i.e.
understanding instructions and explanations in English rather in e.g. Swedish. It also shows that English is aimed to be used to a lesser extent in EN than in Eng 5, providing students with presumably, less contact with the English language during lessons.
Furthermore, students who study Eng 5 are also supposed to be given the opportunity to ”develop correctness”, ”plurilingualism”, and use English ”with variation and complexity” (Skolverket, 2011a), these quotes from Eng 5 are not mentioned in the curriculum for EN. Correctness, plurilingualism, variation and complexity are keywords showing major differences in the two courses’ aims. Since this is not stated in EN, it indicates an aim of an easier level of language use.
4.1.2 Core content
The core content for both EN and Eng 5 is divided into three parts: content of communication, reception and production and interaction (Skolverket, 2011a; 2018). These three parts are a reflection of the CEFR language activities (Council of Europe, 2001). The core content in both courses are over-all very similar. As the case was with the aims of the courses, the core content differs with slight alerications of certain words, such as in reception of both curricula. In EN students are supposed to show ”[d]ifferent ways of searching for, selecting [emphasis added] and evaluating [emphasis added] texts and spoken language” (Skolverket, 2018), while in Eng 5 they are supposed to show”[d]ifferent ways of searching for, choosing [emphasis added] and assessing [emphasis added] texts and spoken language (Skolverket, 2011a). The definition of select is: to
choose somebody/something from a group of people or things, usually according to a
system” (Oxford learner's dictionaries, 2020), and the definition of the word choose is: ”to decide which thing or person you want out of the ones that are available” (Oxford learner’s dictionaries, 2020). To select and choose are different in their definitions and therefore show a difference
between the two curricula. To choose something out what is available is more difficult than to select something according to a system, where content or information might be provided.
In Table 2, the few differences for the content of communication are provided. 6
Table 2. Difference in content of communication for EN and Eng 5. (Skolverket 2011a; 2018) 7
Table 2 shows that even though the content is similar, there are differences that might affect how the courses are taught. For instance, as shown in the first row in Table 2, the content should be adapted to the students in both EN and Eng 5. However, in Eng 5 it specifies that it should be ”related to [the] students’ education [and] working life” (Skolverket, 2011a), i.e. not only to what is familiar to the students. The content should be related to the students’ programme and their future work in Eng 5. In theory, this could be interpreted as Eng 5 being slightly different if the students are studying a vocational or theoretical programme. It also implies that there should be a slight difference between the 18 national programmes that Swedish upper secondary school provides, e.g. in adaptation of the courses based on whether a student is enrolled in a social science or vehicles and transportation
Content of communication EN Content of communication Eng 5
Current subject areas familiar to the pupils Related to students’ education (…) working life
Content and form of different kinds of fiction
Living conditions, traditions, social relations and cultural phenomena in various contexts
and areas where English is used
The spread of English and its position in the world
The remaining two parts of the core content can be found in tables in Appendix 1.
6
Empty slots in the table indicate that there are no corresponding phrasing in the other curriculum.
programme. Since CS is a more foundational education without specific programmes, this difference between familiarity and relatability is important to note.
Finally, the most noticeable difference between the core contents of EN and Eng 5 is that in Eng 5 the following is expressed:
Processing their own and others’ oral and written communications in order to vary, clarify or specify, as well as to create structure and adapt these to their purpose and situation. This covers the use of words and phrases that clarify casual connections and time aspects (Skolverket, 2011a).
Since this is not expressed in EN, it signals a major difference between the courses. The fact that students in Eng 5 are expected to vary, clarify or specify shows the necessity of a more expanded vocabulary, than can be seen anywhere in EN. Furthermore, it also shows the expectation of
students in Eng 5 to be able to use meta-language, i.e. using the language in order to vary it, clarify it, or specify it. Thus, the expectations on the students are greater in Eng 5 than EN.
4.1.3 Knowledge requirements
The knowledge requirements are divided into three parts, corresponding to the grades E, C, and A. As mentioned before, a student can be given a grade between F-A but only E, C, and A have corresponding knowledge requirements (see section 2.1.2). Furthermore, the knowledge requirements also reflect the CEFR language activities, such as comprehension and production (Oscarson, 2015; Skolverket, 2011a; 2018). As the case was with both the aim and the core content, the differences between EN and Eng 5 are fewer than the similarities and it is most often near synonyms in the phrasing that point to the differences. However, in the knowledge requirements there are also some more noticeable differences.
In Table 3 ,the knowledge requirement for grade E for comprehension (reading and listening), are shown . 8
Table 3. Difference in knowledge requirement for comprehension between EN and Eng 5. (Skolverket, 2011a; 2018)9
Grade EN Eng 5
For transparency, the whole knowledge requirements are not shown in Table 3, the knowledge requirements are longer,
8
but the identical parts have been omitted in this study to present the differences clearly. The full table of the knowledge requirements can be seen in Appendix 2.
The main differences, as seen in Table 3, are: moderate pace and varying speed and the difference in presenting an overview and give account of. These quotes point to a difference in students’ ability to understand English as well as retelling what they have understood. Understanding English in a moderate pace is easier than understanding English in different paces, e.g. spoken English in Eng 5 could then be faster than in EN thus making it more difficult to follow. Furthermore, in EN students are expected to give an overview, showing that they have understood the main point, while in Eng 5 they are expected to show a more detailed understanding. The same difference can be seen in the remaining knowledge requirements (C and A) for comprehension and are therefore not forwarded in Table 3.
Another example of the differences between the knowledge requirements can be seen in the knowledge requirements for production (written and oral). In order to reach the grade E in EN students are supposed to show that they ”can apply strategies” (Skolverket, 2018), while in Eng 5 the students are supposed to show what they are able to ”with certainty use strategies” (Skolverket, 2011a). These quotes show a slight difference, where students in EN are supposed to simply use strategies, as for instance explain themselves further, whereas in Eng 5 the students are supposed to show their ability to use strategies with confidence. Furthermore, to receive a grade C, students are supposed to ”apply strategies” in EN and to ”use strategies and evaluate the content” in Eng 5 (Skolverket, 2018; 2011a). The difference here shows that students in Eng 5 are supposed, not only to use strategies, but also evaluate the content, which is not mentioned in EN. To reach and A in EN, students are supposed to ”to some extent choose strategies” while in Eng 5 students are expected to ”with certainty use strategies” (Skolverket, 2018; 2011a). ”To some extent” and ”with certainty” are different in their level of expectations put on the students. To do something with certainty is
arguably different, and perhaps more difficult, than to some extent know how to.
It is possible that since the aims of the two courses show a difference in what the students are aimed to be taught, it is also present in the knowledge requirements. An expanded vocabulary and an
E
Main content and clear details (…) moderate
pace and basic texts
Main content and basic details (…) varying
speed and clearly expressed
E
Show their understanding by presenting an overview
Show their understanding by, in basic terms, give
ability to use English on a meta-level (as mentioned in section 4.1.2), is reflected in the knowledge requirements, especially with regard to production where students are supposed to do something with certainty in Eng 5 and also evaluate the content. Whereas in EN, the expectations put on the students in order to receive the different grades seem to be slightly less difficult.
4.2 Teachers’ interpretations and concretisations of the curricula
4.2.1 Teachers’ interpretations and concretisations of the aim
The teachers in CS interpreted the aim for EN similarly to each other, stating that it is for students to learn basic English:
The aim is to give students enough information and knowledge to be able to use English if they need to. Not very difficult English, but enough so they can order food or ask for directions. (CS2)
This is remarkable since the students will have studied English for nine years, and yet are not expected to have come further in their progression. According to Oscarson (2015), students in EN should be on level B1, i.e. an independent user of the language (Council of Europe, 2001), but ”enough to order food or ask for directions” (CS2) is arguably more fundamental than independent. To concretise the aim for EN the CS teachers stated that they use the English language. When asked in detail about this, the teachers once again implied a focus on fundamental knowledge of English, even if the students at this point of their education have studied English for a considerable time. All CS teachers agreed that ”they [the students] need a foundation before they can use more
complicated language” (CS1). This implies a focus on structure and vocabulary rather than formality, e.g. more academic, idiomatic, or complicated language and vocabulary. In order to concretise the aim and work with English, CS3 stated that they ”work a lot with translation”, with suggests that the teachers’ concretisations lead them to use teaching methods such as GTM, which focuses on exactly that (Harden et al., 2006, p.11).
The USS teachers’ interpretations of the aim for Eng 5 is that it is for the students ”to get a chance to get better at English and use it in the world” (USS2). This quote represents the three teachers’ interpretations since they were similar. USS2 meant that to ”use it [English] in the world” refers to teaching the students to be proficient enough to use the language in either continued studies or in their line of work.
In order to concretise the aim, the USS teachers stated that they use the English language and that they focus on complexity and correctness. USS1 stated that ”complicated” language is a ”natural stepping-stone” in Eng 5:
not only because the students need to be able to understand difficult words in real life, but also because they need to be able to use more difficult language if they are going to use it in their profession or studies. (USS2)
USS3 agreed with the other two teachers but stated that in her current group, the level of language proficiency is low and therefore she focuses less on formal and academic language.
It is evident that the six teachers interpret and concretise the aims for their respective curricula differently. The CS teachers focused on teaching fundamentality whereas in USS they focused on more advanced English. Even though the USS teachers’ interpretation of the aim for Eng 5 might sound similar to the CS teachers’ answers, it shows a focus on more advanced English than sated in CS. Since they interpret the aims for EN and Eng 5 differently, their concretisations also differ. Although, they share that they use the English language in order to concretise the aims, the level of difficulty of the language used shows a major difference. Furthermore, since the teachers at CS focus on fundamentality and seem to work with EFL teaching method GTM, they also allow more Swedish during lessons than the USS teachers. The USS teachers seemed to focus on using English consistently:
It is important that the students get exposed to English as much as possible, and if you change between Swedish and English all the time, the “flow” [air quotes used] will be disturbed and the students will have to jump between the languages more than needed. (USS3)
This might also have something to do with the fact that all six teachers reflected on the fact that in Eng 5 it is explicitly stated that English should be used during the lessons and that it is not
mentioned in EN.
4.2.2 Teachers’ interpretations and concretisations of the core contents
The CS teachers’ interpretations of the core content for EN is that it is the material they should use during lessons. Whereas two of the CS teachers also advocated that it is mandatory content, CS2 used it as inspiration.
When it comes to concretisation of the core content of EN, CS1 stated that she would ”most of the time make sure that the core content is reflected in daily lessons but most of all be present in the task we work with”. The other two teachers stated more clearly that they concretise the core content
in topics that relate to the curriculum, i.e. if they are working with writing they make sure to use genres which the core content expresses that they are supposed to work with. Furthermore, CS3 pointed out a close connection between the aim and the core content when stating that:
Since the core content should reflect the aim, and the aim is to teach students English, I make sure to use English during class. That way the students get the language and the aim, regardless of what we work with from the core content. The core content is just means to teach English (CS3).
When discussing what material the CS teachers preferred in order to concretise the core content for EN they referred back to their statements regarding the aim: they focus on fundamentality. CS1 explained that the students ”need a foundation before they can use more complicated language”. Thus, they stated that they usually work with textbooks containing exercises, listening activities and short texts, rather than authentic texts or audio clips from e.g. the internet, and labeled level books rather than full novels. Their motivation for this is that there are textbooks aimed at year seven to nine of CS which have little focus on formality. Two of these teachers stated that they use textbooks exclusively because ”textbooks of this kind often have an easier language than other texts found on the internet” (CS1) and ”create logic in their [the students] education” (CS3). Furthermore, the CS teachers use labeled level books, which can be abridged books of novels or short novels with different levels of difficulty based on e.g. the CERF’s levels of language proficiency. The
motivation given by CS2 and CS3 for using these kinds of books is that students ”are able to deduce more when they have easier texts to work with” (CS2).
The USS teachers stated that they interpret the core content for Eng 5 as what they need to use during the lessons. USS2 stated that the core content is ”the reason I give my students for what we are doing” and the other two teachers stated that it is mandatory content to be used during lessons. In order to concretise the core content USS3 stated that she uses it ”to connect all things to the students” which she explained: ”I use the core content in order to find what we should be working with, for example realia, and connect that to the students”. This way of concretising the core content was shared by all of the USS teachers. Furthermore, the teachers’ focus on complexity in USS was also reflected in the teachers concretisation of the core content. USS2 stated that it was an important part of the course;
not only because the students need to be able to understand difficult words in life, but also because they need to be able to use difficult language if they are going to use it in their profession or studies (USS2).
However, USS3 did not focus on formal or academic language and diverged from the other
teachers’ answers because of the low level of proficiency of her current group. Since the teachers in USS focus more on formal and academic language, they also stated a dislike for using textbooks as they are ”too repetitive” (USS3). Although he stated a dislike, USS1 expressed that at times he uses textbooks as a tool but only because he finds it ”easier than looking for good authentic audio or texts online” (USS1), and for in-between tasks in order for students to have something to work with if they finish faster than the rest of the group with their current task. With regard to labeled level books, USS teachers expressed that they rarely use them and prefer full length novels during their lessons. However, USS3, who agreed with the other two USS teachers, stated that in her current group she uses labeled level books. According to her, the reason for this is that ”the group has a low level of proficiency […] they need something easy to understand to […] learn something” (USS3). Even if four of the six teachers advocated the core content as mandatory content, and two used it as either inspiration or purpose, how they concretise it shows major differences. Firstly, the CS
teachers seemed to concretise it by connecting the tasks to the core content whereas the teachers at USS seemed to connect the core content to the students. Secondly, the clearest differences between how the CS teachers concretise the core content for EN and how the USS teachers concretise the core content for Eng 5 is the materials they choose to work with. According to Englund (1999, p. 399), textbooks create structure to the teaching, which CS3 implied. Furthermore, the fact that the CS teachers focus on vocabulary and grammar points to the CS teachers working with EFL teaching method GTM, which handles more simplistic and basic language understanding. The USS teachers seemed to work more with authentic materials and seemed to connect the content to their students to a greater extent, suggesting a clear connection to EFL teaching methods such as CLT and CLIL, which focuses on authenticity and teaching content as well as the language (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). The fact that there seemed to be a consensus between the teachers on the same level, e.g. in CS or USS, might reflect shared pedagogic principles (Borg, 2003). The fact that the teachers in CS seemed to connect the core content to the assignments and the USS teachers connect it to the students might also be one of these pedagogic principles. Thus showing a difference in how CS and USS teachers choose to work with the core content. Furthermore, since USS3 agreed with the other teachers in USS but worked in a different way in her current group shows the affect of context (as explained by Borg, 2003).
4.2.3 Teachers’ interpretations and concretisations of the knowledge requirements
All of the teachers in CS stated that they do not feel like they interpret the knowledge requirements more than that they are for assessment. CS1 stated that ”they are just a guide to know how the students perform” which is arguably very interesting, since the knowledge requirements according to Skolverket (2011a; 2018) are not a guide but rather the framework in order to make sure students get a grade or not. Since all teachers in CS seemed to share this sentiment, they seem to focus on the purpose of the knowledge requirements rather than interpret what they actually mean.
Since the teachers in CS seemed to interpret the purpose rather than the different knowledge requirements, they all stated that the way they concretise the knowledge requirements is through assessment. However, CS1 stated that ”I only make sure that the tests are formed so they [the students] can reach the goals”, which might contradict her previous statement. If she creates tests and assignments in order for the students to reach the goals of the knowledge requirements, she must have interpreted the meaning to some extent at least. It also shows that she concretises the knowledge requirements through tasks.
The teachers in USS interpret the knowledge requirements as tools for assessment. However, they seemed to focus on the actual meaning of the knowledge requirements as opposed to the teachers in CS. The interpretation of the meaning is expressed by USS3 who pointed out that the knowledge requirements are difficult to interpret at times, especially when assessing oral production:
What does relatively structured mean? Relative to what? Is it relative to me, an English teacher? […] Is it relative to the other students, the other knowledge requirements or a native speaker? (USS3)
However, USS2 did not seem to share this sentiment. He explained that he ”simply follows the guidelines put forth by Skolverket”. The difference between USS3 and USS2 might be explained by their respective years of experience, USS3 had one year of experience whereas USS2 had 30 years of experience, which Borg (2003) stated is one factor that might influence teachers.
The teachers in USS expressed that besides concretising the knowledge requirements through assessment, they concretise the knowledge requirements through matrixes and discussions with their students. The teachers in USS also stated that the knowledge requirements are a good tool to use in order for students to see the purpose; ”students want to know what will be assessed in order for them to do their best and reach those goals” (USS1). USS3 also agreed with this and stated that since her students have a low language proficiency, it is even more important to discuss the
knowledge requirements, otherwise ”it is like telling someone to do a job they have never done and then tell them that they will be graded on how well they can figure out what I want to see” (USS3). USS3 also pointed out the concretisation through matrixes designed by her school’s English
department:
It is wonderful for me to see how the rest of the English department in my school has interpreted the knowledge requirements and then I can use their simplified matrixes when I discuss them with my students, instead of trying to explain to them what relatively [emphasises used] means (USS3).
Previous statements show that the teachers at CS and USS interpret the knowledge requirements in their respective curricula differently. The CS teachers interpret the purpose of them whereas the USS teachers interpret the actual meaning of the individual knowledge requirements. The fact that CS teachers did not express that they discuss the knowledge requirements, whereas the USS teachers did, might explain why they do not focus on the meaning of them. These differences in interpretation might show a pedagogic principle (as explained by Borg, 2003) shared by the CS teachers where they do not, or at least do not recognise that they, interpret the individual knowledge requirements.
This pedagogic principle might also be reflected in how the three teachers who had experience teaching in merged group worked. CS2 stated that in order to teach the class he ”taught the same for all students” e.g. teaching Eng 5 but assessing differently based on what course the student is
studying, which might reflect the fact that he does not use the knowledge requirements in any other way than in assessment. USS3 asked her colleagues for help and ”[…] ended up teaching the same for all [students] even if it felt unfair for the students”. Her reasoning behind this might reflect the context (as explained by Borg, 2003), she stated that she decided to work this way because it ”was the easiest way” (USS3). Her reasoning might be explained by her years of experience, and the fact that she consulted with her colleagues in order to make this decision. USS2 was the only teacher in this group that, instead of teaching the same material on some in-between level, taught the students individually with different tasks depending on the course. Even if the teachers’ accounts show that they work differently with merged groups, they all stated that they assess the students according to their respective course. The teacher who worked with the courses separately, i.e. gave the students different tasks depending on the course, did not state that using the knowledge requirements was a difficulty. However, the teachers who taught the same material for the entire group stated that this was difficult. What made it difficult for CS2 was the fact that “an E in English 5 is basically a C in English for year nine”, which is a major difference.
4.3 Visible progression between the curricula
To discuss visible progression between the curricula, both the textual analysis and the interviews are being used.
4.3.1 Progression between the aims
Both the textual analysis and the teachers’ accounts of interpretations and concretisations show a progression between the aim in EN and Eng 5. The progression seen in the textual analysis is slight. The fact that there is a progression at all might be due to its basis in the CEFR. As mentioned in section 2.1.2, EN and Eng 5 are both thought to represent CEFR level B1 (Oscarson, 2015). The slight progression shown in the analysis might be explained by the high and low distinction
(Oscarson, 2015). However, it might also be explained by the fact that the over-all aim of both EN and Eng 5 is to teach English. A third explanation for the slight progression is based on Muller’s (2006) definition of progression on a spectrum of vertical and horizontal subjects (see section 2.2.3), where English then would fit in on the middle with moderate progression.
A more significant progression was seen through the teachers’ accounts. Their interpretations and concretisations have shown that there is a linear progression going from fundamentality in CS to complexity in USS, which according to Harden et al. (2006) is a common progression . The
teachers’ interpretation of teaching basic English in CS and English use in the world in USS would alter the focus of the courses as well as the level of difficulty since e.g. ordering food is arguably simpler than using English in e.g. further studies.
The teachers who had experience teaching merged groups expressed the progression between the courses more clearly. CS2 stated that
The biggest difference is the goal. English for year nine is to prepare for upper secondary school and English 5 is to prepare for use in the world. (CS2)
USS2 seemed to share this sentiment and stated that ”English for year nine is basically just a stepping-stone for English 5”.
4.3.2 Progression between the core content
Progression between the core content is noticeable in the textual analysis where Eng 5 contains content which does not exist in EN (see section 4.1.2). The added content indicates a higher
expectation on the students in Eng 5, partly because of the amount of content and partly because of the more difficult phenomena, and shows partly a cyclical progression (Harden et al., 2006; Muller, 2006) where the same content is present, but also a progression of more content, e.g. on the vertical axis (as explained by Harden et al., 2006).
Progression between the core content is especially noticeable when it comes to what material the teachers work with at different levels, i.e. labeled level books in CS and authentic texts and novels in USS. According to the teachers, authentic texts are more advanced which Torell (2017) also explains is one argument for not using authentic texts, as it is perceived as more difficult.
Furthermore, it is more difficult to read a full novel than an abridged one, thus a progression from more simple materials to more difficult shows a progression in the teachers’ accounts of their interpretation and concretisation. Moreover, the fact that USS3 worked with material more akin to the CS teachers because of the low level of proficiency she stated that her students had, indicates that there must be a progression from EN to Eng 5 based on simplicity. If EN were not more simple, there would be a difference between how USS3 and the CS teachers worked.
Based on material and what the teachers at the different levels focus on, it seems that the progression between the curricula is also noticeable in EFL teaching methods the teachers
implement. The teachers in CS seemed to use methods such as GTM (as explained by Harden et al., 2006), while USS teachers seemed to implement methods more in line with CLIL and CLT, which focus on teaching content as well as teaching the language and the authenticity of the language interaction (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). However, USS3 seemed to work with GTM more than her peers, since the level of language proficiency was low in her current group. This shows a
progression from simpler methodological tasks in GTM, e.g. translation, to more advanced tasks in e.g. CLIL, pointing to a progression based on simplicity.
The teachers who had experience teaching merged groups show that the progression is visible in how the core content expresses that it should be adapted to the students. Eng 5 expresses that it should be adapted to the students lives, their programme and work (Skolverket, 2011a) whereas EN states that it should be adapted to what is familiar to the students (Skolverket, 2018). However, even if the three teachers agreed on this, it was only USS2 who taught merged groups as separate
courses. Even if it is perplexing that the teachers who were in agreement did not teach the courses in similar fashion, it might be explained on the one hand by the similarities in the core content
overweighing the differences, and on the other hand by context, i.e time and resources, one factor Borg (2003) presents as influencing teachers.
4.3.3 Progression between the knowledge requirements
As for progression between the knowledge requirements, it was shown in the textual analysis that there is a progression based on what the students are expected to show in order to receive the
different grades. To do something with certainty (Skolverket, 2011a), is arguably more difficult than ”to some extent” (Skolverket, 2018) know how to. This is the type of progression that Harden et al. (2006) explains is the most common progression in language learning, i.e. from easier phenomena to more difficult. Furthermore, the progression shown is based on slight differences in the
knowledge requirements since the major parts of knowledge requirements are identical, pointing towards the circulation of content, i.e. a progression more cyclical (Harden et al., 2006; Muller, 2006). The fact that content is circulated between EN and Eng 5 was also made noticeable by CS3 who stated that “an E in English 5 is basically a C in English for year nine”. Her statement also showed a progression in what is expected of the students for the different the grades in the different courses.
The teachers worked in different ways with the knowledge requirements depending on what level of English education they were teaching. Progression can be seen in the responsibility the teachers put on the students. The teachers in CS arguably put more responsibility on themselves whereas the teachers in USS share the responsibility with their students. Since the teachers in USS discuss the knowledge requirements with their students, they place a certain part of the responsibility on the students as well, whereas it is only up to the teachers in CS to make sure the students are able to reach the knowledge requirements. The fact that the teachers in CS and USS worked similarly based on what level of English education they were teaching, might show a shared pedagogic principle (as explained by Borg, 2003), i.e. a shared pedagogic principle in USS would be to discuss the
knowledge requirements with the students.
5. Concluding discussion
The results of this study show that there is a visible progression in the actual curricula as well as the teachers’ interpretations and concretisations of the curricula. Interestingly, the progression in the curricula is made more noticeable by the teachers’ interpretations and concretisations, especially
when they are taught separately. In merged groups, it seems as though the progression is less noticeable, which in itself is understandable since there are difficulties teaching two courses at the same time.
Since the curricula show a progression and the teachers also expressed that there is a significant difference, especially with regard to the aims of the courses, merged groups should also reflect the same progression or not be merged groups at all. It is not beneficial to teach one course that is viewed as a stepping-stone together with the next step that it is preparing for. Furthermore, the fact that teachers in CS and USS use different materials and EFL teaching methods when the courses are taught separately also reflects an issue with teaching them simultaneously. The actual progression of materials from e.g. labeled level books in CS to full novels in USS, and working methods from GTM to CLIL arguably makes Eng 5 more difficult than EN. This is a testament to the teachers’ expressed views of fundamentality in EN versus complexity in Eng 5, and it would therefore not benefit the students if the two different courses were taught in the same group. With the exception of teaching the two courses separately within the merged group, as one of the teachers in this study did.
Another major finding in this study shows that the CS teachers’ interpretations of the knowledge requirements differ from the USS teachers’ interpretations. This might be due to the fact that the USS teachers expressed an importance of discussing them with the students, and would therefore put more time and effort into interpreting the meaning of every different knowledge requirement. However, the CS teachers also stated that the knowledge requirements are reflected in tasks they create and would therefore suggest that they have interpreted the meaning of specific knowledge requirements. Furthermore, they need to understand and interpret the knowledge requirements in order to grade the students in a fair way. Perhaps a shared pedagogic principle (as explained by Borg, 2003) of not discussing the knowledge requirements might be the reason for a lack of interpretation, or at least realisation of interpretation, among the CS teachers.
These findings are hard to relate to previous studies since this study examines a specific issue which has not been examined in this manner before. However, it is possible, in relation to the sources used in this study, to deduce that progression between EN and Eng 5 is moderate and might be placed in the middle of Muller’s (2006) axes of progression. Since there is more content in Eng 5 than in EN it suggests that it would fit on the vertical axis, but the fact that progression within the curricula remains slight proves it to fit on the horizontal axis. Therefore, it arguably fits in the middle of
