The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN) recently published a report on the renewed interest in evidence-based teaching methods, sparking a significant reaction. School Minister Lotta Edholm welcomed this shift, expressing her hope that teachers and school leaders feel supported by the changing school policies. Edholm highlighted the widespread sentiment among teachers that their training lacked a scientific foundation, viewing the current movement towards evidence-based methods as a positive development, albeit a belated one. She attributes the prolonged reliance on less effective methods to a series of missteps beginning in the early 1990s, where well-intentioned reforms inadvertently undermined the existing educational system.
The 1990s saw the rise of constructivism in Swedish schools, a philosophy emphasizing student-led learning and relegating teachers to the role of facilitators. The 1994 curriculum reflected this approach, prioritizing the development of independent learning skills over the acquisition of foundational knowledge. This pedagogical approach was intended to prepare students for the anticipated influx of information in the burgeoning knowledge society. However, Edholm argues that this approach disproportionately benefited students from privileged backgrounds, leaving those lacking home support at a significant disadvantage. She cites a document from the then-municipal association which explicitly avoided the term ”teaching,” illustrating the prevailing philosophy of the time.
Jonas Linderoth, a professor of pedagogy at Gothenburg University, contends that constructivism’s prevalence stemmed from its cost-effectiveness. By placing the onus of learning on students, this approach reduced the need for extensive teacher preparation and resources. This financial advantage, he argues, explains its persistent use in both primary and higher education. Edholm adds that Sweden’s стремление to be at the forefront of innovation contributed to the adoption of unproven pedagogical practices, such as the emphasis on entertaining lessons and the concept of individualized learning styles. Coupled with a school choice reform prioritizing profit over student outcomes, these factors created a detrimental environment for effective learning.
The transition to evidence-based teaching necessitates increased funding, argues Linderoth. He draws a parallel to his own university lectures, explaining that while he is compensated for three hours of preparation for a one-hour lecture, a truly effective presentation requires a full week’s worth of work. Extrapolating this to primary education, Linderoth estimates that a teacher might need two to three days of preparation for a single one-hour lesson, although subsequent lessons could reuse these materials with adjustments for different students and contexts. He emphasizes that quality instruction, like any skilled craft, requires time and investment, likening it to the cost of a high-end product like a Bang & Olufsen stereo. The assumption that different pedagogical approaches have equal costs is naive, he asserts.
While the financial implications of a shift to evidence-based teaching remain unclear, Linderoth’s analogy underscores the need for substantial investment. The question arises: is the School Minister prepared to meet this financial demand? Edholm believes a unique opportunity exists due to the declining birth rate, which mitigates the previously anticipated teacher shortage. This, she suggests, frees up resources that can be redirected towards improving the quality of instruction. The government aims to strengthen state regulation and funding of schools, as evidenced by the ongoing review of national school funding standards. Edholm criticizes past expenditures on ill-conceived initiatives, such as the previous digitalization strategy, emphasizing the need for more careful allocation of resources.
In conclusion, the renewed focus on evidence-based teaching methods in Sweden signals a potential turning point in educational policy. While constructivism offered a seemingly cost-effective approach, its long-term impact on student outcomes has been questioned. The shift towards teacher-led instruction grounded in cognitive science principles holds promise but requires significant investment. The declining birth rate and the government’s commitment to increased regulation and funding create a favorable environment for this transition. However, the success of this reform hinges on the willingness to prioritize effective pedagogy over cost-cutting measures, acknowledging that quality education, like any valuable craft, demands appropriate investment.
