ࡱ> y bjbjEE .''% 33333GGG8LG`_("7`9`9`9`9`9`9`$bvel]`3###]`33r`D.D.D.#l337`D.#7`D.D.U0X$"@G(?V$#``0`cV@e+0eHXe3XDD.fL ]`]`,T`####e : Authors name: Margareta Sandstrm Kjellin Contact e-mail address:  HYPERLINK "mailto:Margareta.sandstrom.kjellin@mdh.se" Margareta.sandstrom.kjellin@mdh.se Ph Dr Doctor of Philosophy in Education Title: Pupils and Teachers understanding of the Nature of Classroom Dialogue in Sweden Abstract The aim of this paper was to report and discuss a study in which 15-year-old pupils and their teachers at a Swedish multi-cultural school described that values were mediated in the classroom. The study was a case study and the method used was focus group dialogues. Five dialogues were performed with all (42) teachers at the school and fourteen dialogues with ca 50% (76) of all 15-year-old pupils at the school. The result was that pupils and teachers agreed that values were mediated in different ways; differences between the pupil and the teacher groups were that the pupils described that values were mediated mainly by teachers telling them what was right and what was wrong, whereas the teachers described that values were mainly mediated by teachers listening to the pupils and showing them confidence. The result was discussed in relation to European goals of school development and sustainable development. Introduction On a European level, goals have been formulated that concern the ambition to reach sustainable development in the society. When speaking about education this ambition concerns the necessity to educate European citizens who can participate in a democratic dialogue about the society. Eurydice (2005) makes a distinction between citizenship aiming at developing (a) political literacy, (b) attitudes and values or (c) active participation of pupils. In this paper, focus is the attitudes and values aspect and how it is understood by pupils and teachers to materialize in classroom teacher-pupil interactions. In order to reach the European goal we all need to educate citizens who are able and willing to participate in a democratic dialogue about the contemporary society. In such education the attitudes and values aspect seems crucial; it seems crucial not only that there is enough room in the school curriculum to provide such education, but also that teachers are able to teach values in a conscious way. In this article a study is reported which aims at giving examples of Swedish teenagers and Swedish teachers experience of how values are mediated in Swedish classrooms. Hameyer (2003) gives an overview of European school development and points out some characteristics; some of these are that school development often concerns development of the staffs competence, that there is a European trend for autonomy but not complete freedom for schools as regards school development and that the focus of this development is often on the pupils needs and their best ways of learning. Sandstrm Kjellin and Stier (2007) present five national case studies (The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and The United Kingdom) of performance of attitudes and values education through a horizontal classroom dialogue. In their report there was only one example of such education being performed through a horizontal classroom dialogue and that was the example from Sweden. Therefore, it seems interesting to take a closer look at the conditions in Sweden. In the Education and Training 2010 Work programme the European Commission stresses that future Europeans will need certain key competencies one of them is interpersonal, intercultural, social and civic competences (Commission of the European Communities, 2005). This key competence seems to be closely linked to citizenship, in particular the attitudes and values aspect. When Lpo 94, the National Curriculum for the compulsory school in Sweden (Utbildningsdepartementet, 1994) was introduced, substantial changes were introduced in the Swedish school system; from that year on, each school (and its teachers) were to be responsible for their own schools development. A set of fundamental values should be the basis for all work in schools; this included that the pupils should be involved in making decisions about for example the character of the classroom dialogue. In Lpo 94, two kinds of goals for the school were formulated: Goals to be attained and Goals to strive towards. Both kinds of goals contain goals of mastering skills, but the Goals to be attained in particular concern the mastering of basic skills. Goals to strive towards concern the mastering of more sophisticated skills and they are based on a number of fundamental values; according to these values, the purpose is, in short, to educate citizens who can participate in a public debate on problems of modern society (which seems equivalent to striving towards sustainable development in society). The Swedish concept fundamental values corresponds to the attitudes and values aspect of the European notion citizenship. However, since the two kinds of goals were introduced in 1994 there has been confusion among teachers about the goals (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2007). The reform in 1994 implied that all schools were to interpret the national goals themselves and formulate local syllabuses based on the National curriculum. But the teachers did not receive training in how to do this. Utbildningsdepartementet (2007) draw the conclusion that Swedish teachers solved the confusing educational situation by teaching (when it comes to the subject knowledge) according to earlier curricula than that of 1994 (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2007), but according to the curriculum of 1994 when it comes to the teaching of fundamental values. Now, in 2007, the goals for the school in Sweden are being reconsidered. The reason for this is the described confusing educational situation for teachers. Later on, the fundamental values will still be emphasized in the National Curriculum; it will contain the overarching goals, but in the national syllabuses there will be only one type of goals and they will concern the subject knowledge. However, the expression to have attained the goals will not be used any more. Instead, the goals will describe in what direction the instruction goes. Thus, there will be only one kind of goals for the compulsory school in Sweden, but they will not be equivalent to the previous Goals to attain (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2007). Voices are now being raised saying that Swedish teachers must focus more on reaching the goals concerning subject knowledge than on the fundamental values. It is not hard to understand that the described situation has caused a dilemma situation for teachers, and it is not hard to understand that schools have probably dealt with the situation in very different ways. Should they concentrate on delivering pupils who have reached the Goals to be attained? Or should they concentrate on delivering pupils who are able to participate in a democratic dialogue in the society? In the reported study the focus is on the fundamental values. Pupils and teachers apprehension of values mediation/moral education will be compared. When it comes to mediating values in the classroom (this will be accounted for more profoundly below), a distinction made by Colnerud (2004) will be used. She suggests that you distinguish between mediating values through moral instruction, moral conversation and/or moral interaction. By moral instruction she means telling pupils what is right and what is wrong. By moral conversation she means when the teacher and the pupils together discuss and consider moral problems. Moral interaction is when the teacher genuinely listens to the pupils and shows confidence. The aim of this paper is to report and discuss a study in which 15-year-old pupils at a Swedish multi-cultural school describe how values are mediated in the classroom in comparison to how their teachers describe this. Research questions were: Did the pupils describe the classroom dialogue as moral instruction, moral conversation and/or moral interaction? Did the teachers describe the classroom dialogue as moral instruction, moral conversation and/or moral interaction? Theoretical inputs It is an assumption that values guide peoples attitudes and actions. Certain actions, thoughts and views are rarely questioned but seen as self-evident, since they are grounded in a fundamental value. Values are not universal, but culture-specific (Bourdieu, 1993). It is within the processes of socialisation and enculturation that values are transmitted over generations (Durkheim, 1956). Such values consciously and subconsciously guide the actions, classroom behaviour and performance of the teacher (dman, 1998). Teachers will pass on their values both explicitly and implicitly through their attitudes and actions. Therefore, schools are able to (and should) do more than simply reproduce knowledge and values over generations through passing on cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1993). It is commonly assumed that similar class and ethnic backgrounds are favourable to teacher-pupil interaction patterns, whereas differences in ethnocultural belonging may complicate them (Heath, 1983). Similarly, Ogbu (1997) suggests that belonging to the same speech community provides a joint theory of speaking and a set of cultural rules for speaking. Considering the fact that a very large number of European classrooms are now multi-cultural With regard to this, there is need for teachers professional development in this area. Orlenius (2001) explains the difference between ethics and moral by saying that ethics concern a systematic reflection over values and actions, whereas moral concerns what we do in practice. Orlenius (2001) also comments that ethics need to be more than etiquette. In his eyes, ethics is reduced to etiquette when it becomes a question of lack of transforming norms and the want to maintain rules. The point in Orlenius reasoning is that ethics is an attitude that cannot just be mediated to someone; instead it is something that the individual needs to capture and experience. Moral education The German professor of sociology and education, Thomas Ziehe (1993), describes that todays youth are in a paradoxical situation of being experienced (through all information from media), but at the same time lack own personal experience (through the lengthier youth period that todays youth go through), and that therefore they need to create free zones in youth gangs and seemingly withdraw from the adult society. However, Orlenius (2001) has shown that young people are not uninterested in the adult world. Orlenius also means that there is a risk that childrens and young peoples lives and ways of living is reduced to a question of lack of passing on values, whereas the adults norms and society building are seen as unproblematic (Orlenius, 2001, p. 88). Sandstrm Kjellin & Stier (2007) discuss in the same spirit as Orlenius; they say that socialisation is an ongoing process, in which the teacher affects and is affected by pupils. Allowing a classroom dialogue in which the teacher is genuinely interested in the pupils view may be enriching, not only for the pupils, but also for the adult. Sandstrm Kjellin and Stier (2007) mean that by respectfully taking a childs view of the world an adult can keep his emotional and cognitive development going. Through such a process, both young and adult citizens will participate in sustainable development in the society. As mentioned, Colnerud (2004) distinguishes between three types of moral mediation, all of them necessary in the school context: moral instruction, moral conversation and moral interaction. By moral instruction Colnerud (p. 12) means admonitions of different kind telling pupils what is right and what is wrong. By moral conversation Colnerud (p. 17) means when the teacher and the pupils together discuss and consider moral problems. The teacher and the pupils together inquire into moral problems they may have occurred in the class or they may be brought to the fore by some subject matter or some event in society they discuss them and consider them. Moral interaction is a concept that summarizes how teacher and pupils interact, and how they treat each other (focusing on the teacher); it is described by Colnerud (2004, p. 21) as when the teacher treats pupils respectfully, listens to the pupils and the pupils feel that they are met with confidence. This will show by such things as changes in facial expression or intonation. One problem pointed out by Colnerud (p. 23), concerning moral interaction, is that the implicit moral message that lies in a respectful treatment is experienced by the pupils, but it is not easy to reflect over it. In particular in multi-cultural school societies some circumstances may be taken for granted by some pupils, but for others they may be unknown or difficult to interpret. Orlenius (2001) expresses the same distinction as Colnerud between moral conversation and moral interaction and he also emphasizes that both types of values mediation are needed: Children and youth should be given the opportunity to study and analyze norms and values and also how their view of man shows itself in different subject fields. But they also have to meet adults who materialize such values (p. 223; my translation). This probably applies to a particularly high extent when pupils have another socio-cultural origin than the majority culture, which means that the encounter between teacher and pupil in these cases demand more of the teacher as regards awareness of his/her own values and attitudes, so that also the teacher may reconsider his/her own values when encountering the pupil (Heath, 1983; Ogbu, 1997). Method The study was a case study performed at one specific school, which was a secondary school in the central part of Sweden with diversity as regards ethnicity and pupils social background. Participants were all 42 teachers at the school and 76 (ca 50%) of the 15-year-old pupils at the school. Data were collected through 19 focus group dialogues (5 focus group dialogues with the teachers, and 14 focus group dialogues with the 15-year-old pupils. All dialogues were performed during one school year. The dialogues with the teachers were performed in their working teams (6-10 persons in each) and the dialogues with the pupils were performed in groups of 4 - 10 pupils (most groups consisted of 5-6 pupils). The pupil groups were selected from the classes, meaning that the pupils knew each other quite well. Pupils who explicitly said that they wanted to take part in the dialogues were selected for participation. The focus group dialogues with the teachers were performed by one and the same researcher. The teachers were asked to have a dialogue about three questions: (1) What does it imply to be a teacher at X-school? (2) Which is the most important task for a teacher in the classroom? (3) What is meant by a good classroom dialogue and how do you bring about such a situation? The teachers were asked to talk freely with each other after each question; the researcher/moderator tried to stay as passive as possible, and devoted herself mainly to take notes about who said what (this was made to enable transcription of the focus group dialogues). As soon as the dialogue petered out after each question, the moderator asked a new question etc. After each focus group dialogue a short written self-evaluation was made of the participants engagement in the dialogue. The dialogues lasted 40-60 minutes. The focus group dialogues with the pupils were performed by five different persons. Half of the dialogues were performed by researchers and half of the dialogues were performed by teacher students; however, in all the dialogues a manual was followed that had been elaborated by the responsible researchers. The dialogues with the pupils lasted 20 50 minutes. The pupils were asked (1) which types of teacher-pupil dialogues were performed during their lessons, (2) if they ever talked about things that were important for them personally during lessons, (3) if they talked a lot about how to be and how to behave, (4) if (and if so) in what way they talked about rights and responsibilities during lessons and (5) how they behaved towards other people in the school; the pupils were asked to have a dialogue about these questions. After each focus group dialogue a short written self-evaluation was made of their own engagement in the focus group dialogue. As regards focus group dialogues it is commonly stressed that such dialogues should ideally be performed by one and the same person; as regards the pupils it was not possible, but the manual was considered to remedy this disadvantage. Besides, it was also considered to be useful as a part of their teacher education that teacher students got the opportunity to take an interest in the topic of the study and to participate in the data collection. All focus group dialogues were tape-recorded and entirely transcribed. In focus group dialogues it is not always possible to discern all that is said. This was also the situation here; the interaction was very vivid at times. Transcriptions of focus group dialogues can be made with different detail precision (Wibeck, 2000); if the aim is for example to analyze at micro level, the transcriptions will render the length of pauses, intonation, strength of voices exactly etc. The transcriptions in this study were made on a lower level of detail, since it was the rendering of the contents of the informants statements that was in focus. However, if the pupils showed some specific affection this was shown in the transcriptions. In the data analysis Colneruds (2004) distinction of moral education was used. All focus group dialogues were analyzed qualitatively. The analysis was made by two independent researchers. First the two researchers categorized (irrespectively of each others) if the moral education mentioned was moral instruction, moral conversation or moral interaction and then the two interpretations were compared; the inter-rater reliability was estimated to be 78 %, meaning that 56 of 71 judgements were equal. The differences in the judgements mainly consisted in one of the researchers not having been attentive. Then the number of retorts was counted for each category. This counting was made by the two researchers together; at this, corrections were made concerning the cases where one of them had not been attentive. In the written evaluations the participants could choose between stating that they had expressed their opinions in the focus group dialogues completely/to some extent/not so much or not at all. The evaluations were summarized quantitatively. As regards trustworthiness the fact should be commented that the data was not collected by one and the same person. However, an effort was made to control the data by using the same manual; besides, the method implied that the moderator stayed very passive, allowing participants to speak very freely. This probably decreased the disadvantage of using several moderators. As regards trustworthiness it is also necessary to comment on the questions that the groups were asked to have a dialogue about. Firstly, neither the teacher groups nor the pupil groups were asked explicitly how values were mediated in the classroom. The judgement was made that teachers in general are so aware of the correct answer on such a question that it would not be advisable to ask straightforwardly. Instead the question was wrapped up in questions aiming at getting a dialogue in which teachers implicit values were calculated to appear, which was assumed to correspond more to their actual action in classroom situations than if they had been asked how they normally do. Nor was it estimated to be suitable to explicitly ask questions to pupils about how values were mediated in the classroom, since they would probably not have understood such questions. Instead they were asked about how they talked in the classroom and also how they behaved towards others. Altogether, the estimation was made that it was necessary to ask different sorts of questions to teachers and to pupils in order to answer the research questions. Of course, this can be seen as a weakness, if you argue that different questions make it impossible to compare pupils and teachers dialogues; however, the judgement was made that the procedure instead strengthened the trustworthiness for the described reasons. Informed consent was collected, and the childrens parents were informed about the study, but since the children were 15 years old written consent was not collected from the parents. Results First the pupils and the teachers self-estimations of their participation in the focus group dialogues are reported. Then the pupils and the teachers understanding of the character of the values mediation in the classroom is accounted for; this has been divided into three categories, the same categories for the pupil dialogues and the teacher dialogues. Additionally, for the pupil dialogues it is reported if/to what extent the pupils try to interact with the moderators of the focus group dialogues. Then examples are given of retorts from each category, both from the pupil dialogues and the teacher dialogues. Self-estimation of participation in the focus group dialogues In table 1 the result of the self- estimations is reported. For the sake of simplicity the estimations are grouped together in only two groups. The figures indicate percentage. Pupils Teachers I have absolutely/to some extent brought forward my views 8483I have not/not to such a large extent brought forward my views1617 Table 1. Self-estimation of participation in the focus group dialogues Table 1 shows that the self-estimated participation in the focus group dialogues was very similar in the pupil and teacher groups. It was also possible to write a comment about the experience of the participation in the focus group dialogues. The most common comments from the pupils were this was fun/very fun/good/nice etc. The teachers made two sorts of comments, partly positive ones (this was good/ profitable etc.), partly negative ones (this felt forced/not natural/waste of time etc.). The pupils and the teachers understanding of the character of the classroom dialogue In table 2 it is denoted how big part of the groups stated that a specific type of values mediation occurred during lessons. The figures indicate percentage. The figures should be understood so that for example 50% for moral conversation in the 14 pupil groups denotes that half of the pupil groups mentioned that this type of values mediation sometimes occurred. This means that the sum is higher than 100% for both groups. Moral instruction Moral conversation Moral interaction 14 pupil groups10050645 teacher groups1008080 Table 2. The pupils and the teachers understanding of teachers values mediation Table 2 shows that all the pupil groups and all the teacher groups mentioned that values were sometimes mediated through moral instruction. Values mediation through moral conversation was mentioned by more of the teacher groups than the pupil groups. Values mediation through moral interaction was mentioned more by the teachers, even though it is also mentioned by quite a large number of the pupil groups. However, the most important result from table 2 seems to be that values mediation is described, by both teachers and pupils, to occur in all three ways. Share of moral instruction/conversation/interaction mentioned by the pupils and by the teachers It is interesting to look more closely to what extent values mediation is mentioned as moral instruction/conversation/interaction. The number of retorts was counted for all pupil groups and teacher groups and this is reported in table 3. To make it possible to compare the pupils and the teachers ways of talking about the matter, the figures in table 3 denote the number of retorts in percentage in relation to the whole number of retorts that have been categorized (since there were more pupil groups than teacher groups). This means that in table 3 the sum is 100%. Moral instruction Moral conversation Moral interaction 14 pupil groups549375 teacher groups14878 Table 3. Share of retorts in percentage for type of values mediation Table 3 reveals that the pupils talked more about values being mediated through moral instruction than the teachers did. Inversely the teachers talked more about values being mediated through moral interaction than the pupils did, whereas moral conversation was mentioned almost to an exactly equal extent. Examples of categorization of mentioned values mediation Below examples are given of how the categorization was made. An example of a pupil retort that was categorized as values being mediated through moral instruction was: (1) If you sort of step into the classroom with a box of sweets: what have we said about the rules? An example of a pupil retort that was interpreted as values being mediated through moral conversation was: (2) There are certain countries in Asia where people dont have the same rights as we have in Sweden. We talk about why it is like that there but not here. It is different societies An example of a pupil retort that was interpreted as values being mediated through moral interaction was: (3) [about teachers] Best friends - you can talk with many of the teachers about anything. They can talk to us also about almost anything Some pupil retorts indicate that there is a very warm climate between teachers and pupils. About one teacher the following wording was used: (4) She is so sort of uuuiiihhh she feels so perfect she is soft Additionally there were many examples that the pupils wanted interaction with the moderator. This was made by the teenagers asking the moderator questions like: do you like to cook? Who cooks in your family, you or your husband? Have you got children? How many? But there were also examples that the teenagers tested the limits of what they could ask an unknown adult by asking questions like: Do you think it is good to use condoms? An example of a teacher retort categorized as values mediation being made through moral instruction was: (5) make them understand that when someone is talking you should listen An example of a teacher retort that was categorized as values being mediated through moral conversation was: (6) Its when they start asking why do you say this? Then they will say in my country it is like this and then I will encourage them to talk and we will compare An example of a teacher retort that was being categorized as values being mediated through moral interaction was: (7) When the pupils have brought up a subject that they, that feels very important right then [] because then they will forget, I think, that you are a teacher and they see you more like an adult or just as a partner in the conversation maybe Discussion The self-rated participation in the focus group dialogues was very similar for the two kinds of groups (pupils and the teachers). The fact that not everybody estimated their participation as high is in accordance with what is generally known about group dynamics; it never happens that everybody participate equally (Wibeck, 2000). It is interesting that the pupils comments were positive throughout, whereas the teachers comments were partly positive, partly negative. An explanation to this may be that the teacher dialogues were performed during their working hours and some of them may have experienced that this activity was made at the expense of something they considered more important. The pupils very positive comments were interpreted as an indication that such dialogues as these (that adults take an interest in teenagers view of the world) is something that pupils ask for, which is then an example that teenagers are not uninterested in the adult world (Orlenius, 2001). As regards the estimation of occurrence of moral instruction/conversation/interaction both the teacher and the pupil groups agreed that all these sorts of moral education occur. As regards the share of moral instruction/conversation/interaction the pupils estimated that moral instruction occurred more than the teachers; this difference can be explained in different ways. It may be that this is really an example of what Colnerud (2004) brings out, that moral instruction is very frequent at school and that the teachers were not as aware of this as the pupils. It may also be due to the fact that the teachers were asked What is a good dialogue? and as an answer to that question they may not have wanted to point out moral instruction. It seems important to make the reflection that in order for pupils to adopt good ethics, it is probably necessary not only to instruct pupils about good etiquette; it was remarked by Orlenius (2001) that attitudes cannot just be mediated; they need to be captured and experienced more profoundly. The Swedish National Curriculum, Lpo 94, also prescribes that pupils should participate in formulating rules for the work and the time together in the classroom (Utbildningsdepartementet, 1994). This reasoning also supports development of the key competence interpersonal, intercultural, social and civic competence (Commission of the European Communities, 2005). An explanation to the difference in the estimation of occurrence of moral interaction may be that these teachers are really engaged in this type of values mediation; this seems to be what they really want to accomplish and this may be a reason that they are so occupied with talking about it. The fact that the pupils make many efforts to interact with the moderators can be seen as an example that they are used to being allowed to interact with adults. Also the pupils way of talking about one of the teachers was an example that they probably have good relations with their teachers. The example in which one of the pupils stepped across the line when asking a moderator about usage of condoms was probably an example of Colneruds observation (2004) that in multi-cultural settings not all pupils are able to interpret rules of for example what can be mentioned; it is probably also an example of Ogbus reminder (1997), that there are different speech communities, and that pupils from other cultures may not yet master the Swedish speech community completely. It is then also an example of Heaths observation (1983) that differences in ethnocultural belonging may complicate teacher-pupil relations; even though this did not occur in a teacher-pupil relation it is not hard to imagine that these teachers probably often had to deal with similar situations. On the other hand those teachers gave the impression to be able to master such situations. Conclusions In this study the teenagers must be said to have taken an interest in the adult world. Between the teachers and the pupils in this study there was clearly a trusting relationship. This is probably a prerequisite for teenagers to take an interest in the adult world. From the focus group dialogues both with the teachers and the pupils it seems that the teachers in this study often respectfully took a childs view of the world (Sandstrm Kjellin & Stier, 2007). This is probably one important way of aiming for the European goal of sustainable development in the society. Hameyer (2003) described that European school development often implies development of staff competence, with a focus on pupils needs. The reported study seems to be one good example of this. However, there is also the typical dilemma situation to deal with for the school: should the school work be concentrated on teaching the pupils how to read and write or should it be concentrated on educating pupils morally? The answer is of course that the school should do both, but it seems that it is hard to prioritize both in National curricula. Somehow it must be stated what is the most important task for the school. Besides there are always politicians who know exactly what to do, and they tend to swing to and fro, from one extreme to the other. With reference to the conclusions drawn in Utbildningsdepartementet (2007) - that Swedish teachers during the last decade have paid attention to Lpo 94 only regarding the work with fundamental values (and not regarding the basic skills of e.g. reading and writing) - there seems to be a risk that the conclusions are simplified. If you jump to conclusions and say that Swedish teachers have so far been too occupied with fundamental values; this should now be given less priority, they should focus on goals that are easier to measure and that concern basic skills, there is a risk that you do not focus on European goals, but only short-term national goals like basic reading and writing skills. As for Sweden, to combine the important work of moral education (and in particular moral interaction) with the changes planned by Utbildningsdepartementet (2007) will be a delicate task to fulfil. Moral education goes on in schools everywhere and always; values are transmitted from one generation to the other (Durkheim, 1956), values are culture specific (Bourdieu, 1993) and values guide teachers behaviour in the classroom both explicitly and implicitly (dman, 1998). This example from Sweden showed teachers who did their best to overcome this, by having a good teacher-pupil classroom dialogue despite the fact that there were cultural difficulties to overcome. This kind of work is of course not restricted to Sweden; it probably goes on in schools everywhere, and in my opinion such work shows practical ambitions to reach sustainable development. To be able both to mediate values and allow new values to emerge, teachers need first of all to scrutinize their own values; such work does not come by itself. It requires professional development of a kind that is probably not included in initial teacher education. Acknowledgements The study was given financial support by The Faculty Board of Education at Mlardalen University, Mimer Bostads AB and the City of Vsters. References: Bourdieu, P. (1993). Kultursociologiska texter [Sociocultural texts; in Swedish]. Stockholm/Stehag: Brutus stlings bokfrlag Symposion. Colnerud, G. (2004). Lrares moraliska praktik. Instruktion, konversation och interaktion. I G. Colnerud (red.). Skolans moraliska och demokratiska praktik. Vrdepedagogiska texter I [Teachers moral and democratic practice. Value Educational Texts I; in Swedish]. Linkping: Linkpings universitet, IBV rapportserie Commission of the European Communities (2005).  HYPERLINK "http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.html" http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.html. Durkheim, mile (1956). Education and Sociology. New York: MacMillian. Eurydice. (2005). Citizenship Education at school in Europe. Eurydice. The information network on education in Europe. Cambridge University Press. Hameyer, (2003). Skolutveckling i de europeiska lnderna nulge och utblick [School development in the European countries present situation and outlook; in Swedish] in G. Berg and H-. Scherp (2003). (eds.). Skolutvecklingens mnga ansikten. Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: Liber Distribution. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ogbu, J. Speech Community, language identity and language, i A. Sjgren (Ed.) (1997). Language and Environment A Cultural Approach to Education for Minority and Migrant Students. Botkyrka. Sweden: Mngkulturellt Centrum. Orlenius, K. (2001). Vrdegrunden finns den? Malm: Runa. Sandstrm Kjellin, M. & Stier, J. (2007). Citizenship in the Classroom (accepted). Intercultural Education. Utbildningsdepartementet (1994). Lroplan fr det obligatoriska skolvsendet, frskoleklassen och fritidshemmet [Curriculum for the compulsory educational system, nursery school and the day care centre; in Swedish]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes. Utbildningsdepartementet (2007). SOU 2007:28. Tydliga ml och kunskapskrav i grundskolan Frslag till nytt ml- och uppfljningssystem [Clear goals and knowledge claims in the compulsory school; in Swedish]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes. Wibeck, V. (2000). Fokusgrupper. Om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som underskningsmetod [Focus groups. About focus group interviews as a research method; in Swedish]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. Ziehe, T. (1993). Kulturanalyser: ungdom, utbildning, modernitet [Cultural analyses: youth, education, modernity; in Swedish]. Eslv, Sweden: Symposion. dman, P. J. (1998). Kontrasternas spel [The play of contrasts; in Swedish] Stockholm, Sweden: Prisma.     PAGE  PAGE 1 *+DE|}~' ( 1 2 m äudVdVdVdVdKhRhRmH sH hR@OJQJmH sH  h]hR@OJQJmH sH hROJQJmH sH hm2hRmH sH hR5OJQJmH sH hCUjhRmH sH hu{hR0JmH sH #jhu{hRUmH sH jhRUmH sH $hR5CJKHOJQJ\mH sH *hCUjhR5CJKHOJQJ\mH sH hRmH sH +,D' ( 1 2 |}$a$gdg } $a$gdP`gd[`x$a$gdR$a$gdRgdRdhgdRgdRgdRgdR  + R :ae ]d(;ݾppdppXhQ*OJQJmH sH hxT.OJQJmH sH h>Xh OJQJmH sH hPOJQJmH sH h>XhcNOJQJmH sH h~OJQJmH sH h+"OJQJmH sH hEOJQJmH sH h+"h+"OJQJmH sH h+"h+"6OJQJmH sH h]OJQJmH sH hOJQJmH sH h}^,hpmH sH "(>y{|}oklm~;vfWWfKhg }OJQJmH sH hih SOJQJmH sH h S@OJQJmHnHsHh @OJQJmHnHsH$hCWh S@OJQJmHnHsHh S0JOJQJh SOJQJmH sH hBmh]OJQJmH sH hBmhg }OJQJmH sH hRhg }OJQJmH sH hQ*OJQJmH sH hPOJQJmH sH hEOJQJmH sH lmab>? !!##%%&`''''-$a$gdQ*gd[`x $ & Fa$gd3I$a$gddT$a$gdE$a$gd  $a$gdP` $a$gd S '_`abekkmsw=HtxĸЬyyyyymayyh[`xOJQJmH sH hEOJQJmH sH h}OJQJmH sH hEOJQJmH sH h>Xh OJQJmH sH h4OJQJmH sH hDOJQJmH sH h~OJQJmH sH h>OJQJmH sH h SOJQJmH sH hg }OJQJmH sH hPOJQJmH sH h OJQJmH sH &x IQ  W   : L ^ a!!!!!!!!!!!!(#,#7#~ooh>XhEOJQJmH sH h>XB*OJQJmH ph3fsH hhOJQJmH sH hOJQJmH sH h>Xh OJQJmH sH h OJQJmH sH h[`xOJQJmH sH hDOJQJmH sH hQOJQJmH sH hEOJQJmH sH h>Xh OJQJmH sH +7#>#g#n#|############%$>$L$M$Q$|$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ij}}}}}n_huJh OJQJmH sH h|h OJQJmH sH h @OJQJmH sH hP@OJQJmH sH h%&OJQJmH sH h%&@OJQJmH sH  h#lh @OJQJmH sH h OJQJmH sH hhOJQJmH sH h SOJQJmH sH h OJQJmH sH hEOJQJmH sH $$$$$$+%-%0%B%C%F%%%%%%%%%%&)&/&8&K&w&๩ԹrcTcTcEhEhZsOJQJmH sH hEhOJQJmH sH hEh(OJQJmH sH hEB*OJQJmH ph3fsH h>Xh OJQJmH sH h OJQJmH sH h OJQJmH sH hhh 6OJQJmH sH hhh OJQJmH sH hPOJQJmH sH hS$OJQJmH sH huJh OJQJmH sH huJh 6OJQJmH sH w&z&&&&&&&&&&`'c''''''''''((G)L))))Ǹǩ{ococToTHToThfBOJQJmH sH hQ*hQ*OJQJmH sH hyUoOJQJmH sH hQ*OJQJmH sH hjmH sH h>XhjmH sH h mH sH %h h B*OJQJmH ph3fsH hEh3IOJQJmH sH hEh(OJQJmH sH hEhdTOJQJmH sH hEhOJQJmH sH hEhZsOJQJmH sH hEOJQJmH sH ))X*c*v*x******+e,,,, -----+---------$.;岦٦嗈yjy^y^yjyh<OJQJmH sH h<h<OJQJmH sH h<hOJQJmH sH h<hUOJQJmH sH hBmhUOJQJmH sH hl}OJQJmH sH hAOJQJmH sH hQ*hPOJQJmH sH hPOJQJmH sH hyUoOJQJmH sH hQ*hQ*OJQJmH sH hQ*OJQJmH sH --_/`/q/4466w7x7w:x:===>>TAUADDH$a$gd.N$a$gdU$a$gd[yF$a$gdQ0$a$gdK: $a$gdU$a$gdU$.....R/\/_/`/q/}////////////!0%0L0U0_000111t1}111112/2庫xllh;OJQJmH sH hl}OJQJmH sH h~OJQJmH sH hjV4OJQJmH sH h;hUOJQJmH sH h;h;OJQJmH sH hjV4hT6OJQJmH sH hx_OJQJmH sH hhUOJQJmH sH hOJQJmH sH hhOJQJmH sH &/2@2C2m2t2222(3333*4+4/44454H4k4m4444444b5n5o5u5|555555ʻ诠udddddd h#lhK:@OJQJmH sH hl}@OJQJmH sH hK:@OJQJmH sH h*hUOJQJmH sH h*h#lOJQJmH sH h*OJQJmH sH h#lhUOJQJmH sH h#lh#lOJQJmH sH h;hUOJQJmH sH h~OJQJmH sH h#lOJQJmH sH #5555556666606:6B6}666Q7V7w7x777.8?8b8u8889w:x:::ɺպպ՞ՒպպպՆufWhBhBOJQJmH sH hBhUOJQJmH sH  h*hU@OJQJmH sH hQ0OJQJmH sH hGOJQJmH sH hl}OJQJmH sH hhhK:6OJQJmH sH hhhK:OJQJmH sH h6|OJQJmH sH hK:OJQJmH sH huJhK:6OJQJmH sH huJhK:OJQJmH sH !:::::;";);,;;;; <<<<$<'<<<<=== ='=@=Z=q=}====岦ppdpUhwhUOJQJmH sH h OJQJmH sH hwhwOJQJmH sH hwOJQJmH sH hwhBOJQJmH sH hl}OJQJmH sH h0OJQJmH sH hBOJQJmH sH hBhUOJQJmH sH h~OJQJmH sH hPOJQJmH sH hBhBOJQJmH sH h*OJQJmH sH  ===========>>>/>6>y>>>˽vgXgvJ9 hwhUOJQJ^JmH sH h.JOJQJ^JmH sH hRh]OJQJmH sH hRh.JOJQJmH sH hRhzqTOJQJmH sH h]OJQJ^JmH sH h#!#OJQJ^JmH sH h!OJQJ^JmH sH hwOJQJ^JmH sH hzqTOJQJ^JmH sH  hUhUOJQJ^JmH sH h!mH sH hUhUmH sH  hRhQ0@OJQJmH sH >>>>>??????B?j?|?~?????R@U@]@x@y@@@@ŦyyhWIWWhl}OJQJ^JmH sH  h0h!OJQJ^JmH sH  h0hUOJQJ^JmH sH h.NOJQJ^JmH sH  hwh.NOJQJ^JmH sH hOJQJ^JmH sH h.JOJQJ^JmH sH  hwhUOJQJ^JmH sH h[yFOJQJ^JmH sH hPOJQJ^JmH sH h0OJQJ^JmH sH  hwh!OJQJ^JmH sH @@@@@@@@@ ARASATAAABBC8D9DDDDDDDD´|nnn``RR`n|hsOJQJ^JmH sH h 4OJQJ^JmH sH hSgOJQJ^JmH sH h.JOJQJ^JmH sH h.NOJQJ^JmH sH hmOJQJ^JmH sH hl}OJQJ^JmH sH hy6OJQJ^JmH sH  h!hUOJQJ^JmH sH h0OJQJ^JmH sH h[yFOJQJ^JmH sH  h!h!OJQJ^JmH sH DDFFDFUFVFZFbFFFFFFFGGGG?GCGEGFGGGPGQGRGGGGGGGGHHHHMHHŷśqqcchOJQJ^JmH sH hVOJQJ^JmH sH hmOJQJ^JmH sH h}yOJQJ^JmH sH hWcOJQJ^JmH sH h#!#OJQJ^JmH sH hPOJQJ^JmH sH h^OJQJ^JmH sH hl}OJQJ^JmH sH hy6OJQJ^JmH sH  hWchWcOJQJ^JmH sH &HHHHHI3IIIIZJ^JjJJJJJJJN\N`NqNŷŦyymyaymUmUIhWcOJQJmH sH hmOJQJmH sH hd'OJQJmH sH h^OJQJmH sH hRhwOJQJmH sH hROJQJmH sH #h NhU6OJQJ^JmH sH  h NhUOJQJ^JmH sH h^OJQJ^JmH sH h NOJQJ^JmH sH h#!#OJQJ^JmH sH hF.OJQJ^JmH sH  h Nh NOJQJ^JmH sH qNyNNNNNNNNNNOOOO,O.OOOOOPPfPgPhPPPQ#Q/Q1Q5QиЬĬДܔyĸmm^hwhWcOJQJmH sH hA(OJQJmH sH hd'OJQJmH sH hhOJQJmH sH hOJQJmH sH h OJQJmH sH h#!#OJQJmH sH hOzOJQJmH sH hVOJQJmH sH hROJQJmH sH h^OJQJmH sH hWcOJQJmH sH hmOJQJmH sH  5Q?Q@QBQEQPQ`QaQ{QQQQQDRMRmRxRRRRRSSSTCTHTLTOTiUoU?Vij{{{m_m_m_m_m_mhd'OJQJ^JmH sH h<OJQJ^JmH sH hOzOJQJ^JmH sH hA(OJQJ^JmH sH hwOJQJ^JmH sH hF.OJQJ^JmH sH  hWchWcOJQJ^JmH sH hwhwOJQJmH sH hwhWcOJQJmH sH hwhROJQJmH sH hwhwOJQJmH sH ?VAV^VVWWWW7XQXRXSXTXrXyXXXXXX Y Y YYY򺮢~rcXG hA(h5CJOJQJmH sH hhUmH sH hhUOJQJmH sH hd'OJQJmH sH hzOJQJmH sH h5OJQJmH sH hOzOJQJmH sH hwOJQJmH sH h `OJQJmH sH h<OJQJ^JmH sH h `OJQJ^JmH sH hd'OJQJ^JmH sH h XOJQJ^JmH sH h(AOJQJ^JmH sH YYYY)Y;Y@YbYYY[.[[[[[[[]\s\t\u\v\;vnbVbJv>hkOJQJmH sH hZAOJQJmH sH h{OJQJmH sH h4OJQJmH sH h-"mH sH h;@OJQJmH sH h-"OJQJmH sH hJOJQJmH sH hA(OJQJmH sH hlOJQJmH sH h+OJQJmH sH hhOJQJmH sH  hA(hUCJOJQJmH sH  hA(h5CJOJQJmH sH  hA(hA(CJOJQJmH sH v\\\\\\]]]]]%]\]]]^]_]]]^^^^^^^^^˿˿{l`Q`{QE`E`hlOJQJmH sH hC+hC+OJQJmH sH h-"OJQJmH sH hC+hxOJQJmH sH h4OJQJmH sH hZAhk6OJQJmH sH hmhRmH sH hZAhR6OJQJmH sH hR6OJQJmH sH hRhR6OJQJhRhROJQJhRhROJQJmH sH hZAhROJQJmH sH hROJQJmH sH \\\\]]]hkd$$IfFF  t06    44 laytR $IfgdH]]]]]^]_]T_U__qjje^VVQgd]$a$gdC+gd4gdRgdRkd$$IfFF  t06    44 laytR^^_ _0_J_S_U___````"a(aRaTa[a\a]a^a_aaԾrrrfZJ?hmhRmH sH hRCJOJQJaJmH sH hkOJQJmH sH hiVOJQJmH sH $hN(5@CJOJQJ\mH sH $hT5@CJOJQJ\mH sH $hxtT5@CJOJQJ\mH sH $h-"5@CJOJQJ\mH sH *h-"h-"5@CJOJQJ\mH sH h-"mH sH h]OJQJmH sH h-"OJQJmH sH hlOJQJmH sH _\a]a^a_aaaaaa $IfgdHgdRgdRgd$a$gdN( aaaaaQbRbTbgbbbb cOchcyczc~ccdddddͽ鱥ymaYQIhiVmH sH hrmH sH hP mH sH hTOJQJmH sH h/OJQJmH sH h/h2H6OJQJmH sH hN(OJQJmH sH h2Hh2H6OJQJmH sH h2HOJQJmH sH heOJQJmH sH h}yhR6OJQJmH sH hR6OJQJmH sH hRhROJQJmH sH hmhRmH sH hROJQJmH sH aaaaaa^UUUU $IfgdHkda$$IfF\pH! p t0,"644 laytHaaaRbSbTbddd^YYYYQQLgdiV$a$gdiVgdRkd $$IfF\pH! p t0,"644 laytHd eeeee4fffgg#g$g%g5g{gggg h hhhlhnhhhhhhh)i*i+i˾ufZZZZZZfh4OJQJmH sH h4hrOJQJmH sH h4h4OJQJmH sH hR6OJQJmH sH hRhROJQJmH sH hmhROJQJmH sH hUhROJQJmH sH h_6OJQJmH sH h46OJQJmH sH hN(OJQJmH sH hrhr6OJQJmH sH hrOJQJmH sH !d#g$g%g{ggggg $IfgdHgdRgdr$a$gdN(gggggg^UUUU $IfgdHkd$$IfF\pH# p$ t0H$644 laytHgggggg*i+i^YYTTLGgd$a$gdN(gdrgdRkd$$IfF\pH# p$ t0H$644 laytH+icidiiiiiiiiiiiiij j*j:jQjRjvjwjxjyjzj{jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjkȼȰ԰ȠȔȔȈȼ|ԈԼ԰lԈȈԈh^hH6OJQJmH sH hSrOJQJmH sH hHOJQJmH sH h~OJQJmH sH hiVhiV6OJQJmH sH h^OJQJmH sH h%.5OJQJmH sH hiVOJQJmH sH hR OJQJmH sH hOJQJmH sH h4OJQJmH sH h4mH sH *+idi jjjRjxjyj{jjjj)kbkkkk lllNlll`gd~gd~`gd%.5`gdH`gdR `gdiVgdgd4kkkkkkkkkkkkkll llll$l0l2l3l4lMlNllllll.m/m9mGde'>@㭞׼rh5@OJQJmH sH hh+3OJQJmH sH hhyOJQJmH sH hhtOJQJmH sH hh 8rOJQJmH sH hh5OJQJmH sH hmBOJQJmH sH hOJQJmH sH hhWOJQJmH sH hW@OJQJmH sH 'ɉˉ OP}͊ъ^bw~`Dдᴦ¦¦‡yh h h5@OJQJmH sH h@OJQJmH sH  h h @OJQJmH sH h5@OJQJmH sH h@OJQJmH sH h-@OJQJmH sH hmB@OJQJmH sH  hWhYs@OJQJmH sH h@OJQJmH sH  hWhy@OJQJmH sH '0ԏ$sS59r“gddgdxT.dgdtGgdtGgd(gd(gdjgdj$a$gdNRgdNRώ%ԏُûûðxl`P@hvhv6OJQJmH sH hvhj6OJQJmH sH hBmhj6OJQJhvhj6OJQJhjOJQJhvhjOJQJhBmh4OJQJhBmh4OJQJ]hBmhj6OJQJ]hBmhjOJQJhjmH sH hjhjmH sH hOJQJmH sH hNROJQJmH sH hNRhNROJQJmH sH hNRhNRmH sH #):<HIKrx PQSTUkȽyhYMY=htGhtG6OJQJmH sH htGOJQJmH sH htGhtGOJQJmH sH  hih(0JOJQJmH sH #j]hih(OJQJUjhih(OJQJUhih(OJQJmH sH hvhj6OJQJhvOJQJhvhjOJQJhvhj6OJQJmH sH hv6OJQJmH sH hvOJQJmH sH hvhvOJQJmH sH 45>8>rʓדҤndnUE8EUEhj6OJQJmH sH hvhj6OJQJmH sH hvhjOJQJmH sH h@OJQJ hBmh@OJQJmH sH hh@OJQJhBmh@OJQJhBmhxT.mHsHhBmhxT.0JOJQJhxT.0J6OJQJmH sH #hxT.hxT.0J6OJQJmH sH  hxT.hxT.0JOJQJmH sH htG0JOJQJmH sH htGhtGOJQJmH sH 8:MSZ[(R~ȼ񼚏sdTdHhxT.OJQJmH sH hxT.hxT.OJQJ]mH sH hxT.hxT.OJQJmH sH htGhxT.6OJQJmH sH htGhxT.6OJQJhxT.hxT.OJQJhjhjOJQJhvhjOJQJhvhj6OJQJhjhj6OJQJhj6OJQJmH sH hjOJQJmH sH hvhj6OJQJmH sH hvhjOJQJmH sH N(|<A7s_gd;  $a$gdjgdgdxT.gdjgdjΖ-./AFUV~<Q]ɾvm]M]mEhOJQJhRhj6OJQJmH sH hRh6OJQJmH sH h6OJQJhvhj6OJQJhjhjOJQJhRhjOJQJhRhtGOJQJhOJQJmH sH htGhtGOJQJmH sH hBmhtGOJQJhtGOJQJhtGhtG6OJQJhtGh&|+6OJQJh&|+OJQJhS$hjOJQJmH sH ]qrsĘ':_dǸ斆wld`d`d`d`VPVP h[R0Jjh[R0JUhu{jhu{Uh+hNkOJQJhjhjOJQJmH sH hjhj6OJQJmH sH hRhjOJQJhOJQJhtGhjOJQJmH sH htGhtGOJQJmH sH hBmhtGOJQJhtGOJQJhtGhj6OJQJhjOJQJ hhhvhjOJQJgd; h]hgd{ &`#$gdSkh+hNkOJQJhu{hLX0JmHnHu h[R0Jjh[R0JUh[R ,1h. A!"#$% DyK #Margareta.sandstrom.kjellin@mdh.seyK Tmailto:Margareta.sandstrom.kjellin@mdh.se$$If!vh5 55#v #v#v:V F t065 55ytR$$If!vh5 55#v #v#v:V F t065 55ytR$$If!vh55 5p5#v#v #vp#v:V F t0,"655 5p5ytH$$If!vh55 5p5#v#v #vp#v:V F t0,"655 5p5ytH$$If!vh55 5p5$ #v#v #vp#v$ :V F t0H$655 5p5$ ytH$$If!vh55 5p5$ #v#v #vp#v$ :V F t0H$655 5p5$ ytH}DyK Bhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.htmlyK http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.html^ 2 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ :HANormalCJ_HaJmHsHtHZ@Z U Heading 1$<@&5CJ KH OJQJ\^JaJ \@\ Kw Heading 2$<@& 56CJOJQJ\]^JaJV@V  Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJNN  Heading 5 <@&56CJ\]aJDA`D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List 4 @4 {Footer  p#.)@. { Page Number8P@8  Body Text 25\H"H hi Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJj3j  Table Grid7:V02B@B2 U Body TextxPOQP UBrdtext Char1CJKH_HaJmHsHtHb/bb >Standard$ hh`ha$ CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH RoqR > Standard Char CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH LL (Body Text CharCJ_HaJmHsHtH0U@0 ( Hyperlink>*B*`@` xT. Footnote Text$dh1$9DH$a$CJaJmH sH tH RR RHeading 1 Char5CJ KH OJQJ\^JaJ NN RHeading 3 Char5CJOJQJ\^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]  $$$' (x7#$w&)$./25:=>@DHGLqN5Q?VYv\^ad+ikwokr|׃]MOPRSTUVWYZ[\]^_`acdefghkmptvxz{|}-H\]_aadgg+iloqNQXbijlnoqrsuwy~D}PXX  '!!8@0(  B S  ?) [,![,"[#[$[%[&[d)'[d#([$)[d$*[)+[#,[$%-[d*.[d(/[#0[)1[(2[T3[4[5[6[7[ԉ8[9[T:[Ԉ;[Ԇ<[=[>[T?[d@[A[$B[dC[$D[$E[$F[윷G[lH[,s { 88|| cGcGcwwZZP[ЉQQ׋~~      !"#$%'&(y  >>cMcMc}}``Ze։ZZ  !"#$%'&(9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityB)*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceTypeC!*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsmetricconverter9'*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace @2010 ProductID))')'))'!)''))'')')''))''' ''''')} krueh=E !!""####%#%%%&&'')')t)|)\*d***,,--1.9.0011x222255CCMEWEFFDeMekk?nGnopqqrrssvv\wbwPx]x{{~\_ %W\PZglmtІ0ه]b5>\a:;?F6A<Qs'4591: k$$)3,399TTTTUUUUUUgUlUKXYYYYZ__SbWb)c,cbcdcddNdQdddgggghhhhiiii&j*j|,|ҁ/0~Ӈ)JKrxk׉458\oNjʋL'(RAG@FO~<rsĐ̐'d3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333vTTTTUUYY{__Ocbcddhhyy`)K~d|  %%556y6vT^U^YTZ$_$_%__yyԇه>>rAF~<Đ'Kg\Yl|nsq8 Bb x 8>TOV9M?OBPUP !uIQ\YuIQlKg4nUPBbsrA7s9M#vkF\Ґ>|1"RJ5bV%&x!+cNK:Xl!bcwDoQu  |? ^ t Z v : V e; ]NU +g,~ _#y,#9 0#ls)Bmu%%]JMyky6ZAW 2!6g!"9*"7r"}"#!#g $S$~$!%(s (N(q*&|+}^,?O-a-..xT.k.\/(1m2gs2Y3h3jV4j4%.5-6S7_7b7Zj78w8A,:i:R;`<p< >+?I?*b?;@f@Id@y@:HABmBoDiE1FNFYF[yFtG{G[$HPHkH3IHIzI9ELPLTLM.M N.NPLKP;QMQ[R:R/STA#TdTzqTxtT.Vy"V(ViVWtW~}W>Xr0XVoXY W[]^^Zs^x_H` `=`P` c`(r`n b_#bWc'e~VeeV g!gSg+jCUjK4kSk}8lul8mBmQmg6oyUouao) pr 8rs!.sqas$ufvwKwTwxIxx[`xzOz#{lG{u{22|6|tF|g }T }=g}l}~Y~RILXNkx+n * H5GQ:{Su}y0jt& H'+*'w-OTlA(C+t/!`6iF.;fB&D9^>.JNkzxV+!sFWjqrs{QXUq4zP ("EU$78]R w .{1:t4Ah{#D(}0 Xq~ ^R $#nxwS|p/95 S%tOhp>'<Ha,:;`rI?tOSr;R^:cw Jmk/EvHNpnp5wVxB5Nco$h+3ME|PC([(Whwa !#14<0OdHX5[U}BAV2HlsxZsXQU}18NRhi+"%RACWP[(A4SoY"-"4}\Ysrk]_L*c gd'uJJR0ex-%!PbNI" 4{Q04vXBm~Q*R#X;@5@Unknown G* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial7Georgia9Garamond5. *aTahoma?= * Courier New;WingdingsA BCambria Math"1&&&{ J{ J!4d772qHX ? >2!xxGrupp 1 emma allvinRoger Rene LevyH          Oh+'0  < H T `lt|Grupp 1 emma allvinNormalRoger Rene Levy2Microsoft Office Word@F#@4:@4m@@4m@ {՜.+,D՜.+,X hp|   J7 Grupp 1Grupp 1 TitleRubrik 8@ _PID_HLINKSAD <kBhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en.htmlq1*mailto:Margareta.sandstrom.kjellin@mdh.seq  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F3"@Data 1Table*fWordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q