Literacy as Epistemology and Educational Policy: An Exploration of a Large Swedish Professional Development Programme for Teachers

ABSTRACT

From once being synonymous with reading and writing, literacy, as a concept has expanded in the last three decades to today being associated with multiple meaning making forms and competences. Impactful, in this shift, has been the research orientation of New Literacy Studies. Besides academia, the literacy concept has also had a major influence on the global assessment frameworks of Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS). This study is interested in the epistemological potential of this perception of literacy, but also on how it affects educational policy. Material examined is a large Swedish governmentally-initiated professional development programme for teachers, launched in 2014. Two main variants of the literacy concept can be identified in the programme, one more closely aligned with New Literacy Studies, and the other more influenced by PISA and PIRLS. Findings show, strong impact from the global assessment version of the literacy concept, resulting in a mainly skills-based and instrumental educational discourse, far from the concept of Bildung, traditionally characteristic of the Nordic school systems. Further, of the two variants, New Literacy has a broader epistemological potential, and is, as such, more closely related to Bildung.

KEYWORDS:

• Literacy
• Policy implementation
• Global assessments
• New literacy studies
• Bildung

Introduction

From once being synonymous with reading and writing, literacy, as a concept, has expanded in the last three decades, to today being associated with multiple meaning making forms and competences (OECD, 2019, p. 28; Sellar & Lingard, 2013, pp. 18–19). This shift began in the 1990s, leading to the formation of New Literacy Studies, represented by linguists such as Brian Street, Allan Luke, James Paul Gee, Mary Hamilton and semiotician Gunter Kress (Dąbrowska, 2019). Within this tradition, literacy is understood as a multiple social practice, grounded in various culturally constructed contexts and therefore always linked to societal power structures (B. Street, 2006). Further, perceptions of texts, reading and writing are widened to include numerous semiotic meaning making systems such as images, symbols and sound (Dąbrowska, 2019, p. 35).

This article focuses on the role and epistemological potential of this perception of literacy, in this study, referred to as the literacy concept, but also, on how it affects educational policy. Its object of study is a large Swedish governmentally-initiated professional development programme for teachers called the Reading Lift. The programme was launched in 2014 after a considerable drop in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) literacy rankings, and an overall decline in traditional reading habits (books, fiction and non-fiction) amongst youth (Kulturdepartementet, 2011). During the implementation phase, however, certain changes took place, which led to a programme that in substantial ways came to deviate from the initial intentions stated by the governmentally-assigned preparatory work. What was first proposed as a professional development initiative on children’s and youth literature – in the initial Bildung-inspired report The Culture of Reading (Kulturdepartementet 2012: 65, pp. 13–14; P.-O. Erixon & Löfgren, 2018), and later a programme on reading and writing for L1 teachers (Swedish) (Kulturdepartementet, 2013; Utbildningsdepartementet, 2013) – became, in the hands of the implementing state agency a massive lift in New Literacy perspectives and multimodality for all teachers (Löfgren, 2023).

This study is interested in the epistemological and, as such, policy implications of this theoretical shift; i.e. from a traditional linguistic and Bildung-inspired discourse, where reading and writing are seen as uniform (consisting of letters and words), and primarily being within the realms of school subject L1, to New Literacy perspectives with, in line with G. R. Kress and van Leeuwen (1996), multimodal perspectives on texts. This is significant because conceptions introduced by New Literacy Studies have become increasingly influential, not just within the academic linguistic realm, but also on the transnational literacy services PIRLS and PISA (Krogh, 2012; Sellar & Lingard, 2013, p. 19). In turn, the assessment discourses greatly influence global education policy, leading nation states to review curriculum and invest vast sums of money in teachers’ professional development (Addey, 2017; Sahlberg, 2016, p. 86).

Traditionally, the Nordic school systems have relied heavily on the 19th century Humboldtian concept of Bildung, i.e. a broad and holistic educational ideal emphasizing the development of the whole individual, through tradition, knowledge and reflection, towards personal transformation and societal responsibility (Ringarp, 2013). Due to a neoliberal turn in the 1990s, skills emphasized by international comparative tests have, however, been given a far more prominent position in national curriculums, thus marginalizing Bildung and other more complex and, perhaps, not as easily measured educational outcomes (Liberg et al., 2012; Pettersson et al., 2017).

There are, however, also significant differences between New Literacy Studies and conceptions of literacy to be found in the educational frameworks of PISA and PIRLS. New Literacy Studies relies heavily on poststructuralist-inspired power analysis, a standpoint which does not permeate the global assessment agendas (Sundström Sjödin, 2019). Both schools of literacy are present in the Reading Lift and the aim of this study is, with the use of qualitative content analysis, to explore the role and epistemological potential of the literacy concept, both the original New Literacy Studies variant and the global assessment sort, in the programme. The aim is broken down into the following research questions:

• To what extent, and how, do the different schools of literacy influence the programme?

• What is the epistemological potential of the different variants of literacy?

• What educational discourse and, as such, policy is endorsed by the literacy variants?

In so doing, the study places itself within the field of research engaged with policy impact from the transnational assessment services and from New Literacy Studies. When countries revise their educational and epistemological frameworks, a lot is at stake. This study intends to contribute to this area by examining what the variants of the literacy concept have to offer, as well as to analyse and discuss consequences for education and for teachers. The article starts by outlining the organization and structuring of the Reading Lift, followed by a section on literacy, theory and methodology. Key findings are thereafter presented, along with a discussion on how the results can be understood, as well as implications for the educational system at large.

Context

The reading lift

Between the years 2015 and 2020, the Reading Lift had reached about 25% of all teachers in Sweden (Skolverket, 2020). The Swedish National Agency for Education was responsible for the overall outlining of the programme whilst researchers, primarily from linguistic and educational departments, contributed with content, in the form of professional development modules for all levels of the Swedish school system. These are: preschool (ages 1–5), compulsory school, divided into four stages: the preschool class F (age 6); 1–3 (ages 7–9); 4–6 (ages 10–12) and 7–9 (ages 13–15), upper secondary school (ages 16–18).

The programme is based on collegial learning. After receiving training from the National Agency, mentors are given the responsibility to lead and mentor a collegial learning group, consisting of six to eight teachers at a local school, studying at least two Reading Lift modules (Carlbaum et al., 2019). A module entails eight (sometimes four) submodules. Each submodule comprises four sections: (a) an article, 10–12 pages, often complimented by a short film, (b) instructions for collegial discussion, (c) suggestions for lesson planning, and (d) follow-up of teaching activity. Further, as a literacy programme spanning the entire curriculum, the Reading Lift consists of generalized resources, i.e. modules applicable to all teachers regardless of subject and specialization, but also of materials which are profiled towards specific school subjects.

Results from a large evaluation conducted on the Reading Lift, assigned by the National Agency, show that some new insights were gained by programme attendees, which led to small, although over time declining, effects in changed instruction (Carlbaum et al., 2019). Satisfaction rates were highest for preschool teachers (55%), lower for compulsory school (41%), and even lower for upper secondary school (38%) (p. 54). Previous research has shown that little or no new knowledge was gained in collegial learning groups, partly due to theoretical breaches between presented perspectives and teachers, illustrated, for example, by the following quotes: ‘this text is actually the first one I read which I do not understand a bit of’, and, ‘the concept of text activity messes with my understanding’ (Johansson & Magnusson, 2019, p. 14). The mismatch between teachers and texts not only led to problems in acquiring content, but also to some participants distancing themselves from the programme (Randahl & Varga, 2020). Danielsson et al. (2019), however, found that teachers entered into a dialogue with materials and that different parts were applied depending on the situation. Kirsten (2020) shows how the programme mainly functions as a form of policy implementation, although the collegial learning groups allowed for some resistance and differences of ideas.

P.-O. Erixon and Löfgren (2018, 2020, 2022) studied the role of democracy and the use of literary texts in the Reading Lift for compulsory school 4–9 and upper secondary school. For each phase in the implementation process, the space for literature and democracy was decreased (2018). Bildung-perspectives on literature as an art form for upper secondary school, drastically differs from the more instrumental skills and strategy-based discourse for compulsory school (2020; 2022). The radically different approach characterizing the upper secondary material, compared to compulsory school, can partly be understood by the fact that involved researchers were given a greater manoeuvring space in relation to Agency officials (2022).

Literacy

New Literacy Studies relies heavily upon B. V. Street’s and Street (1984) ethnographic inspired distinction between the autonomous and ideological. An autonomous standpoint perceives literacy as a neutralized and decontextualized skill, transferable to multiple situations regardless of cultural and social context. The ideological perspective, represented by Street, on the other hand, understands literacy as a continually changing social practice, and emphasis is placed on the fact that there are multiple literacies depending on context and situation (Dąbrowska, 2019; B. Street, 1994, 2006). Perceiving literacy as a socially situated practice means paying attention not just to specific communicative acts (text activities) per se, but also to the whole range of activities related to meaning making before, during and after a literacy event (Dąbrowska, 2019; B. Street, 1997). New Literacy Studies also stress how all meaning-making practices are embedded in power structures (B. Street, 1994), as well as on how formal education can benefit by tending to the many ways literacy activites, and consequently learning, takes place out of school (Gourlay et al., 2014, p. 3). The importance of learning in a meaningful way and from authentic situations is also highlighted (B. Street, 1997, p. 46).

In the 1990s, the New Literacy approach was further developed by the New London Group, consisting of representatives such as Mary Hamilton, Allan Luke, James Paul Gee and Gunter Kress. Perspectives advanced by this assemblage is often labelled the multiliteracies approach (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Dąbrowska, 2019). Compared to the first generation of academic scholars, setting the groundwork based on anthropological reserach, the New London group has its lens clearly focused on current increasingly digitalized and globalized society (Dąbrowska, 2019). Inspired by G. R. Kress and van Leeuwen’s (1996) semiotic scholarship, increased emphasis was placed on the wide range of meaning making modes surrounding all human life, for example, images, symbols and body language etc., as well as how these systems interact (G. R. Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996). G. R. Kress and van Leeuwen (1996, 2000) emphasize how all texts, even those consisting solely of letters and words, involve the interaction and integration of several semiotic modes (in the given example, wording, layout, colour and typography). Further, in accordance with the underlying poststructuralist power analysis of New Literacy Studies, the multiliteracies approach actively criticizes the long-standing Western tradition of primarily prioritizing print literature, thus neglecting other modes of representation and, consequently, literacy (G. Kress, 2000, p. 184).

Another distinct tradition, today, by the works of Janks (2009), most often incorporated under the umbrella of New Literacy Studies, is critical literacy. This tradition, sprung out of the works of Paulo Freire, emphasizes the empowering and liberating potential of education (Dąbrowska, 2019). The purpose of critical literacy is to promote students’ ability to question power, inequality and injustice, as well as to strengthen their capacity to, through various literacy activities, influence those conditions and enhance social change (Freire, 1993; Janks, 2009).

Perspectives developed by New Literacy Studies, in many ways, permeate the transnational assessments of PIRLS, organized by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), and PISA, held by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). PIRLS assesses reading comprehension in fourth-graders, and PISA reading literacy, mathematical literacy and science literacy in 15-year-olds. Both services emphasize literacy as a multiple social practice, especially the OECD, which also has the widest definition, encompassing not just a wide range of meaning making, but also use of subject knowledge in societal life (scientific literacy, etc., OECD, 2019, p. 28; Sellar & Lingard, 2013, p. 19).

There are, however, also significant differences between New Literacy Studies and the global evaluations. The accentuation of power analysis underpinning New Literacy Studies does not permeate the global services, nor the strong underscoring of the relationship between literacy and social change, prominent especially in critical literacy. Instead, more skills and competence-based perspective takes its place, focusing on effective strategies for the attainment of a certain kind of literacy; for example, the ability to apply reading strategies, understand and locate information, make inferences, integrate ideas, as well as to evaluate and critique content (Mullis & Martin, 2015, p. 13; OECD, 2019, pp. 34–36). The assessment discourses are also more form and function oriented (Pettersson, 2003). As a consequence, certain text subgenres are singled out and seen as essential to master. These are narration, description, exposition, instruction and argumentation (Mullis & Martin, 2015, pp. 15–17; OECD, 2019, p. 38, 46–48). This narrower view sharply contrasts New Literacy Studies’ recognition of a wide range of meaning making expressions (B. Street, 1997). Further, critical reflection is enhanced by both PISA and PIRLS, but primarily for societal use and economic life, and not, as with Street, to question the dominance of certain literacies over others, or with Freire for emancipation, justice and social change (Sundström Sjödin, 2019).

As such, the literacy curriculum of PIRLS and PISA, although based on principles outlined by New Literacy Studies, in reality comes closer to an autonomous view, where a set of fixed competences and texts are seen as essential, regardless of context. This has also been one of the major points of criticism against global services, i.e. that a set of skills are seen as universal and, as such, as having major influence on nation states’ local level curricula (Addey, 2017; Sahlberg, 2016, p. 88; Zhao, 2020). The OECD discourse in particular has been criticized for its endorsement of somewhat instrumental educational outcomes, setting aside other goals such as broad subject knowledge, personal and social development (Borsgård, 2021; Sjøberg, 2018; Zhao, 2020). Education philosophers Vasco d’Agnese (2017) and Gert Biesta (2014) have especially questioned the way the assessments leave no room for hesitation, subjectivity and risk, elements which they regard as central to a truly meaningful education.

In contrast to global assessments, New Literacy Studies has been much more positively endorsed by the academic field of education. Its impact has grown, especially within linguistics, for example, shedding new light on how small children are involved in literacy practices long before the development of formal language (Fast, 2008; Whitehead, 2007). Motivation for learning can also improve by raising children’s awareness of their own rich literacy competence before formal schooling begins (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Pahl & Rowsell, 2012; B. Street, 1997). Besides its expediency for an increasingly digitalized and image dominated society, the multimodal approach has also been appraised for enhancing creativity in education (Matthewman et al., 2004).

Some criticism has, however, been issued, not so much towards the foundational principles of New Literacy Studies, but for what this might imply in an educational setting. What is primarily at stake in this debate is the value of traditional reading and writing, which critics of the orientation regard as essential for cognitive and linguistic development. One of the first to issue a critique was English professor MacCabe (1998), who warns against the underlying relativism of New Literacy Studies. For MacCabe the New Literacy concept undermines the very idea of education: ‘If every literacy practice is as rich as every other then why should we bother to teach at all?’ (p. 27). By re-examining some foundational anthropological studies on which New Literacy Studies is based, Kate Stephens (2000) discusses how these findings, in fact, do imply some unique benefits to traditional reading and writing. In between the autonomous and the ideological, Stephens therefore proposes a third position, literacy for education, allowing for school literacy and certain generalizations about language to be made (p. 20). Further, Machin (2016) raises question on the way New Literacy Studies is continually expanding multimodality, without working with clear definitions on how all these mediums are to be analyzed and understood. Boughton (2016) argues that although Freire recognized multiple literacies, he also acknowledged the importance of training in standardized forms, in order to connect from the local to the global, gain influence, and execute change. Boughton also discusses how New Literacy Studies’ poststructuralist problematizations of ‘master narratives’ makes it highly compatible with the neoliberal agenda of the OECD and The World Bank, although the alliance in many ways is unholy. Both discourses, however, resist large generalized national literacy initiatives, preferring more narrow or local enterprises; for New Literacy Studies in the form of culture specific, or even sub literacies, and for global assessments by promoting a certain kind of literacy considered useful for global economic competitiveness.

More specifically, as concerns this particular study’s focus on epistemology and policy, Ellen Krogh (2012, 2020) has explored the effects of the literacy concept on the Nordic school subjects L1 (mother tongue). Krogh (2012) finds that although the global assessment variant has had a strong impact at national policy level, individual teachers still hold relatively strong Bildung ideals in their conceptualization of school subject L1. Krogh (2020) has also attended to the compatibility of literacy with Bildung, concluding that although literacy, especially the diverse linguistic, and semiotic New Literacy approach, corresponds to many of the core Bildung aims, literacy is to be viewed as a prerequisite for, rather than as an equivalent to, Bildung. While Bildung, Krogh argues, entails the ‘double process of cultural socialization and individuation towards taking responsibility for social progress’, the more competence-based discourse of literacy primarily promotes empowerment of the individual (s. 172). In addition, Borsgård and Jönsson (2019) examined the relationship between literacy and literary studies, finding with literacy, in line with Krogh, an underlying tendency of primarily endorsing the individual, i.e. the learning subject and his/her competences, at the expense of objects of education (for example, knowledge about literacy works of art), but also subjectivity and risk (critical thinking and interpretation of art). Both Krogh (2020), and Borsgård and Jönsson (2020), build their conclusions on an analysis of policy documents and, in part, previous research (own and others). By a more empirical approach, this study, however, seeks to contribute with nuances regarding both how the different schools of literacy play out in shifting educational discourses, but also as regards their epistemological potential.

Theory

In order to understand how the different schools of literacy influences the programme, for example, the cohesion of variants with different school subjects and stages, this study draws upon sociologist Basil Bernstein’s theory on strong and weak classification. When comprehending the world, human beings sort knowledge into categories, in the form of, for example, school subjects. Power relations create, legitimize and reproduce boundaries between categories (Bernstein, 2000). The power of a school subject can be determined by, for example, allocated space in the curriculum or school timetable, but also by tradition and longevity (Pluim et al., 2020). A category with high amounts of specialization, or a unique ‘voice’, has strong classification, and is, as such, less apt for change. Weak classification shows less specialized identities or ‘voices’, meaning in the case of, for example, a school discipline that content can more easily be renegotiated (Bernstein, 2000).

The analysis of the epistemological potential is based on the classic epistemological categories of Aristoteles: episteme (knowledge), techne (skills) and phronesis (practical wisdom) (Gustavsson, 2000). In addition, the Humboldtian 19^th century concept of Bildung, which incorporates all three of Aristoteles’ categories, is enfolded. The goal of traditional Bildung is to, through broad and free quest for knowledge and reflection, develop the individual in multiple ways as concerns episteme, techne and phronesis. The last aspect, phronesis, which entails, for example, ethics, morals, empathy and maturity, is especially important, since one of the main aims of Bildung is to develop societally responsible individuals (Krogh, 2020; Rømer, 2021). More (post)modern variants particularly emphasize the advancement of the ability to critically analyse relationships of power, as well as daring to rest in complexity, uncertainty and not-knowing (Biesta, 2014; Gadamer, 2013; Sjöström, 2013). All concepts are further described under methods.

Finally, in order to contextualize the Reading Lift and understand results, the programme is located in the Swedish school system, which for many years has been influenced by neoliberal ideas and new public management (Almqvist, 2006), with a strong focus on evaluation and review, i.e. what Michael Power (1997) calls the audit-society, and Peter Dahler Larsen (2012) the evaluation society. Based on Talbert’s distinction between bureaucracy centred models of professional development, which are implemented from above and often motivated by a need for control, and teacher centred models, grounded in teachers’ own initiative and needs, the Reading Lift – as a state initiative – is seen as a form of policy implementation (see also Kirsten, 2020). Understanding the Reading Lift as policy implementation means that the epistemological content and pathways outlined are regarded not just as complementary suggestions for educational content and practice, but rather, as guidelines or even protocol. According to Talbert, the management-based efforts reflected in bureaucracy centred models can be sensed by teachers, leading them to distrust an initiative.

Data and methods

In this study, the role and epistemological potential of these variants of literacy is explored with the use of qualitative content analysis, which is a method that uses a set of systematic procedures to validify text meanings by condensing large amounts of written data to smaller groups of information (Weber, 1990). In total, all written Reading Lift content for preschool, compulsory school and upper secondary school was examined, meaning 39 modules (284 submodules), which is equivalent to 3,000 pages of text. In order to limit the range of the study, additional film materials and six modules developed for special need schools and one for sign language schools, were excluded. Because materials on the National Agencys' learning platform, the Learning Portal (https://larportalen.skolverket.se/#/), are sometimes revised, an end date was set to 31 December 2020. This means that the latest module versions up to 31 December 2020 are the ones that were downloaded and examined for this study.

Content analysis

As a research method, content analysis focuses on the description and interpretation of textual data, using the systematic process of coding, in order to identify categories, themes and patterns (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009). Cohen et al. (2007) outline the process in four steps: coding, categorizing, comparing, and concluding. More specifically, as regards qualitative content analysis, Assarroudi et al. (2018) divide the procedure into three phases: (1) preparation, (2) organization, and (3) reporting (p. 50–52). The preparation phase involves the formulating of research questions, gathering of data and becoming immersed with the data, often inductively and in the form of a preliminary coding. In line with this, all Reading Lift submodules were initially read to obtain an overall understanding of content. In this first step, a tentative coding was also conducted, paying particular attention to literacy perspectives and educational outcomes.

The organization phase entails the construction of a formative categorization matrix – in this study, referred to as an analytical framework – based on existing theory, previous research and sometimes the preliminary inductive coding, in order to systematically explore content (Assarroudi et al., 2018; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). The studied material is thereafter coded according to the defined analysis principles for each established category, first through a pilot, often leading to adjustments of the analytical framework, and thereafter in a main analysis (Assarroudi et al., 2018, p. 51). For this study, an analysis framework was constructed based on domain-specific knowledge from the educational, linguistic and literacy field, and the initial coding. The framework was refined in several rounds of organizing and amassing of codes into categories, reformulating categories, and comparing categories, and through the use of a pilot. Once a framework was established, the submodules were read once again to thoroughly map content according to the developed framework

Analysis process

Initially, the analysis targets to what extent, and how, the different variants of the literacy concept influence the programme. In a previous study (Löfgren, 2023), the number of submodules influenced by the literacy concept was established (definition, literacy as a multiple social practice). In this study, these submodules are re-examined to assess variants, as well as to what extent these influence materials constructed for all teachers (generalized material) versus subject-specific content, according to protocol 1 (Table 1):

Table 1. Protocol 1 Variant of the literacy concept.

Literacy concept	Approximation based on:
Global assessment literacy discourse	More autonomous; and	Focus on a certain type of literacy for school advancement, labour market and economic life (Borsgård, 2021, p. 129).
	Formalistic; and/or	Emphasis on mastering specific and universal literacy forms and skills, for example narration, description, exposition, instruction and argumentation (Sundström Sjödin, 2019), information analysis and source criticism; and/or Focus on the form and function (Rose & Martin, 2012).
	Strategy-based learning metacognition.	Emphasis on structured and standardized reading and writing strategies; and/or Promote students’ ability to incorporate meta-perspective on learning (Borsgård, 2021).
New Literacy Studies	Ideological; and	Various literacies are recognized and encouraged rather than a single universal standard; and/or Training of ability to critically reflect on how uses of literacies are always embedded in relations of power (B. Street, 1997).
	Emphasis on learning in meaningful, authentic situations.	Learning through practices in a wide range of meaningful/authentic contexts, allowing for dialogue and/or individual experience, and/or Informal learning (Gee, 2018; Gourlay et al., 2014).
Critical literacy	Primarily ideological, but can also be autonomous; and	Acknowledgment of local literacies; and/or, emphasis on learning standardized forms, in order to address societal power imbalances (Boughton, 2016).
	Education as a liberating practice for social change.	Cultivating ability for critical power analysis in order to detect, question and challenge social inequalities/injustices, and Educating agents for social change (Freire, 1993; Janks, 2009).

Due to the close relationship between New Literacy Studies and critical literacy – both proceeding from the standpoint of power-analysis (Janks 2009) – results on critical literacy are reported as a subset of the total percentage of submodules aligned with New Literacy Studies, although later separated in the following analysis. Further, in order to understand the alignment of the variants of the literacy concept with different school subjects, the analysis, under discussion, draws upon Bernstein’s theory of strong and weak classification

In examining the epistemological potential of the literacy variants, four main categories were established: (1) Bildung, (2) Episteme, (3) Episteme & Techne, and (4) Techne (Table 2). In order to further nuance the outcome, almost all categories were divided into classes: one wide and more generalized, and one narrow and focused on the development of specific knowledge and skills for more limited purposes, for example, school subject literacies, functional literacy and literacy strategies. With Bildung, the terms traditional, narrow and postmodern are used. A narrow Bildung approach diverges from traditional Bildung approach through a weaker emphasis on tradition and/or phronesis (more diffuse, single aspects). Postmodern Bildung primarily focuses on the development of the ability to question, challenge and change social conditions and/or dare to rest in uncertainty.

Table 2. Protocol 2 Epistemological categories.

Epistemic category	Approximation based on:
Bildung	Traditional	Stands on tradition, cultural, artistic, historical or scientific; and Development of the individual through knowledge and reflection by interaction between the individual and world, impacting both individual and world; and Development in multiple ways relating to a) episteme, b) techne and c) phronesis.
		Episteme	Generalized knowledge development: subject knowledge, scientific, cultural and historic knowledge, philosophy, moral and ethics etc.; and
		Techne	Skills development: communicative, analytic, artistic, interpretative, critical thinking, craftmanship; and
		Phronesis	Development of an engaged and responsible individual who has practical judgement, informed by knowledge and refection (including morals, ethics) and the ability (skills) to act or strive for the common good, and to live a meaningful and constructive life (Konrad, 2012; Rømer, 2021; Kinsella & Pitsman, 2012).
	Narrow	Weaker emphasis on either:tradition (see 1 above); and/orphronesis (see 3 above), more diffuse, single aspects are touched upon. • tradition (see 1 above); and/or • phronesis (see 3 above), more diffuse, single aspects are touched upon.
	Postmodern Bildung	Primarily focusing on a specific type of phronesis namely:ability, through critical power analysis to question, challenge and change social conditions, cultural and epistemic assumptions (Freire, 1993; Janks, 2009); and/or are to rest in with uncertainty, not-knowing, complexity (Biesta, 2014; Gadamer, 2013). • ability, through critical power analysis to question, challenge and change social conditions, cultural and epistemic assumptions (Freire, 1993; Janks, 2009); and/or • dare to rest in with uncertainty, not-knowing, complexity (Biesta, 2014; Gadamer, 2013).
Episteme	Focus on development of generalized knowledge.
Episteme and Techne	Focus on development of both knowledge and skills.
	Wide	Generalized (broad) knowledge in language and/or other areas, and focus on skills development for a wide variety of societal and cultural purposes.
	Narrow	Knowledge and skills in a more limited sense. Targets, for example, subject-specific language, mastering specific school/subject literacies, awareness of the relationship between form and function (functional literacy), mastering text types (narration, description, argumentation etc).
Techne	Primarily focused on development of skills.
	Wide	Skills development in a generalized (broad) way for a wide variety of purposes, for example, reading comprehension, writing, reflexion.
	Narrow	Skills development, but for limited purposes, for example, formalistic (functional) skills, mastering specific text types, reading strategies and a meta perspective on learning.

All submodules were analysed according to the established epistemic categories, i.e. submodules influenced by the literacy concept, and material not impacted, in order to explore with which educational discourses the literacy concepts align and not. Lastly, to answer research question three, results from the analysis of the epistemological potential are drawn together per school type, and under discussion analysed against the backdrop of the historic and contemporary context of the Nordic educational system. Results for each category were collated and calculated into percentage for each school type and stage, except for the preschool year, which, is merged with the first years of compulsory school, since material for stage F is not distinguishable from stage 1–3.

Results

In a previous study (Löfgren, 2023) on programme compliance with the government’s intentions for the Reading Lift, and the PIRLS and PISA discourses, impact from the literacy concept (in a generalized version, i.e. literacy as a social practice) was notable, and especially pronounced in the compulsory school material, in between 60−68% (Table 3, line 1). Focus for this study, however, is on the plasticity of the literacy concept, i.e. how it, although acknowledging literacy as a multiple social practice, can vary in breadth and span depending on alliance (Krogh, 2012). In the Reading Lift, mainly two versions can be detected; one more influenced by New Literacy Studies, and one based on the global evaluation agendas of PISA and PIRLS. Starting with proportions between the two main types of literacy present in the Reading Lift, findings show that the global assessment variant (Table 3, line 2) takes precedence from compulsory school stages F–3, rising from 54%, of the total amount of literacy influenced material (line 1), to 80% for upper-secondary school.

Table 3. Variants of the literacy concept.

Literacy concept (%)	Preschool	Comp. F–3	Comp. 4–6	Comp 7–9	Upper Sec
1. Literacy generalized	38	60	68	66	52
2. Global assessment version	11	54	74	71	80
3. New Literacy Studies	89	46	26	29	20
4. Critical literacy	0	39	45	44	20

Characteristic of this material is an adherence to literacy as a multiple social practice, all the while closing in on a narrower and more autonomous range, both as concerns kind of literacy and practice. A typical example is a submodule on reading comprehension for compulsory school stages F − 3, combining Judith Langer’s five reading phases (orientation, understanding, feedback, overview and creativity), with reading strategies, such as, summarizing and making inferences. In this submodule, the role of the teacher as an expert strategy modeller is especially emphasized: ‘By reading between the lines, or making inferences, good readers can draw conclusions and understand the underlying message of the story. The teacher can model this with the aim of students gradually incorporating these reading strategies into their own practice’ (Schmidt & Jönsson, 2018, p. 5 − 6). In essence, kind of literacy is here limited to a set of autonomous and systematic school-based phases (before, during and after a reading event) and strategies, first modelled by a teacher. Another is submodule on writing for compulsory school stages F − 9 preoccupied with form and function of what is identified as foundational text activities, such as: narration, description, and argumentation. This submodule also highlight how text activities can build on each other in order to create more complex texts: ‘The students learn to go from writing texts in simple genres, texts that only consist of one text activity, to be able to produce texts that contains several text activities, so-called complex genres’ (Andersson Varga, 2018, p. 5). Again, literacy is here abbreviated to a set of fixed text-based subgenres, which are seen as universal regardless of context.

Consequently, influence from New Literacy Studies is weaker, mostly between 20 and 29% (line 3). Distinctive of submodules aligning with New Literacy Studies is a preoccupation with a broader range of literacy, and a pedagogy drawing attention to how student’s interests and ideas, as well as meaningful or authentic situations, can enrich learning. Examples of this can be found in several preschool submodules highlighting how teachers can draw upon body language, play, or aesthetics – i.e. a wide repertoire of literacy practices present in both school activities and during leisure time, and, as such, ideological – for learning. A typical example is a submodule inspired by Kress’ semiotic scholarship on sign making in play and exploration, expressing how: ‘Children are, thus, experienced sign creators and sign readers before they encounter the written language’ (Nilsson, 2018, p. 4). Other examples can be found in compulsory school material on reading promotion, accentuating a rich literacy environment and meaningful practices around reading: ‘when students experience tasks as meaningful, when they see that their texts are read and used by others and that they get to share other people’s texts. When they get an authentic response to what they’ve communicated, it makes a difference for reading engagement’ (Hultgren & Johansson, 2020, p. 5).

Further, for compulsory school, between 39 and 45%, of the total amount of material influenced by New Literacy Studies, stems from the tradition of critical literacy (line 4). Submodules with a critical literacy profile specifically emphasize power-analysis in relation to various societal issues. A typical example is a compulsory school submodule for stages 7−9 on image analysis and intersectionality, i.e. a form of analysis were various societal power asymmetries, such as, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation is combined, outlining how: ‘A basic assumption within critical literacy is that no texts are neutral. But neither are human beings. We can therefore, in a critical text work, review not only what we perceive as the message of the image, but also our own values around this message’ (Molloy, 2018, p. 1). This submodule not only encourages an exploration of power relationships in images, but also invite analysts to examine their own preconceived notions, and how these can affect how a phenomenon is perceived. Lastly, Reading Lift material for preschool differs radically from the pattern of other school forms, not only by lower impact from the literacy concept (38%, line 1) but also with a strong pre-eminence of New Literacy Studies (89%, line 3), although never in the form of critical literacy.

Generalized material versus subject oriented content

As a literacy across the curriculum programme, the Reading Lift contains both generalized materials, applicable to all teachers, and content developed for specific school subjects: L1 (Swedish), L2 (Swedish as a second language), mathematics, science, and social-oriented subjects (a combination of history, geography, civics and religion for compulsory school 4–9), and vocational studies for upper secondary school. Literacy influences the generalized materials (Appendix, Table A1) in a major way (70–80%, line 1). On the whole, school subjects are less impacted, ranging between 4 and 54% (line 5). Both, however, show strong influence from the assessment variant (line 2 and 6).

For school subject L1 (Appendix, Table A2), literacy inspired content fluctuates widely, from only 19% for upper secondary school, to as high as 71–75% for 4–9 (line 1). Except for preschool, the global assessment variant dominates 67–100% (line 2). Submodules affected by the global assessment sort mainly address systematic reading and writing practices – before, during and after – a literacy event. An example is a submodule on reading strategies explaining how:

Strategy based reading involves teaching about and practicing the strategies experienced readers use during reading but also how prior knowledge is activated about the subject, about the text types found in the text and on the purpose of the reading. […] Experienced readers use meta-strategies and meta-comprehension before, during and after reading, something inexperienced readers less often do (Schüllerqvist et al., p. 3 − 4)

With meta-strategies, this submodule refers to practices advanced readers engage with, in order to effectively understand a text, for example – before reading – evaluating the purpose of the reading act, and activating a pre-understanding of content. Although more uncommon, examples of New Literacy inspired L1 material can also be found. An example is a submodule for upper secondary school on how literary analysis can benefit by a pedagogy drawing on students' leisure-time engagement in films and online forums centred around popular authors and stories. Almost the same pattern can be observed for L2, although here impact from the New Literacy Studies is somewhat more pronounced (line 6). Material influenced by the global assessment sort presents in the same way as for L1. When aligned with the New Literacy variant, L2 material particularly highlight the importance of drawing on students' cultural background, experiences and interest, for learning. An example is a submodule on writing and multilingualism for stages 7 − 9, challenging traditional school literacy by advocating for a wider repertoire: ‘in school, it is often claimed that there is one way of writing and one form of Swedish written language […] But at the same time today there is a rapid expansion of our written language repertoires. This means that new forms of writing and reading are developed, especially in digital contexts’ (Wedin, 2018, p. 4), as well as translanguaging, i.e. use of full linguistic repertoire (such as first language), in learning.

Regarding other subjects (Appendix, Table A3), influence from the literacy concept is not as prominent compared to both the generalized discourse and school subjects L1 and L2. Impact is weakest for vocational studies and mathematics (25%–38%, line 1 and 9). These submodules were also amongst those most difficult to categorize and define, since literacy influence, although present, is vague. For example, a submodule on mathematics, in part, highlight subject-specific text types and practices, such as, mathematical instruction, evidence and sample solutions. Literacy impact on the social-oriented subjects is higher (50%, line 7), whilst science exhibits a varied display, with no influence for preschool and compulsory school F–3, moderate for 4–9, and high for upper secondary school (75%, line 4). With the exception of vocational studies and science for upper secondary school, a clear domination can be found for the assessment variant of literacy (line 2 and 5), and for social-oriented subjects fully (100%, line 8). We find, in the assessment material, a preoccupation with form and function of subject specific literacy. An example is a submodule on scientific text types, outlining how: ‘In the natural sciences, the narrative text type is rarely a first choice, and language is not personal or illustrative. Instead, language is concise, objective and factual’ (Nygård Larsson, 2015, p. 8). Although more uncommon, material aligned with New Literacy Studies, emphasize how subject knowledge can benefit societal processes and democratic decision-making. An example is a compulsory school submodule for 4−9 on how to communicate science to the general public. In contrast to the more autonomous school literacy approach exemplified above, this submodule emphasize how conveyance of expert knowledge from scientific literacy to everyday language, actually can enrich both literacy and understanding:

Such a process requires that the writer be given the opportunity to in words make connections between a scientific phenomenon and one’s own everyday thinking […], which means that subject language and everyday language are linked together. [- - -] varied writing contributes to promoting students’ scientific understanding. (Pelger, 2015, s. 2 − 4)

For preschool, specific school subjects are not defined in the form of separate sections in the national curriculum and all teachers, integrative and holistically, teach all areas. Programme design for the preschool material, however, mainly follows the Reading Lift structure for the other school stages, i.e. with separate modules equivalent to L1, L2, mathematics and science. Of these, only preschool equivalent to L1 and mathematics, are influenced by the literacy concept (56% and 25%, respectively), and mainly by the New Literacy version. Within preschool L1, all but one submodule emphasizes multiple literacy practices, such as, play, movement and drama, in support learning. An illustrative example is a submodule addressing how to build and engage in imaginary play worlds, by the use of multiple aesthetic forms.

Epistemological potential

Let us now move on to the epistemological potential of the literacy concept, starting with the educational category of the traditional Bildung (Appendix, Table A4), which emphasizes the development of the whole individual in multiple ways towards both individual growth and societal responsibility. Results show that the literacy concept is not noticeably compatible with this category in the Reading Lift. No material defined as Bildung for compulsory school aligns with the literacy concept, only 14% for upper secondary school, and 30% for preschool (line 1). However, in instances when the literacy concept does align, it is primarily with the New Literacy variant (line 3). An example is a submodule for compulsory school stages F − 3 on how understanding of stories and creative writing can be fortified by multiple forms of meaning making:

The content of picture books can also benefit by multimodal processing […] where the students are given space for own image creation. Here, other aesthetic forms of expression such as music, dance and movement enter. Vivian Vasquez (2004) describes how to use a learning wall in exploratory language and text work […]. On a wall in the classroom, students’ thoughts, associations, poems, texts, pictures and photographs, which relates to the jointly read picture books, are placed (Schmidt, 2018, p. 5)

This submodule aligns with traditional Bildung in its holistic approach to literary narration for a wide variety of generalized purposes, including personal development and understanding of the world. But it also corresponds with New Literacy Studies, by its emphasis on use of multiple forms of meaning making in pedagogical instruction.

Bildung narrow (Appendix, Table A4), with either a weaker focus on tradition and/or phronesis (more diffuse/single aspects), is more frequently impacted by the literacy concept, although range fluctuates from 100% for preschool, to 50% for upper secondary school (line 4). As with traditional Bildung, New Literacy Studies is the most influential version, ranging between 67 and 100% of the total amount of submodules impacted by the literacy concept (line 6). An example is a preschool submodule on writing, where parallels are drawn between children’s expressions and adult representation: ‘While adults use pen and paper to create text of alphabetic signs, children use their bodily signs and other available material in order to create multidimensional texts […]’, i.e. meaning making is universal, although mode might vary (Hvit Lindstrand, 2018, p. 1). Further, all submodules labelled as critical literacy in the programme fully align with poststructuralist Bildung (line 7). In all cases, submodules reflect the social justice aspects of post-structuralist Bildung, in the tradition of Freire (1993) and further developed by Janks (2009), and not the orientation represented by Gadamer (2013) and Biesta (2014) on subjectivity and risk.

Moving on to Episteme (Appendix, Table A5), meaning submodules mainly focused on enhancing knowledge-based educational outcomes; because the Reading Lift is literacy across the curriculum programme, and language development, reading and writing, consists of both knowledge and skills, material that can be defined as pure Episteme is rare. In fact, content categorized as episteme can only be detected for preschool and compulsory school F − 3 in submodules addressing how an interest in science and technology can be encouraged by the use of children’s literature. This pure category of Episteme shows no impact of the literacy concept (line 1).

Continuing with the combined category of Episteme & Techne (Appendix, Table A5), which encompasses both the development of knowledge, and skills, a much more substantial impact from the literacy concept can be noted (line 1). Here, however, major differences can be observed between the two sub-categories: wide, i.e. directed towards the development of generalized knowledge and skills for a variety of purposes; and narrow, with a more limited focus on, for example, specific school or subject literacies. The literacy concept strongly impacts the narrow category from F − 3 and onwards (67–82%, line 5), and here influence of the global assessment literacy discourse is strong (71–81%, line 6), although with a lower percentage for F − 3 (58%). Characteristic of this material is a focus on form and function in school-subject literacies, i.e. a more limited repertoire. For example, in a submodule on scientific literacy for compulsory school stages 7−9, differences between everyday language and school subject language are highlighted: “The two variants are called registers, and the differences between them – the colloquial language and the school language – can also be seen in how connections are formulated. An everyday wording like what happens will be called processes […] in school language (Hajer, 2018, p. 6). Episteme & Techne wide, on the other hand, show weaker influence of the literacy concept, ranging from only 6% in upper secondary school, to 20–44% (line 2) for other stages and school types, and here, impact from New Literacy Studies is more profound (60–100%, line 4). A typical example is a L2 submodule for compulsory school stages 7−9 on identity in literacy development, stating, that: ‘In order for it to be worth investing in the new the language, meaningfulness and usefulness needs to be constantly present’ (Franker, 2018, p. 10). In practice this means a form of instruction based on student’s experiences and multiple forms of representation (oral, images, film etc.), placing ‘meaningfulness before accuracy […] and a perfect pronunciation’ (p. 5).

A similar pattern, although more pronounced, can be observed with Techne (Appendix, Table A6), i.e. the educational category primarily aimed at the development of skills, for example, reading, writing or orality. Here, the literacy concept heavily impacts the narrower category (95–100%, line 4), in all cases represented by the global assessment sort (line 5). Characteristic of this material is a focus of mastering text form and function, or various systematic and strategy-based approaches to reading, i.e. more limited. One example is a whole module (eight submodules) on writing in the generalized materials for compulsory school stages 4−6, where more generalized text activities, such as, narration, description and argumentation, are approached by genre-based pedagogy. In one of these, we also learn about form and function of the laboratory report:

A text with a certain overall purpose can also consist of several different writing activities. One such an example is the laboratory report where the overriding purpose of writing may be to organize knowledge. Here, the writing activity report on a process can be used to reproduce the working process, while the writing act explain is used to clarify results (Bergh Nestlog et al., 2018)

The wide category shows less impact, between 10 and 18% (line1), although substantially higher for preschool (75%), and here influence from New Literacy Studies is stronger (50–100%, line 3). Example of the latter, is submodule on reading promotion for compulsory school stages F − 9, especially addressing how meaningful and authentic practices around reading, such as participating in societal debate, can enhance boys' motivation to read. In contrast to the more autonomous literacy practice, illustrated in the example above (laboratory report), this example highlights the importance of a pedagogical practice acknowledging multiple forms:

The school needs to acknowledge and learn to appreciate boys’ interests and how their reading and writing skills are practiced outside of school. The texts and the reading and writing that boys engage in during their leisure time needs to be valued in school in order to draw upon their imagination, to maintain their attention and progress into a more thoughtful reading and writing (Brozo, 2019, p. 3)

Educational policy endorsed by the literacy concepts

What educational policy is, thus, endorsed through the literacy concept, and by the programme at large? In the Reading Lift, primarily two forms of educational discourse can be observed, as illustrated in Figures 1 where the two most diverse school forms; preschool with low impact from the literacy concept and strong influence from New Literacy Studies; and compulsory school 4–6, with pronounced literacy impact and a major dominance of the assessment version. In the figures, previously explored wide and narrow epistemic categories have been joined, i.e. episteme & techne wide and techne wide, and episteme & techne narrow and techne narrow. Further, postmodern Bildung is enclosed within Bildung Narrow, although later separated in the analysis.

Figure 1. Educational discourses for preschool and compulsory school stages 4–6.

As concerns preschool, for Nordic countries, more traditional educational economy can be distinguished, with considerable amounts of traditional Bildung (42%), i.e. the epistemic category least compatible with the literacy concept, in addition to substantial quantities of wide, more generalized, content (38%), and some pure Episteme (8%). Of all school types and stages, preschool also has the highest representation of Bildung narrow (8%), although not, as with the other school types, in the form of Freire inspired critical literacy. Further, the (compared to Bildung) more instrumental category of Episteme & Techne narrow is marginal (4%).

In contrast, for compulsory school stages 4−6, a highly competence centred, autonomous, and, on the whole, more instrumental epistemological discourse emerges, with substantial ascendancy of the combined category of narrow Episteme & Techne (62%), i.e. primarily content affected by the global assessment variant of literacy. Further, traditional Bildung is, compared to preschool, marginal (1%). Some presence of Bildung narrow can, however, be detected (5%), of which about half comprises critical literacy. Unlike the narrow-combined epistemological category, and Bildung, which varies significantly between the different school types and stages, the amount of wide, more generalized Episteme & Techne stays more or less the same throughout the school stages, ranging between 32 and 38%. The amount is highest for preschool and lowest for stages 4–6.

Limitations of the study

In content analysis, reliability can often be strengthened by joint analysis (Weber, 1990, p. 120). For this study, one person performed the analysis. In order to counteract any possible negative effects, however, the analysis was thoroughly repeated several times over. Another limitation is the unexamined accompanying film material, which features teachers applying article ideas. This material might have revealed other, perhaps even contradictory, perspectives to articles. Also, study results primarily apply to the Reading Lift, although they may give some indication as to the epistemological potential of the literacy concepts in other contexts.

Conclusion and discussion

This study examines the role, epistemological potential, and policy implications of the literacy concept, both the original New Literacy Studies variant and the global assessment sort, in the Swedish professional development programme for teachers – the Reading Lift. As a construct, the programme is, except for preschool, strongly impacted by the literacy concept (52–68%). Findings show a clear dominance of the global assessment version of literacy, especially for compulsory school 4–9 and upper secondary school (74–80%). Preschool differs dramatically from this pattern, with weaker literacy influence (38%) and strong domination of New Literacy Studies (89%).

Generalised materials (for all teachers) are profoundly impacted by the literacy concept (70–80%), and subject-specific content less so (4−54%). Both however, are primarily affected by the global assessment variant (54–100%). Considerable variations can, however, be observed between subjects and school forms. Literacy impact is weakest for mathematics and vocational studies (25–38%), and stronger for social-oriented subjects (50%). Science exhibits a varied display, from no influence for early stages, more pronounced for compulsory school 4–9, and high for upper secondary school. Literacy influence on L1 and L2 also fluctuates, from low for upper secondary school to high as 71–75% for compulsory school.

Further, of the two main variants of literacy in the Reading Lift, it would seem that the New Literacy variant has a wider, more generalized and holistic knowledge potential than the assessment sort. Although not particularly compatible with the very wide-ranging traditional form of Bildung, New Literacy Studies coheres well with Bildung narrow, and especially with poststructuralist Bildung. The New Literacy variant is also the most prominent form in the wider, more generalized, epistemic categories, although here literacy impact on the whole is much weaker. Further, a strong alignment of the literacy concept with the narrower epistemic categories (Episteme & Techne, and Techne) can be detected, with solid dominance of the global evaluation variant.

As regards educational discourse, and, as such, policy, major differences between preschool and other school types is perceived. Compulsory school and upper secondary school are dominated by the narrow and instrumental epistemological discourse, also strongly impacted by the assessment variant of the literacy concept. In addition, traditional Bildung, not particularly compatible with the literacy concept, is marginal (1%), although somewhat higher for upper secondary school (8%). In contrast, for preschool, traditional Bildung is the most predominant educational discourse (38%).

Analysis and discussion

Although without the inherent status of formal curricula, professional development can be understood as a form of policy implementation, especially if initiatives are implemented from above, i.e. at government and agency level (Kirsten, 2020; Talbert, 2010). Understanding the Reading Lift as policy, this study points to a tendency of major alterations taking place for some school stages and subjects in the form of a strengthening of the instrumental educational discourse and a marginalization of Bildung. What emerges in the form of the Reading Lift is, to a large extent, a primarily autonomous, skills-based, as well as a form and function dominated educational discourse, primarily orienting around strengthening individual competences and practices along with global educational assessment policy. Reading Lift material for preschool, however, stands out as an exception, being more strongly rooted in the holistic educational ideals of Bildung.

Krogh (2020) finds the literacy concept to be more of a prerequisite for, rather than an equivariant to, Bildung, since the double bind between cultural socialization and individuation is absent. This study, to some extent, supports Krogh’s conclusion. However, findings, especially in the preschool discourse, suggest that traditional Bildung, on occasion, can coexist with, primarily, the New Literacy Studies variant. Further, the more scaled down version of Bildung (narrow), aligns quite well with the New Literacy concept. In addition, critical literacy falls fully within the category of poststructuralist Bildung. The latter also integrates the more extended double process towards educating for individual growth, emancipation, and for societal responsibility. Thus, compared to Bildung, critical literacy is more restricted, primarily aiming for skills to perform critical power analysis, i.e. the holistic ambition of developing the whole individual in multiple ways, ethically, existentially, and even aesthetically etc. is absent.

More pronounced influence of the literacy concept on compulsory schools, primarily in the form of the assessment version, is perhaps not surprising, considering that these are the foundational years for the IEA and OECD assessments. As discussed in the introductory section, New Literacy Studies has exerted great influence on the field of language didactics, which is the dominating scientific orientation of the programme, but also on the global evaluation discourses of PIRLS and PISA (Sahlberg, 2016). The global evaluations in turn, hugely impact national education policy and, as can be seen in the example of the Reading Lift professional education. Somewhat more notable, however, is the strong impact of the global assessment variant on upper-secondary school. This suggests that global assessments can affect educational policy across a broader range, i.e. not just school forms leading up to the assessments. The massive policy impact from the assessments might be one reason why many attendees were not as satisfied with, or even resisted, the programme (Carlbaum et al., 2019; Johansson & Magnusson, 2019; Randahl & Varga, 2020). According to Talbert (2010), bureaucracy centred models can be sensed by teachers, leading them to distrust an initiative. But, as this article suggests, there might also be other causes, rooted in, for example, inherent traditions regarding various school subjects and with the teaching profession at large.

In Sweden, mathematics and science are examples of subjects with high specialization and strong boundaries (P. O. Erixon, 2010), and are thus less adaptable to new influence (Bernstein, 2000), such as, from the literacy concept. Swedish preschools have also long been surrounded by protected discourses, resting on pillars of care and play (H. Löfgren, 2016). Within these fields, new concepts can enter, but only to a limited extent, and primarily when supporting previously existing leading discourse. Consequently, for preschool, mainly New Literacy Studies are influential since, in some aspects, it supports the holistic foundation of Bildung. This is also applicable to science for upper secondary school, a school subject with longevity, and, traditionally closely aligned to Bildung (see Robert’s vision II for science, Roberts, 2007; Sjöström, 2013). Consisting of various subdisciplines and thus already fragmented (meaning less specialized), social-oriented subjects, on the other hand, are more easily apt for change (P. O. Erixon, 2010).

School subjects L1 and L2 have also been surrounded by protected discourses, strongly embedded in Bildung ideals, traditionally placing, for example, equal emphasis on the literary and linguistic aspects of L1 (Krogh, 2012, Pieper, 2020; Ringarp, 2013; Thavenius, 1991). In the last few decades these subjects have, however, been increasingly challenged by neoliberalism and new public management. This has led to a pragmatic turn, in which the development of (easily assessed) reading and writing skills is now at the forefront of the curriculum, while interpretative and creative practices have been marginalized (Liberg et al., 2012; Lundström et al., 2011).

The strongest influence from the literacy concept can, however, be found in the generalized materials. Low specialization and an almost absence of boundaries generates extra fertile ground for the entrance of new perspectives, which, in the case of the literacy concept is further strengthened by the close alliance between perceptions of literacy as a multiple social practice and programme ambition on meaning making across the curriculum. Since literacy practices, whether they are made up of numbers, letters, sound or symbols, or a combination of them, exist everywhere, perspectives on literacy are applicable to every field of study (Jönsson & Borsgård, 2021). In other words, in its very construct and functioning, the literacy concept is a boundary-breaking phenomenon. Frequently referred to New Literacy theoretician, Vivian Maria Vasquez (also in the Reading Lift), even expands the concept beyond meaning-making systems, skills and practices, to the material world – rocks, trees and landscapes (Vasquez, 2010). This wide, and very non-specialized, approach challenges the very grounds of traditional schooling: its base in reading and writing, boundaries between school subjects and content. As such, the literacy perspective, especially in its New Literacy variant, is also a poststructuralist construct and in many ways fitting to our time.

As shown by previous research on the Reading Lift, however, literacy inspired content created frustration amongst teachers (Johansson & Magnusson, 2019). Besides being a bureaucracy centred model, the poststructuralist influence, this study suggests, might also partly explain why the programme does not cohere well with the everyday work of teachers or, for that matter, Bildung. Underpinning the teaching profession – and Bildung – is a presupposition that a more or less stabile body of knowledge exists, as well as the reality of human subject in the form of an individual, able to learn, develop and reflect. Both the world behind the text (or behind our language-based perceptions of the world), and the idea of an autonomous individual have, however, been called into question by poststructuralism (Rømer, 2021). With the literacy concept, although enriching in its critical and boundary-dissolving approach, for teachers, a group for which Kate Stephens (2000) school-literacies is both a reality and a necessity, there are also drawbacks. Or, in other words, everyday realities, such as subject content, curriculum requirements, economic resources and lastly, but most importantly, real live students – individuals – that call for attention.

On the basis of this, this study identifies a need for continued research on the variants of the literacy concept, especially regarding effects on teachers’ pedagogical practice but also on student’s learning. Certainly, in a society, no longer dominated by print culture, but by the multifaceted digital, a widening of literacy to various modes is resourceful. This study has, however, shown that literacy also can align, at least on a rhetorical level, with a somewhat more autonomous global assessment discourse. At the same time, there is a somewhat shallowness, or perhaps naivety, with the New Literacy kind, in the way different representations – letters, visual, sound, body language etc. – are continually lined up one after the other, without (at least in the Reading Lift) in-depth accounts of how these varying meaning making systems actually function by themselves or in combination (see also Machin, 2016). Finally, as concerns Bildung, noticeable from this study is how this concept, previously characteristic of the Nordic school system is, except for preschool, made redundant by the literacy-dominated discourse of the Reading Lift. In a study published in 2014, Krogh finds that despite the instrumental policy changes, individual teachers still hold relatively strong Bildung ideals. Time and further research will tell if this holds true for the future.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Appendix

Table A1. Influence of the variants of literacy on generalized material versus subject specific content.

Submodules developed for teachers (%)	Preschool	Comp. F–3	Comp. 4–6	Comp. 7–9	Upper Sec
Generalised material	100 (67)	67	57	44	42
1. Literacy generalized version	38 (50)	75	78	80	70
2. Global assessment	11 (14)	48	62	69	100
3. New Literacy Studies	89 (86)	52	38	31	0
4. CL	0	41	47	64	0
Subject oriented content	0 (33)	33	43	56	58
5. Literacy generalized version	0 (4)	29	54	36	39
6. Global assessment	0 (0)	88	96	62	54
7. New Literacy Studies	0 (100)	12	4	38	45
8. CL	0	0	0	20	20

*Percentages for preschool are placed within brackets, since subjects are not defined within separate sections of the curriculum.

Table A2. Influence of the variants of literacy on L1 and L2.

Literacy L1 and L2 (%)	Preschool	Comp. F–3	Comp. 4–6	Comp. 7–9	Upper Sec
L1 Swedish	0 (38)	19	14	19	17
1. Literacy generalized version	(56)	31	75	71	19
2. Global assessment	(12)	80	100	71	67
3. New Literacy Studies	(88)	20	0	29	33
L2 Swedish as a second language	(17)	19	14	31	25
4. Literacy generalized version	(0)	31	75	65	45
5. Global assessment	(0)	80	100	62	55
6. New Literacy Studies	(0)	20	0	38	45
7. CL	(0)	0	0	13	40

Table A3. Influence of the variants of literacy on mathematics, science, social-oriented subjects and vocational studies.

Literacy within school subjects (%)	Preschool	Comp. F–3	Comp. 4–6	Comp 7–9	Upper Sec
Mathematics	(17)	10	7	6	8
1. Literacy generalized version	(25)	38	38	38	38
2. Global assessment	(0)	0	100	100	100
3. New Literacy Studies	(100)	0	0	0	0
Science	(17)	5	14	13	8
4. Literacy generalized version	(0)	0	44	44	75
5. Global assessment	(0)	0	86	86	33
6. New Literacy Studies	(0)	0	14	14	66
Social science-oriented subjects	0	0	7	6	0
7. Literacy generalized version	0	0	50	50	0
8. Global assessment	0	0	100	100	0
Vocational subjects	0	0	0	0	8
9. Literacy generalized version	0	0	0	0	25
10. Global assessment	0	0	0	0	50
11. New Literacy Studies	0	0	0	0	50

Table A4. Impact of the variants of literacy on bildung.

Knowledge and skills (%)	Preschool	Comp. F–3	Comp. 4–6	Comp. 7–9	Upper Sec
Bildung High	42	4	1	2	7
1. Literacy generalized version	30	0	0	0	14
2. Global assessment	33	0	0	0	0
3. New Literacy Studies	67	0	0	0	100
Bildung Narrow	8	4	5	4	2
4. Literacy generalized version	100	86	54	64	50
5. Global assessment	0	33	33	33	0
6. New Literacy Studies	100	67	67	67	100
Poststructuralist Bildung	0	11	8	8	2
7. Literacy, New Literary Studies	0	100	100	100	100

Table A5. Impact of the variants of literacy on episteme and episteme and techne.

Knowledge and skills (%)	Preschool	Comp. F–3	Comp. 4–6	Comp. 7–9	Upper Sec
Episteme	8	2	0	0	0
1. Literacy generalized version	0	0	0	0	0
Episteme and Techne Wide	21	11	19	17	19
2. Literacy generalized version	20	44	24	23	6
3. Global assessment	0	0	40	40	0
4. New Literacy Studies	100	100	60	60	100
Episteme and Techne Narrow	4	21	29	30	25
5. Literacy generalized version	0	67	79	82	71
6. Global assessment	0	58	81	77	71
7. New Literacy Studies	0	42	19	23	29

Table A6. Impact of the variants of literacy on techne.

Techne (%)	Preschool	Comp. F–3	Comp. 4–6	Comp. 7–9	Upper Sec
Techne Wide	17	23	10	13	17
1. Literacy generalized version	75	10	18	17	13
2. Global assessment	0	0	50	33	50
3. New Literacy Studies	100	100	50	67	50
Techne Narrow	0	24	28	26	28
4. Literacy generalized version	0	95	100	100	100
5. Global assessment	0	95	100	100	100
6. New Literacy Studies	0	5	0	0	0