Early Childhood Education Journal

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 465–474 | Cite as

To Involve Parents in the Assessment of the Child in Parent–Teacher Conferences: A Case Study



This article explores the face-to-face interactions between parents and teachers in parent–teacher conferences in the Swedish preschool. The article highlights how the preschool teacher introduces the conference by using a specific artifact, so-called “strength cards” with words relating to characteristic behaviour and qualities. The theoretical framework is adopted from research of institutional talk and discourse analysis. The empirical material consists of two cases included in a larger study of parent–teacher conferences. The analysis reveals that the talk not only focuses on the assessment of the individual child but also is directed at the cards, the procedure, and the importance of parents being active and involved in learning the procedure. In addition, the cards are used by the teacher as a tool that governs parents towards becoming ‘good enough preschool parents’ who are cooperative and able to categorise and label their own children, that is, follow the institutional discourse. The analysis also shows that parents take control in order to overcome institutional barriers to parents’ involvement.


Preschool Parent–teacher conference Institutional talk Assessment Parental involvement 



The author gratefully acknowledges the support of The Swedish Research Council in financing this study.


  1. Adelswärd, V., Evaldsson, A., & Reimers, E. (1997). Samtal mellan hem och skola (Talk between home and school.). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  2. Agar, M. (1984). Institutional discourse. Text, 5(3), 147–168.Google Scholar
  3. Alasuutari, M. (2009). What is so funny about children? Laughter in parent-practioner interaction. International Journal of Early Years Education, 17(2), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alasuutari, M., & Karila, K. (2009). Framing the picture of the child. Children and Society, 24(2), 100–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alasuutari, M., & Markström, A. M. (forthcoming). Institutional order and the ordinary child in preschool. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research.Google Scholar
  6. Barton, A., Drake, C., Perez, G., St. Louis, K., & George, M. (2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Billig, M. (1989). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, England: University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cedersund, E. (1992). Från personligt problem till administrativt beslut. (From personal problems to administrative decisions.). Linköping University, Sweden: Tema Kommunikation.Google Scholar
  9. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London, England: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gars, C. (2002). Delad vårdnad. Föräldraskap och förskolläraruppgift i den offentliga barndomen. (Joint custody. Parenthood and the mission of preschool teachers in the public childhood.).. Stockholm University, Sweden: Institutionen för individ, omvärld och lärande.Google Scholar
  14. Glenn, P. J. (2003). Laughter in interaction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Essays on face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  16. Hjörne, E., & Säljö, R. (2004). ‘There is something about Julia’ -Symptoms, categories, and the process of invoking attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Swedish school. A case study. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 3(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofvendal, J. (2006). Riskabla samtal- en analys av potentiella faror i skolans kvarts- och utvecklingssamtal. (Risky conversations: An analysis of potential dangers in parent-student-teacher-conferences.). Linköping University, Sweden: The Institution for Language and culture.Google Scholar
  18. Holquist, M. (Ed.). (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lpfö 98. Läroplan för förskolan (1998). Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes förlag.Google Scholar
  20. Leiminer, M., & Baker, C. (2000). A child’s say. Talk at the pre-school: Conversation analytic research in early childhood settings. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(2), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindh, G., & Lindh-Munther, A. (2005). ‘Antingen får man skäll eller beröm’. En studie av utvecklingssamtal i elevers perspektiv. (A study of parent-teacher conferences from the pupils’ perspective.) Studies in Educational Policy and Educational philosophy: E-tidskrift, 2005:1. http://www.upi.artisan.se.
  22. Linell, P. (1990). De institutionella samtalens elementära former: om möten mellan professionella och lekmän. (The elementary forms of the institutional talk–meetings between professionals and citizens.). Forskning om utbildning, 17(4), 18–35.Google Scholar
  23. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. Mäkitalo, Å. (2005). The record as a formative tool: A study of immanent pedagogy in the practice of vocational guidance. Qualitative Social Work, 4(4), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markström, A. M. (2005). Förskolan som normaliseringspraktik. En etnografisk studie. (Preschool as a normalizing practice. An ethnographic study.). Linköping University: Linköping Studies in Pedagogic Practices 1.Google Scholar
  26. Markström, A. M. (2006). Utvecklingssamtalet—ett möte mellan hem och institution. (The parent-teacher conference: A meeting between home and preschool.) Skapande vetande, 46. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping university.Google Scholar
  27. Markström, A. M. (2009). The parent-teacher conference in the Swedish preschool: A study of an ongoing process in different times and places. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 23(2), 112–122.Google Scholar
  28. Maynard, D. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago, IL: University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Moquist, I. (2003). Constructing a parent. In M. N. Block, K. Holmlund, I. Moqvist, & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), Governing children, families and education: Restructuring the welfare state (pp. 117–132). New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  30. Pillet-Shore, D. (2003). Doing ‘okay’: On the multiple metrics of an assessment. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(3), 285–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Popkewitz, T. S. (2003). Governing the child and pedagogicalization of the parent. In M. N. Block, K. Holmlund, I. Moqvist, & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), Governing children, families and education: Restructuring the welfare state (pp. 35–62). New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  32. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1996). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Silverman, D., Baker, C., & Keogh, J. (1998). The case of the silent child: Advice-giving and advice-reception in interviews. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Social Competence: Arenas of action (pp. 222–240). London, England: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Welfare StudiesLinköping UniversityNorrköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations