Student Led Parent Conferences – An Evaluation Paper presented at ECER 2013, European Conference on Educational Research in Istanbul.

Dr. Ann S. Pihlgren Stockholm University SE- 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

ann.pihlgren@isd.su.se

Abstract Research shows that most of the talking in parent-teacher conferencesi is done by the teacher and

the parent, with few opportunities for the student to express ideas or pose questions. Most

conferences tend to focus on the shortcomings of the student, and their documentation becomes

means to show the student appropriate behaviors, rather than focusing on learning progress.

Student led parent conferences aim at shifting the dialogue in favor of the student’s voice and

opinions. The work starts with a thematic unit during 1-2 weeks, where the students self-assess their

abilities and knowledge in each subject area. Each student and his/her teachers discuss results and

future learning goals and activities. This thematic unit ends with each student leading a conference,

where the parent will be informed of the student’s present progress and of the learning goals and

activities suggested henceforth. The teacher will participate when the goals are agreed on, but will

otherwise stay in the background during the conference.

The underlying ideas are socio-cognitive, socio-constructive, and formative: If the student

understands his/her results, goals, and means to get there, learning will be more effective. The

reflective dialogue, a recurrent working order, and meta-cognitive thinking will have impact on

learning.

In this qualitative study, students, teachers, parents, and school leaders from two schools have been

interviewed in groups. The schools have practiced student led parent conferences for five and ten

years. As when the method was initiated ten years ago, this project is a joint venture, the researcher

and the participating schools cooperate. This makes the project innovative, even though the

methods are conventional. The research questions address how the respondents describe the effects

of the student led parent conferences, compared to teacher led conferences, on pedagogical

planning, school results, and administration, and differences between the schools.

Important findings are that the student, when participating in student led parent conferences,

understands, describes, and makes strategic decisions about his/her development. Formative and

understandable documentation is imperative if the student is to be able to shoulder the attempted

responsibility. These conferences are more informative, have higher pedagogical qualities, and will

introduce a more egalitarian division of power, where the student, not the teacher, is an active

subject. Teacher and parent roles change to be more cooperative. The results point to the necessity

of introducing the strategy to new parents, and to recurrently inform and educate them over the

years, to explain the value of the conference, and their role. The teacher’s ability to understand why

different methodological steps are carried out affects how the conferences are carried out and hence

the effects on student learning. This shows the importance of educating the teachers about

pedagogical theory connected to the conferences. From a European perspective, student led

conferences offer students, parents, and teachers a better chance to develop crucial information as

well as superior education.

Keywords: parent conference, learning, feedback, meta-cognition, student influence

Introduction As in other European countries, the official theories about how students learn, as presented in the

central curricula in Sweden, have changed over time. These changes have had an impact on the

parent-teacher conferences (Pihlgren, 2011a): During the 1960’s the Swedish central curricula were

behavioristic (Lgr 69), and the parent-teacher conference was focused on how the student was

adapting to school standards. Through the 1980ies (Lgr 80) maturity and the wellbeing of the

students were focused on. Today, the Swedish curricula (Lpfö 98, Lgr 11, Lgy 11), as in many other

European countries, are inspired by theories of Lev S. Vygotsky and Mikhail Bakhtin, considering

learning a social process, developing in interaction (Pihlgren, 2011a). A pedagogical dialogue is in this

paradigm central if learning is to take place (Dysthe, 1996; Säljö, 2000). The teacher will arrange this

interactive learning, and will also have to ensure that the student and parent understand the

structures behind learning, how work and products are assessed, and what will be the next step

towards the learning goal, through pedagogical systems.

The traditional parent-teacher conference is held by the teacher, and offers information to the

parent (Pihlgren, 2011a), the student not being present (Hackmann, et al, 1998). However, in Sweden

the student has been present since the 1980ies, something that increases the productivity of the

meeting (Minke et al, 2003). According to Swedish law (Skollagen, 2010:800) a personal plan for the

student should be documented during the conference, with a written assessment of how the

student’s results relate to the standards of the curriculum in all subjects. This documentation should

show student progression, and must be understandable to the student and the parent (Skolverket,

2009). The documentation should inform the parents of the student’s results and further

development, serve as source for school and teacher planning, and develop the student’s self-

assessment abilities. Students in other European countries are generally not subject to the same type

of documentation (Hirsh, 2012). The Swedish ‘utvecklingssamtal’ (e.g. development dialogue), a

parent-teacher-student conference, has formative focus on student’s achievements. Problems or

special needs are supposed to be addressed in separate meetings, with separate types of

documentations, ‘åtgärdsprogram’ (remedial program) (Skollagen, 2010:800), equivalent to the

English IEP, ’Individual Education Plan’(Hirsh, 2012).

Student led parent conferences are an expansion of the traditional parent-teacher conference, with

the intention of giving the student and the parent active roles (Moreau, 2008; Pihlgren, 2011b). The

aims are to help the student to focus his/her learning in order to support good results and to shift

the dialogue in favor of the student’s voice and opinions. The suggested working order starts with a

thematic unit during 1-2 weeks, where the students self-assess their abilities and knowledge in each

subject area (Pihlgren, 2011b; Wirström Nilsson, 2010). Each student and his/her teachers discuss

results and plan future learning goals and activities (Pihlgren, 2006). Through this procedure the

student and the teacher will be able to get a common understanding of the present progress and

what will be the next step for the student. Products, representing the progress or achievement of the

student, are chosen to illustrate the assessment, and the student will use these and the

communicated assessment to present his/her knowledge and goals to the parent. The conference is

then rehearsed with a classmate, role playing as a parent, and revised if necessary. The thematic unit

ends with each student leading a conference, where his/her parents are informed of the student’s

present knowledge and abilities and of the learning goals and activities suggested henceforth. The

student uses an agenda to help keep in focus. The teacher will participate when the goals are agreed

on, but will otherwise stay in the background during the conference. The conference is finally

evaluated by all participants and the documentation is saved to help planning the future work and

will be evaluated at the next conference, a half a year later.

The purpose of student led parent conferences is that the student, by reflecting on his/her

knowledge, competence, and future goals, (alone, with the teacher, with a friend, and finally with the

parent), will understand how to proceed in learning.

Although numerous parent-teacher conferences are performed every year, there is limited

knowledge of how they are performed (Hofvendahl, 2010). Student led parent conferences have

hardly been systematically evaluated before. This research evaluates the effects after using the

student led parents conferences for a longer time. The participating schools, Village School and

Small-town School (both pseudonyms), have used the method for five and ten years.

Literature Lev S. Vygotsky (1978) considers that all individuals to have a proximal zone, only reachable in

interaction. The context and the activities that the teacher constructs will mediate what is important.

In dialogue the student will learn to have an inner dialogue (Linell, 1998). The underlying ideas of the

student led conference are socio-cognitive, socio-constructive, and formative: If the student

understands his/her results, goals and means to get there, learning will be more effective (Pihlgren,

2011a).

This realization will be enhanced by formative assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Sadler, 1989).

When complex knowledge and abilities are assessed, and communicated to the students, rubrics

could be used (Jönsson & Svingby, 2007). Rubrics will visualize quality levels, describe criteria within

the subject area, and show indicators of different levels of competence (Hortlund et. al, 2005;

Wiggins, 1998). Formative conferences can be done without using rubrics, but the teacher will still

have to show what is demanded of the student (Körling, 2010). The student should internalize the

rubrics as expectations rather than seeing them as checklists of tasks, if rubrics are to be efficient in

learning (Ritchhart, 2002), and the teacher should consider them working tools rather than as

objective instruments (Stagg Peterson & McClay, 2010). Learning to use rubrics takes training,

experience, and time, especially in the beginning (Lindström, 2002; Pihlgren, 2006).

Self assessment and feedback to students from teacher and peers are successful ways to enhance

students learning (Hattie & Timberley, 2007; Hawe et.al, 2008). Most students are able to assess

their level of knowledge, even if students with special needs may have problems with self

assessment (Hattie, 2009). Self- and peer-assessment have to be coordinated with the teacher’s

assessment in the beginning (Pihlgren, 2013). Assessment also has to be practiced regularly.

Research shows that university students have a hard time assessing their performance or

understanding the teacher’s assessment without support (Jönsson, 2011; Bek, 2012). Gradually, by

being shown qualities and areas of improvements, the students will learn to interpret and evaluate

their own and others performances (Hetland et al, 2007; Lindström in Lindström et al, 2011). The

teacher will have to realize that assessing is a process, where the student is an active participant,

gradually grasping and understanding the assessment criteria (Boistrup- Björklund in Lindström et al,

2011; Hawe et al, 2008). The teacher should pose meta-cognitive questions, give feedback on

products and processes, visualize the assessment criteria, and train the students to self-assess (Stagg

Peterson & McClay, 2010). Teachers often understand the importance of giving feedback and

visualizing the assessment criteria, but only a few teachers actually work with meta-cognitive

questions or training students to self-assess (Pihlgren, 2013b).

However, all feedback does not have learning effects (Hattie & Timberley, 2007). Research implicates

that feedback on a personal level, where the student is encouraged, praised, or scolded, have no

effects on learning, nor does feedback placing the students along a scale, like grades or test results,

or collective feedback to the class. Feedback on the student’s working process is most effective, as is

feedback on a meta-cognitive level, visualizing how learning came about. Feedback on results has a

somewhat weaker effect. Both positive and negative feedback seem to give effects on learning.

Research shows that students generally have little influence in school (Aspán, 2009; Danell, 2006;

Persson, 2010). The teacher led conference is mainly performed between the teacher and the

parent, with the teacher as the main speaker. It’s focused on the shortcomings of the student

(Hackmann et al, 1998; Hofvendahl, 2006; MacLure et al, 2000). The information dissects the

student’s present results, instead of setting developing goals (Tholander & Norrby, 2008; Lindh-

Munther & Lindh, 2005). Teachers tend to assess student’s character, ability to work, and to be

productivity, orderliness, and behavior instead of knowledge progression (Andersson, 2010; Elfström,

2005; Vallberg Roth & Månsson, 2008). The more diffuse the assessment criteria are, the more open

the assessment will be to subjective interpretations and personal comments (Giota, 2006; Pihlgren,

2011a). High performing students are more often judged from their performance than low

performing, where the teacher tends to include the student’s personal character and adjust the

judgment to the student’s personal qualities (Eggen in Lundahl et al, 2010). Part of the teacher’s

assessment is also related to the student’s willingness to learn. The conference and its

documentation become a means to show the student expected ways to behave properly (Granath,

2008; Mårell-Olsson, 2012). The assessor has power over the individual’s identity, self- esteem, and

future, as well as power to interpret what society considers valuable (Korp, 2003). The schools tend

to see the documentation as means to motivate the student, rather than as part of the school quality

development program. The quality of the documentation differs widely between different schools

and teachers (Giota, 2012; Skolverket, 2010), plus, the parent and student are often given the

responsibility for realizing the goals, while the teacher’s area of responsibility is not specified. This

might lead to difficulties for children with less support at home.

The same difficulties seem to occur when writing the IEP documents (Tennant, 2007). An Irish study

shows that students and parents feel less involvement if the documentation is complicated (Prunty,

2011). Documentation can become bureaucratic and time-consuming resulting in the teacher making

simplified and mechanical assessments (Gross, 2000; SENCo-Foum, 2001). However, the IEP-process

can have a positive effect on learning, if the goals are kept to three or four, and if the teacher

believes in the method (Hirsh, 2012).

Teacher attitudes towards the documentation could be described in three categories (Hirch, 2012).

One group sees the documentation as information given to the parent (and the student) about the

student’s performance and shortcomings. It considers the documentation time-consuming, with no

pedagogical effects. Another group considers the documentation as the pedagogical core of the

education, a revisable document that continuously is used to show students’ goals and learning

processes. The third group makes great efforts to formulate a correct language in their assessing

documents. This group wants to work formatively but loses important aspects of learning, since the

documentation is too difficult to understand, or to extensive, focusing on the results rather than the

formative plan (Hirsh, 2012). This group is highly represented in the present Swedish practice

(Hofvendahl, 2010). The teacher tends to read out loud – or ask the student to read – the teacher’s

assessment in the conference, giving the assessment a sense of being not negotiable.

Internationally, meetings are generally shorter, five to thirty minutes (Hackmann et al, 1998;

MacLure & Walker, 2000), compared to the student led parent conference, which lasts

approximately an hour (Pihlgren, 2011a). The student talks the double amount of time in the student

led conference, compared to the teacher led one. The student clarifies his/her problems and

potentials, rather than having them described by the teacher (Tholander & Norrby, 2008). If the

teacher takes part in the whole conference, he/she tends to take command (Hofvendahl in Lundahl

et al, 2010). If the teacher doesn’t participate there is a risk that the student passively reads the

documentation or communicates it incorrectly.

Evaluations of student led parent conferences in the USA and Sweden show improved student

results, ability to plan, and to self-assess. Parents are more satisfied with the information, their role

in the conference, and their cooperation with school. Teachers use conference and documentation

more effectively (Brolin Juhlin et al, 2012; Pihlgren, 2006; Stråle, 2012).

Methods This paper presents the effects of using the student led parent conferences systematically for five

and ten years in two schools. Village School is a municipal school in a larger rural area, including 250

students grade K-6, most of them travelling to school by bus. The school is situated close to the

medieval village church, and recruit children from farms and from a close-by villa area. Many parents

have a high school education or more, a good income, and there are few students with other cultural

backgrounds than Swedish. Small-town School is a K-9 charter school with pre-school, 200 students,

and is run as a staff cooperative. It is situated in a town surrounded by a rural area, and several

children travel to school by bus. The parents have differing educational backgrounds with a stress on

academics. Small-town school participated in constructing the theoretical framework, objectives, and

routines for the student led parent conferences, now practiced at both schools (Pihlgren, 2006).

The following research questions have guided the research:

How do the respondents describe the effects of the student led parent conferences,

compared to the teacher led conferences, in the areas of information, student’s educational

and social development, on interaction and cooperation among parent-student-teacher, and

on conference procedure?

How (if so) do leaders and teachers describe that the student led parent conferences have

changed teachers’ and the schools’ pedagogical planning, the schools’ results (national tests,

grades), and administration?

What differences (if any) can be found when comparing the two schools’ descriptions of the

effects of the student led parent conferences?

This is a qualitative study, where 20 students, 16 parents, 12 teachers, and 9 school leaders

(principals and team leaders) were interviewed in eleven semi-structured group interviews. The

respondents have experience from participating in four or more student led conferences, and some

from teacher led conferences. Respondents were chosen to represent differing aspects concerning

age, gender, occupation (parents), school results (students), and subjects (teachers). The schools

have read and corrected the result chapter of the study. All of the students in each school have

answered a survey in class (answered by 157 and 156 students), supported by the teacher. The

survey results confirmed the results from student interviews. School results (national tests and

grades) over time have been checked as a reference.

All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Relevant literature was used to find the focus in

the interviews. The results were analyzed and compared with literature and relevant research,

forming new categories presented in the analysis below. The results from the group interviews were

used to form the student survey, and this was tested on some students before use. The survey

results were collected by the teacher, and were analyzed and compared to the interview results (see

Appendix 1).

As the initiating project was 10 years ago, this project is a joint venture, where the researcher

cooperates with the participating schools to evaluate the outcomes of the student led parent

conferences. The two participating schools gain a research-based evaluation of their practice, and

the results inform research. This makes the project innovative, even though the methods are

considered conventional.

Ethical and method discussion

Participating in the interviews and answering the survey was voluntary and all respondents agreed to

participate. The material has been treated confidentially, and pseudonyms are used for the

respondents and schools. However, the fact that the schools have initiated the research calls for

special ethical considerations. Each school has been given personal feedback on their particular areas

of progress, not related in this report. Only the areas where the schools differ have been pointed out

in this text.

At Village School interviews, one absent student was replaced, and six of the invited parents did not

participate. The participating parents related that they had all been critical of the student led

conferences before; maybe the positive parents didn’t turn up, skewing the result. In Small-town

School one absent student was replaced. All invited parents participated. All chosen teachers and

school leaders in both schools participated in the interviews. In the survey, the participation was 96%

in Village School and 97% in Small-town School. The students in 1st grade did not participate in the

survey, as they only had experience from one student led conference each.

The results are valid for these two schools, and could not be considered general for all schools using

student led conferences. However, some general conclusions can be made from comparison with

previous research and evaluations. Reliability may have been skewed by the fact that the schools

have invested a lot of time and effort in the student led parent conferences, something considered

when the results were analyzed. The schools have paid for the research, challenging the integrity of

the researcher. To prevent this from skewing the results, the comparisons with previous research

and evaluations have been helpful. The results have been discussed with research colleagues at ECER

2013, European Conference on Educational Research in Istanbul.

Results The overall method is described by all respondents in the same way. The parents are explicit about

the steps where they participate but are unsure about the work done before and after the

conference. They know that the students prepare the conference but do not see this as a pedagogical

process, particularly not the parents at Village School. These parents do not consider the teacher part

of the goal setting; they state that goals are decided by the student and the parent, a belief that can

be traced in the student survey answers. This differs in Small-town School where the parents know

that teachers influence the goals by the preparatory work.

The parents in Village School wish that they could read the documentation before the conference,

since it is hard to understand it during the conference. However, the teachers of Small-town School,

where parents get the information before by a digital system, say that many parents don’t read the

accessible documentation.

The leaders stress the importance of the preparatory work, and that the quality of this will decide

what effects the conference will have. They point out that students will not connect the conference

to their learning, unless the teacher communicates the goals and assessments recurrently in class.

I see a visible difference. Where a thorough work is done on beforehand, where the teacher has helped the

student to understand her level of knowledge and the next step, there the level of agreement of student and

teacher, and the quality of learning in the conference, is higher.ii [School leader]

At Village School the entire conference is done at the same time in the school building. Especially the

parents point out that this can be tiresome for the younger students. Small-town School has recently

experimented with splitting the conference in two parts: The information is communicated at home,

and the portfolio and goal setting are communicated in school. The school also provides computers

before the school conference, for students and parents who haven’t read the documentation. This

makes it easier for younger students to be attentive all the time, but all students and parents don’t

take part of the documentation. Parents are summoned to the part of the conference when the

teacher participates actively and not to the part where the student relates the results and suggested

goals, and hence, student activity has failed:

In these conferences the student is less active, as in the former teacher led conferences. One loses the entire

good effect of the student led conference. [Teacher Small-town School]

Student and teacher interviews at Village School show bigger differences in the teachers’ abilities to

make goals and processes visible to the students, and also bigger differences in the routines

practiced, than at Small-town School, where most teachers use rubrics to visualize development, and

formative methods over the year. In Village School some teachers use rubrics but, according to the

students, not all use formative assessment over the year.

Documents

The parents say that the increasing central demands on schools to present informative documents to

parents have resulted in written information that barely is understandable to the students or to

parents. The students tend to read the comments from the teachers, and the conferences lose the

active participation of the student, parents and teachers say. The teachers think that the

documentation is harder to understand for younger students, where communication is needed to

make it understandable. However, the students consider the documentation easy to understand and

that documentation is extremely important if they are to take on the responsibility. No

documentation from a teacher is much worse, as is receiving documentation too late to

communicate it properly to the parent, students state. The students at Small-town School appreciate

the digital system, where goals and revisions are communicated several times during the preparatory

period. They consider their role in goal setting very important:

When writing the assessment, I would suggest goals that I want to have. Sometimes you might get a goal that

you don’t want, but this is because you have to practice it. I may not like all goals but it’s what I don’t know that

I’ll have to practice. [Student]

Most students think that their teachers keep them well informed, something confirmed in the

survey. The students in Village School say that some of their teachers don’t give them proper

feedback and that they use other methods to try to determine their level:

In [mentions a specific subject] the teacher tells us what we are supposed to learn, so there we know/--/

otherwise you will know from test results or you might compare in the work book how much others have done.

[Student Village School]

The interviewed parents take great responsibility to ensure that the student understands the goals,

sometimes without really understanding what the teacher means or what is expected of the student.

They consider a lot of the information unnecessary.

The first part where my child shows what she can and her work, that’s what I like. After that you go into the

computer and it loses, then I take over. /--/ It depended on the comments from the teacher – it was cut and

pasted. Then it feels like no value. [Parent]

Most parents want the information simple, helping them to help the child to understand how they

should continue. On the other hand, they say that they have learnt over time to understand the

curriculum and the central goals.

I can pretty quick see the core, strengths and weaknesses of my child. I see what I should bring forward… I have

understood the goals better. /--/ I think that the children will get a very clear picture of what they know and

need to practice. Just as I see the core. [Parent]

The teachers confirm that parents get a better understanding of the curriculum and goals, and that

parents overall are more satisfied with the student led information because they don’t feel assessed

themselves. The conferences gain from having several groups in the same room, as parents learn

from other parents.

The school leaders point out that they have worked with the teachers to adapt the language in the

documentation, but that teachers in the beginning tend to comment on students’ character or

behavior rather than their knowledge. The teachers confirm that it is hard to be informative and

understandable in the written documentation. Overall, the teachers say that information in the

student led conference is more nuanced and reliable, presenting a clearer picture of the student’s

abilities for all, as the information and goals are communicated and negotiated several times before

presented to the parent. The goals are made obvious to the student by the student becoming a

… specialist of his learning and school work. The parent has to hold back. [Teacher]

Effects

The students state that the conference helps them to understand and assess how they should

improve their knowledge, and to set their own level, what to invest in. This opinion was also

confirmed by the survey. The students consider the main function of the conference as motivating

them to further acquisition of knowledge. They learn to take responsibility for studying, organizing,

presenting and talking in the conference.

Neither of the respondents thinks that the conferences help students to better immediate results in

tests or grades. Instead, they all describe the abilities that are strengthened by the conferences: Self-

assessing, responsibility, goal setting, and reaching the goals. The leaders point out that the students

meet authentic meta-cognitive situations in the conference, students will have to reflect on and

assess their learning, and this will have strong effects in a lifelong learning perspective.

The respondents all point out that the student led conferences lead to higher student influence. The

younger students value their level of influence higher than the older, who describe a negotiating

process, the same way as the teachers do. The leaders, teachers, and parents state that there has

been a positive shift of power towards the student; but the teacher makes the last decision. The

students also say that the dialogue with the parent differs from that at home, the parent has to listen

to the student delivering, and the student chooses what to stress.

The teachers say their planning is highly affected by what goals will be set in the conferences, and

this is confirmed by the students. However, the students think that it’s their responsibility to work

towards reaching the goals, with some help from the teacher and the parent.

The interviewed teachers say that the student led conferences take time, especially to prepare, but

teachers who have experienced teacher led conferences state that these are even more time- and

energy-consuming, and with poorer results.

The actual [student led] conference saves time and energy, I used to be exhausted before [in the teacher led

conference] and then I also had to relate what other teachers had said. [Leader and teacher]

Teachers and leaders agree that formative assessment takes longer time, but that it results in better

understanding and responsibility among students. Other described effects of the student led

conferences are that the parents tend to come much more than before, that fathers are more

represented and sometimes even grandparents, and that it is easier to relay information to an absent

parent, as the child can repeat the informative part of the conference at home.

Roles

All students are satisfied with the conferences and don’t want the teacher to take over – that would

lead to the grown-ups talking, and that students wouldn’t be able to influence decisions. Students

also think that parents prefer to be informed by their child, not the teacher. The preparations take a

lot of hard work, but it’s worth the effort:

It becomes clear to me what I want to develop and what I can actually accomplish. I’m forced to consider what

effort I’m prepared to put into the work. It’s not the teacher’s matter, it’s mine. [Student]

The students think that they will inform the parent better than the teacher.

Teachers don’t know everything. They know some, but they don’t know all I can. [Student]

Students see it as an important part of the preparatory work to inform the teacher of their

knowledge level:

Well, it’s important to the teacher too… they get to know what you know and so on. [The interviewer: So you

inform them?] Yes, so they know. [Student]

Leaders and teachers say that there are great differences when comparing the student led

information to the teacher led, especially concerning influence:

This is a completely different conference really. Instead of relating information it’s the student who describes his

or her development. The effects are that the teacher will see the student’s situation from another and clearer

perspective. The student poses questions about his or her development, the assessment is of higher quality, and

the student’s perception of schoolwork is made visible. [School leader]

The students express that they are highly satisfied with the student led conferences, in particular

that the grown-ups have to listen to their opinions.

It’s good that you can talk to the teacher and the parent at the same time. I’m alone and get all the space to

myself. [Student]

The conversations about schoolwork at home benefit from the conferences as their parents get

better at posing questions. Four of the students have participated in teacher led conferences. They

confirm that the student led conference takes more effort, but that the positive effects will make up

for this. They remember the teacher led conferences as uninteresting and that they weren’t involved.

They remember being more worried:

I felt uncomfortable before. You sat there with the parent and the teacher and didn’t know what she would say.

Now you know what’ll happen. I feel expectant: it’ll be fun to tell the parent. But it takes more work. [Student]

The school leaders see changes in the parental role: the parents see new capacities in their children,

and they listen more to them, and pose better questions both to student and teacher. This results in

a more cooperative school-parent interaction. Most parents are very satisfied with the student led

conferences and point at the big differences to teacher led conferences.

You have really high trust in your child. You don’t have to nag, they know what to do. My older child is in high

school now, a traditional system. You see how he feels hopeless because it’s like a game where you study to the

test and the conference is something you have to do. There the parent becomes a police –’Do your homework

and turn in your assignments!’ The dialogue child-parent is different. [Parent]

They feel joy and are proud of what the child accomplishes in the conference, and express that the

relationship to their child change in a positive way:

They learn to reason. Not just telling what they know, it’s elaborate. I’m impressed of the way my child talks to

me about his knowledge. I feel like crying./--/ This is really high quality. [Parent]

Some parents have problems adapting to the participative role. They want more contact with the

teacher, or tend to take over the role as chairman, teachers and leaders state. Leaders also point out

that some teachers have problems trusting the students to inform properly. The leaders stress the

importance of educating parents and teachers in how and why the method is used.

Conclusions

Life-long responsibility for learning

The student led parent conferences give effective information to parents and students. They provide

the school with planning documentation, and the results show that they provide students with

important planning information, an effect not reached in the teacher led conferences (Hofvendahl,

2006). The student led conference is a pedagogical context (cf. Vygotskij, 1978), where the student

interact and process the learning goals (cf. Dysthe, 1996; Linell, 1998; Säljö, 2000), and take a great

responsibility for further development (cf. Pihlgren, 2006, 2011a). The student led conferences affect

the students’ abilities to take responsibility and make strategic choices in a life-long perspective (cf.

Black & Wiliam, 1998; Brolin Juhlin et al., 2012; Sadler, 1989; Stråle, 2012), and they have effects on

students’ ability to analyze, to communicate, to self-assess, and on social skills. However, in the

methodological changes made by Small-town School, the conferences reduce to become informative:

Several parents fail to understand the importance of the student led sections, and the organization

supports their misconception.

Surprisingly, the student led conferences seem to provide higher quality information than when

teachers inform the parent directly (cf. Hofvendahl in Lundahl et al, 2010); the information is more

clear, extensive, and accurate. This can probably be explained by the thorough preparatory process

and documentation, where the student and teacher communicate the assessment several times.

Compared to teacher led conferences (Hofvendahl, 2006; Granath, 2008), the student led

conferences don’t focus on the student’s deficiencies, test results, or character, but on the students

knowledge and progress. This is probably why the conferences show strong effects on students’

ability to take responsibility for learning (cf. Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Hawe et al, 2008; Lindh-

Munther & Lindh, 2005; Pihlgren, 2013; Skolverket, 2011; Tholander & Norrby, 2008).

Division of power and influence

The student led parent conferences change the division of power in the classroom (cf. Moreau, 2008;

Pihlgren, 2011b). Students talk more, and their goals influence the teachers’ planning the rest of the

year, compared to what regularly is the case (cf. Aspán, 2009; Danell, 2006; Persson, 2010). The

students are active in decision-making concerning their development, contrary to the passive student

role in teacher led conferences (Hofvendahl, 2006; Korp, 2003). They express high quality demands

on the education and the teacher. The students’ strong belief that they have an important role in the

conference probably explains their extended ability to take responsibility. Feeling important and

taking responsibility is shown in previous research to have effects on learning in a longer perspective

(Hattie & Timberley, 2007; Hattie, 2009). Hirsh (2012) points out that learning is affected by the

number of goals kept to four. The student led conferences set many more goals, which might explain

why the respondents see no immediate effects on test scores or grades.

The student and parent interact differently – the parent is active as a curious partner, and not as a

preceptor. The students show their parents that they have competences they haven’t shown before.

The parent-teacher relationships changes to cooperative and interactive, as the parent learn more

about curriculum and goals. The teacher led conferences achieve none of this. On the contrary, they

reduce the students’ influence in the learning process, and in describing his/her personality and

character (Granath, 2008; Korp, 2003; Mårell-Olsson, 2012).

The parents in the interviews worry about the complicated documentation. This is understandable,

considering their belief that they have a big responsibility to find the right goal level. They miss the

guidance of the teacher. In the interviews the teachers are aware of the parents’ lack of

understanding, but the teachers’ strategy seems to be to let the parents understand the value of the

conference on their own, by practice. These results point out how necessary it is to introduce the

process to new parents, and to recurrently inform and educate parents over the years, to explain the

value of the conference, and the parental role.

The teacher’s understanding of theory

The teacher’s ability to understand why different methodological steps are carried out affects how

the conferences are carried out and hence the effects on students’ learning. Without this

understanding, vital learning effects might get lost, as is shown in the methodological changes made

at Small-town School. The teachers seem to have relapsed to traditional action patterns, rather than

reflecting on how the steps should be changed without losing the previous good effects. However,

there is a point in splitting the conference into two segments as Small-town School has done,

especially for the younger children, to avoid fatigue.

The three teacher approaches to documentation that Hirsch’s (2012) discovered can partly be found

in the two schools. None of the teachers seem to look upon the documentation as solely information

to parents. One group of teachers seems to value the informative side, but they also see pedagogical

benefits. They spend a lot of time with, and have problems, finding a proper language, and they

consider the conference preparations as time consuming. The biggest group of the teachers seems to

consider the formative aspect as most important, and as the core of education. Small-town School

teachers almost all seem to belong to this later category. One explanation for the difference between

the schools is probably that the Small-town School have used the method twice as long – the

teachers develop and learn from practice. This suggests that the student led conferences, when

practiced for several years, change teachers’ everyday practice to a more formative one.

The students experience differences among the teachers’ approaches, especially at Village School,

due to the teachers’ different ways of coping with goal-setting, formative assessment, and probably

whether they consider formative assessment productive (cf. Giota, 2012; Skolverket, 2010). The

teacher will have to understand how evaluation can be used formatively (Bek, 2012), how complex

knowledge and competence can be visualized in systems like rubrics (Hortlund et al, 2005; Jönsson &

Svingby, 2007; Körling, 2010; Wiggins, 1998), how students develop ability to self-assess (Boistrup-

Björklund in Lindström et al, 2011; Hawe et al, 2008), and how learning is organized (Pihlgren,

2013b). If not, the students risk basing their assessment on other, less reliable sources (cf. Giota,

2006; Ritchhart, 2002).This shows the importance of educating the teachers about pedagogical

theory connected to the conferences (cf. Lindström, 2002; Pihlgren, 2006).

The important documentation

Unlike the teacher led conferences and their documentation (Giota, 2012; Skolverket, 2010), the

student led conferences provide documents that are in alignment. To the students, this

documentation is vital if they are to make strategic choices about their learning process. The results

show that most students are very familiar with their present level and next goals, especially when

their teacher works formatively over the year (cf. Skolverket, 2009). Even though the parents think

that the documentation is complicated (cf. Prunty, 2011), parents and students observe that no, or

impersonal, documentation is more or less worthless. Younger children have difficulties handling vast

amounts of documentation. No younger students were interviewed; their voice is only heard through

the parent interviews. This might account for the fact that parents worry more about the

documentation than students.

The preparatory work for younger students needs higher focus on how the work is done, and not on

extensive documentation. On the other hand, the older students could benefit from more

demanding challenges in their presentation and portfolio. The schools could probably enhance their

results from the student led parent conferences if the teachers agree on a developing structure over

the school years, where the students’ responsibility and the complexity of the tasks increase, as

students grow older.

A European perspective

Other European countries invite the parent to be informed, most often by the teacher (Hirsh, 2012;

Tennant, 2007), and evaluations show that teachers often succumb to mechanical simplifications and

assessment methods (Gross, 2000; SENCo-Foum, 2001). The student led parent conferences develop

the students’ understanding of learning processes, and give students the opportunity to make

strategic choices about their learning. This does not happen in teacher led conferences. The parents

and the students are better informed than when the teacher informs directly to the parent. The

student develops a responsibility for his/her learning and development. From a European

perspective, student led conferences offer students, parents, and teachers a better chance to

develop crucial information as well as superior education.

References Andersson, B. (2010). Introducing Assessment into Swedish Leisure–time Centres–pedagogues’

attitudes and practices. Education Inquiry, vol. 1(3) 2010, pp. 197–209.

Aspán, M. (2009). Delade meningar: Om värdepedagogiska invitationer för barns inflytande och

inkännande. [Divided opinions: About value pedagogical invitations to child influence and

recognition] D. diss. Stockholm: Pedagogic institution, Stockholm University.

Bek, A. (2012). Undervisning och reflektion. Om undervisning och förutsättningar för studenters

reflektion mot bakgrund av teorier om erfarenhetslärande. [Teaching and reflection] D. diss. Umeå

University.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment.

London: GL Assessment.

Brolin Juhlin, J., Eliasson Skarstedt, K. & Öhman Nilsson, K. (2012): Elevledda utvecklingssamtal.

[Student led parent conferences] Nacka kommun, Skolporten AB. Undervisning och lärande E-

tidsskrift 2012:4. 2013-03-20.

Danell, M. (2006). På tal om elevinflytande: hur skolans praktik formas i pedagogers samtal. [Talking

about student influence: how school praxis is formed in teachers’ conversations] D. diss. Luleå: Luleå

Technical University.

Dysthe, O. (1996). Det flerstämmiga klassrummet. [The multi-voiced classroom] Lund:

Studentlitteratur.

Elfström, I. (2005). Varför individuella utvecklingsplaner? En studie om utvärderingsverktyg i

förskolan. [Why individual development plans? A study on assessment tools in preeschool] Individ,

omvärld och lärande/ Forskning, nr 26. Stockholm: Institutionen för individ, omvärld och lärande,

Lärarhögskolan i Stockholm.

Giota, Joanna. (2012). Forskning om undervisning och lärande. Utveckling genom IUP? [Research on

teaching and learning. Development through IUP?] Virserum: Prinfo Bergs.

Giota, J. (2006). Självbedöma, bedöma eller döma? Om elevers motivation, kompetens och

prestationer i skolan. [Self-assessing, assessing or judging?] Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 11 (2), pp.

94-115.

Granath, G. (2008). Milda makter! Utvecklingssamtal och loggböcker som disciplineringstekniker.

[Mild powers! Teacher-parent-student conferences and logs as disciplining techniques] D. diss.

Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Gothenburg Universitet.

Gross, J. (2000). Paper promises? Making the code work for you. Support for Learning 15(3), pp. 126–

133.

Hackmann, D., J. Kenworthy, J. & Nibbelink, S. (1998). Student empowerment through student-led

conferences. Middle School Journal 30, pp. 35–39.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning. London: Routledge.

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, pp. 81-

112.

Hawe, E., Dixon, H. & Watson, E. (2008). Oral feedback in the context of written language. Australian

journal of language and literacy, 31 (2), pp. 43-58.

Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S. & Sheridan, K.M. (2007). Studio Thinking. The Real Benifits of

Visual Arts Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hirsh, Å. (2012). IUP – verktyg för lärande? [IUP – tools to learn] Forskning om undervisning och

lärande (9), pp. 32-41.

Hofvendahl, J. (2006). Riskabla samtal – en analys av potentiella faror i skolans kvarts- och

utvecklingssamtal. [Risky conversations – an analysis of potential dangers in teacher-parent-student

conferences] D. diss. Linköping: Institutionen för Språk och Kultur (ISK), Linköping University.

Hofvendahl, J. (2010). Utvecklingssamtalen - några vanligt förekommande problem. [Teacher-parent-

student conferences – some frequent problems] In M. Folke-Fichtelius & C. Lundahl (ed.). Bedömning

i och av skolan - praktik, principer, politik. Lund: Studentlitteratur, pp. 31-46.

Hortlund, T., Freccero, U. & Pousette, A. (2005). Bedömning av kvalitativ kunskap: konkreta exempel

från gymnasieskolan. [Assessment of qualitative knowledge: concrete examples from high school]

Stockholm: Fortbildningsförlaget.

Jönsson, A. (2012). Lärande bedömning. [Learning assessment] Malmö: Gleerups utbildning.

Jönsson, A. och Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity. Educational

research Review (2), pp. 130-144.

Korp, H. (2003). Kunskapsbedömning – hur, vad, varför? [Assessing knowledge – how, what, why?]

Myndigheten för skolutveckling. Fritzes: Stockholm.

Körling, A-L. (2010). Vägen till skriftliga omdömen. [The way to written assessments] Stockholm:

Bonniers.

Lgr 11 (2011). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet, Lgr 11. [Curriculum for

compulsory school, grade K, and the leisure center, Lgr 11] www.skolverket.se. 2013-03-19.

Lgr 69 (1969). Läroplan för grundskolan, Lgr 69. [Curriculum for the compulsory school, Lgr 69]

Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen, Utbildningsförlaget.

Lgr 80 (1980). Läroplan för grundskolan, Lgr 80. [Curriculum for the compulsory school, Lgr 80]

Stockholm: Skolöverstyrelsen, LiberLäromedel/ Utbildningsförlaget.

Lindh-Munther, A. & Lindh, G. (2005). Antingen får man skäll eller beröm- en studie av

utvecklingssamtal i elevers perspektiv. [Either you get scolded or praise – a study of the teacher-

parent-student conference from the student’s perspective] Teacher Education Institution, Uppsala

University. Studies in Educational Philosophy E-tidsskrift 2005:1. 2013-03-20.

Lindström, L. (2002). Produkt- och processutvärdering i skapande verksamhet. [Product and process

evaluation in creative activities] Att bedöma eller döma. Tio artiklar om bedömning och

betygssättning. Stockholm: Skolverket.

Lindström, L., Lindberg, V. & Pettersson, A. (2011). (red.) Pedagogisk bedömning - att dokumentera,

bedöma och utveckla kunskap. [Pedagogical assessment – to document, assess, and develop

knowledge] 2nd ed. Stockholm: Stockholm University Publishing.

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives.

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lpf 94 (1994). Läroplan för det frivilliga skolväsendet, Lpf 94. [Curriculum for the optional school, Lpf,

94] Skolverket, Stockholm: Fritzes.

Lpfö 98 (1998). Läroplan för förskolan, Lpfö 98. [Curriculum for preschool, Lpfö 98] Skolverket,

Stockholm: Fritzes.

Lpo 94 (1994). Läroplan för det obligatoriska skolväsendet, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet Lpo 94.

[Curriculum for the obligatory school, Lpo 94] Skolverket, Stockholm: Fritzes.

Lundahl, C. & Folke-Fichtelius, M. (red.) (2010). Bedömning i och av skolan – praktik, principer, politik.

[Assessment in and of school – praxis, principles, politic] Lund: Studentlitteratur.

MacLure, M. & Walker, B. M. (2000). Disenchanted evenings: The social organization of talk in

parent-teacher consultations in UK secondary schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education 21

(1), pp. 5–25.

Mårell-Olsson, E. (2012). Att göra lärandet synligt? Individuella utvecklingsplaner och digital

dokumentation. [Visualizing learning? Individual development plans and digital documentation] D.

diss. Umeå University.

Minke, M., Walker, B. M. & Anderson, K. J. (2003). Restructuring routine parent-teacher conferences:

The family-school conference model. The Elementary School Journal 104 (1), pp. 49–69.

Moreau, H. (2008). IUP med skriftliga omdömen och utvecklande samtal. [IUP with written

assessments and developing conferences] Grundskoletidningen 6/2008. (18), pp. 4–11, 40–41.

Persson, L. (2010). Pedagogerna och demokratin. En rättssociologisk studie av pedagogers arbete

med demokratiutveckling. [The pedagogues and democracy] D. diss. Lund: Sociologic Institution,

Lund University.

Pihlgren, A. S. (2011a). Att planera för utveckling och lärande – Individuella utvecklingssamtal och

IUP. [Planning for development and learning – teacher-parent-student conferences and IUP] In L.

Lindström, V. Lindberg & A. Pettersson (ed). Pedagogisk bedömning. Stockholm: Stockholm

University Publishing, pp. 85-107.

Pihlgren, A. S. (2011b). Barns inflytande och värdegrund. [Children’s influence and fundamental

values] In A. S. Pihlgren (ed.) Fritidshemmet. Lund: Studentlitteratur, pp. 143–187.

Pihlgren, A. S. (2013). Det tänkande klassrummet. [The thinking classroom] Stockholm: Liber.

Pihlgren, A. S. (2006). Dialog som läromedel – Elevledda utvecklingssamtal. [Dialogue as learning

material – Student led parent conferences] In IUP och utvecklingssamtalet i praktiken. Solna:

Fortbildningsförlaget, pp. 17–24.

Pihlgren, A. S. (2013b). Planning for Thinking and Cognitive Development of Students. Paper and

keynote speech presented at The 5th International Conference of Cognitive Science ICCS 2013,

Tehran, Iran, May 2013, www.kunskapskallan.com. 2013-08-25.

Pihlgren, A. S. (2007). Uppföljning som pedagogisk metod. [Evaluation as a pedagogical method] In

Individuella utvecklingssamtal i förskolan och skolåren 1–9. Norrtälje: Norna förlag, pp. 5–15.

Prunty, A. (2011). Implementation of children’s rights: what is in the best interest of the child in

relation to the Individual Education Plan (IEP) process for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders

(ASD). Irish Educational Studies 30(1), pp. 23–44.

Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual Character. What it is, why it matters, and how to get it. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional

Science (18), pp. 119-144.

SENCo-Forum. (2001). Points from the SENCo-Forum. When is an IEP worth the paper it is written

on? British Journal of Special Education 28(1), pp. 45–46.

Skollagen (2010:800): med Lagen om införande av skollagen (2010:801) [Swedish school law] Svensk

författningssamling SFS. Stockholm: Norstedts juridik.

Skolverket (2008). Allmänna råd. Den individuella utvecklingsplanen med skriftliga omdömen.

[General advice. The individual development plan with written assessment] Stockholm: Liber

distribution.

Skolverket (2013). Betydelsen av icke-kognitiva förmågor. Forskning mm om individuella faktorer

bakom framgång. [The importance of non-cognitive abilities] Stockholm: Skolverket.

Skolverket (2009). IUP–processen – Arbetet med den individuella utvecklingsplanen med skriftliga

omdömen. [The IUP process – Working with the individual development plan with written

assessments] Stockholm: Fritzes.

Skolverket (2011). Kunskapsbedömning i skolan – praxis, begrepp, problem och möjligheter.

[Assessment of knowledge in school – praxis, concepts, problems, and possibilities] Fritzes:

Stockholm.

Skolverket (2010). Skriftliga omdömen i grundskolans individuella utvecklingsplaner. En uppföljning

och utvärdering av skolornas arbete ett år efter reformen. [Written assessments in individual

development plans in compulsory school] Rapport 340 2010. Stockholm: Fritzes.

Stagg Peterson, S. & McClay, J. (2010). Assessing and providing feedback for students writing in

Canadian classrooms. ScienceDirect Assessing Writing (15) pp. 86-99.

Stråle, Gigi (2011): Elevledda utvecklingssamtal, ur ett elevperspektiv. [Student led parent

conferences from a student perspective] Technical Institution, Linne Universitety.

Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken, ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. [Learning in reality, a socio-cultural

perspective] Stockholm: Prisma.

Tennant, G. (2007). IEPs in mainstream secondary schools: an agenda for research. Support for

Learning, 22(4), pp. 204–208.

Tholander, M. & Norrby, F. (2008): Elevledda utvecklingssamtal i praktiken. [Student led parent

conferences in practice] LOCUS, 08(3-4) pp. 65-81.

Vallberg Roth, A-C. & Månsson, A. (2005). Individuella utvecklingsplaner som uttryck för reglerad

barndom. Likriktning och variation. [Individual development plans as an expression of regulated

childhood. Mainstreaming and variation] Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 13(2), pp. 81–102.

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment, Designing Assessment to Inform and Improve student

Performance. California: Jossey-Bass.

Wirström Nilsson, G. (2010). Mål i sikte - Från styrdokument till praktisk handling. [Goals ahead –

From steering documents to practical actions] Lund: Gleerups.

Vygotskij, L. S. (1995). Fantasi och kreativitet i barndomen. [Fantasy and creativity in childhood]

Göteborg: Daidalos.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

APPENDIX 1. Results from the student surveyiii

1. How important is the student led parent conference when it comes to understanding what you know and how to proceed in learning? Very important ImportantNot so importantNot important

2. If the teacher would chair the conference, and not you, what would the information be like?

The information tom e and my parent would be better The information to the parent would be better but the information to be would

be poorer The information to me would be better but the information to my parent would

be poorer The information tom e and the parent would be poorerThere would be no difference

3. Who in the conference selects your goals?

I select my goals The teacher selects my goals My parent selects my goals I and the teacher select my goals

0

20

40

60

80

100

grade K-3 grade 4-6 grade 7-9

Not important

Important

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Info tome+parent

better

Info to parentbetter

Info to mebetter

Info tome+parent

poorer

No difference

I and my parent select my goals The parent and the teacher select my goalsI, my parent, and the teacher select the goals

4. In student led parent conferences the students take responsibility for presenting their

knowledge to the parents. Chose the alternative that you believe is most accurate.

Leading the conference has helped me to take responsibility for my school work

I could take responsibility before, but the conference has been useful I could take responsibility and the conference has not been usefulTo lead the conference as not helped me to take responsibility for my school

work 87% state that they were helped, 10 % that they were not.

5. The teacher should give you information of what you know before the conference. Chose the alternative that you believe is most accurate.

Most teachers give me good information Some teachers give me good information, others not so goodMost teachers don’t give me good information

i The meetings or conferences are labeled Parent-teacher Conference in the USA and UK, Parent-Teacher Interviews in Australia and Canada, School Parent Meetings in Singapore, and ‘Utvecklingssamtal’, Development Dialog in Sweden. ii The quotes have been translated from Swedish.

iii The survey questions are translated to Swedish. The answers to 1, 2, 4 and 5 can be considered significant (5%). Question

3: The variances ”I”, ”I+teacher”, ”I+parent” are significant. ”I+teacher+parent” is significant within the schools.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Village school Smalltown school

I+teacher+parent

Teacher+parent

I+parent

I+teacher

Parent

Teacher

I

0

20

40

60

80

100

1

Most don't give goodinformation

Some give good information

Most give good information