It was because of the teacher – Consequences from the hidden curriculum,
in the form of teachers’ speech and actions, when teaching the subjects of
science and technology
Gunilla Gunnarsson, PhD, Senior lecturer in pedagogical, Department of Education, Linnaeus
University, Sweden gunilla.gunnarsson@lnu.se
Maria Hedlin, PhD, Senior lecturer in pedagogical, Department of Education, Linnaeus University,
Sweden (coworker, not presenting this paper)
Even though there are many studies done throw out the years about how to develop teaching in science
and technology to promote students interest and encourage their learning, students’ interest and
learning in those subjects seems to decrease (cf. PISA, 2013).
Several studies of later years have shown the importance of the teachers’ competence to promote
students’ learning (cf. Hattie, 2009). In this study we highlight the importance of the teacher for
students’ interest and learning in science and technology from an “ex-student perspective”. 79
preschool teacher students, whose choice are another work carrier than within science and technology,
wrote, with help from some supporting questions, about memories from their own school time and the
teaching in science and technology (cf. Hedlin & Gunnarsson, 2014).
What the students write is seen as a kind of expression of the lived and sometimes hidden curriculum
(cf. Broady, 2007). Some students wrote that they did not remember so much from the teaching in
those subjects on the whole, explaining this with all temporary teachers in those subjects. A majority
of the students had negative memories from the teaching. Furthermore the greater part of the students
explicitly mentioned the teacher as the cause of their (un)interest in those subjects. What was
mentioned, besides teachers’ subject competence, was above all teachers’ treatment of students in
speech and action both social and didactic, that is how the “hidden curriculum” was expressed. In
other words it was the teachers’ ability to pave the way to good relations, to engage and help and
support all students. One of the preschool teacher students summarized this: “A and O is that you get
on well together with the teacher and that the teacher makes the teaching amusing and interesting”.
In this study it is shown that the teacher’s social and didactical/pedagogical competence respectively
gives consequences for students’ learning and further interest in the subjects. But if the teacher has a
great number of students in a form and encounters several forms in the teaching, it is hard to learn to
know all the students and by that to get didactical/pedagogical finger-tip-sensitivity and social
engagement for all the students.
Some important references
Broady, D. (2007). Den dolda läroplanen. Göteborg: Krut: kritiskutbildningstidskrift, nr. 127 (3/2007).
Gunnarsson, G. (2008). Den laborativa klassrumsverksamhetens interaktioner. Doktorsavhandling.
Studies in Science and Technology Education, No 24. Linköping: Linköpings Universitet.
Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
London: Routledge.
Hedlin, M. & Gunnarsson, G. (2014). Preschool student teachers, technology, and gender: Positive
expectations despite mixed experiences from their own school days. Early Child Development and
Care, 2014.
PISA 2012 (2013) Skolverket.se.