Participation and Educational Conservatism Among Lower Secondary School Students in a Disadvantaged Neighborhood in Finland: A Request for Visible Pedagogies

ABSTRACT In this article, we ask how students with a range of social class and ethnic backgrounds perceive their opportunities to participate in the classroom and influence their learning, and what perceptions teachers have of teaching and students’ participation in a school with a diverse student body. The context of this study is a lower secondary school in a relatively disadvantaged neighborhood in the metropolitan area of Helsinki, Finland. The ethnographic data comprise 40 observation days and interviews with students (n = 24) and teachers (n = 11). We used Basil Bernstein’s notions of pedagogic rights, particularly participation, as well as visible (i.e., teacher-centered) and invisible (i.e., learner-centered) pedagogies in our analysis. We argue that despite the current national core curriculum’s emphasis on students’ active participation in their learning process, students’ wishes regarding teaching and their own learning were somewhat conservative: visible pedagogies were preferred over invisible pedagogies. Also, the teachers perceived that teacher-led teaching and clear structures were beneficial in a school in which students’ backgrounds were diverse. Based on the views of the students and teachers, teacher-led teaching promoted learning. However, teacher-led teaching may prevent students from participating in the classroom discussions and constructing their active, democratic citizenship.

A general concern has been raised about the learning results of students with ethnic minority backgrounds, 1 as the differences in learning outcomes between ethnic minority students and the native Finnish-speaking population is among the largest within OECD countries (OECD, 2019).Moreover, the educational attainment of ethnic minority children, especially those who are first-generation migrants, is remarkably low in Finland (Ansala et al., 2020), even if this as such does not explain the decrease in learning outcomes on a national level.The lower academic performance of ethnic minority students is an issue that needs to be addressed, but instead of seeing this as an individual failure, more attention must be paid to the Finnish education system: why schools fail students from ethnic minority backgrounds (Helakorpi et al., 2023) and why Finnishness still seems to be the norm in Finnish schools (Juva, 2019).
With this study, we contribute to the discussion about equality and democracy in education.Equality is embedded in the idea of democratic education (Gordon et al., 2003), and schools are places where students from all backgrounds should gain knowledge and practice skills they need in society and their everyday lives, such as learning to think and act as well as to speak up for themselves and listen to others (Ben-Porath, 2013).The context of this study is a lower secondary school located in a relatively disadvantaged residential area in the metropolitan area of Helsinki, Finland.In this article, we analyze students' opportunities to participate in the classroom and how students can influence the ways they are learning (see Arnot & Reay, 2004;Reay & Arnot, 2004).The analysis is based on ethnographic observation and interview data produced in a school that faces the challenges of urban and school segregation, such as poverty and cumulative disadvantage, which are defined here through for instance, parents' relative income poverty, unemployment, and social assistance they have received (see Kallio et al., 2016).In Finland, disadvantaged neighborhoods are heterogeneous and their residents' social class and ethnic backgrounds are still socially mixed compared to many other countries and cities in Europe; however, urban and school segregation are a growing and worrying phenomena in many Finnish cities (Bernelius & Vaattovaara, 2016).
The main theoretical concept used in this article is Basil Bernstein's (2000) concept of participation.It is one of the three pedagogic rights he outlined, together with enhancement and inclusion, and these three rights together constitute the foundation of a democratic school.According to Bernstein (2000), all students should have the right to participate in school, regardless of their background.However, scholars have found in previous studies that the right to participation and social class are intertwined; access to participation may be restricted or more difficult to achieve for students with working class backgrounds, as many factors such as social relations and teaching practices affect students' opportunities to participate in many educational settings (Nylund et al., 2020;Reay & Arnot, 2004).In other studies, scholars have also found that middle class students are more likely to practice civic skills, such as engaging in open discussions and voicing an opinion, than students from lower social class and ethnic minority backgrounds (Ben-Porath, 2013;Kneppers, 2023).These kinds of differences in pedagogic practices pose a threat to equality, and they also (re)produce social injustice, if students from disadvantaged and ethnic minority backgrounds are not given tools to participate in school and society, and more broadly, to make a change in their lives.
Bernstein's own description of pedagogic rights is sparse, and the model is underresearched even among Bernsteinian scholars (Frandji & Vitale, 2016).Using participation as an analytical tool thus requires a selection of other concepts and their further elaboration.In this article, we examine participation through Bernstein's ideas of visible and invisible pedagogies.These concepts are useful when analyzing the current learning environment in Finnish schools: the aim of the national core curriculum for basic education is to lower boundaries between school subjects by encouraging interdisciplinary learning, and it emphasizes students' participation and active role in the learning process (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016; 1 The term "students with ethnic minority backgrounds" refers to students whose parents were both born abroad (see Statistics Finland, 2022).The biggest migrant groups in Finland are from Russia (or the Former Soviet Union), Estonia, Iraq and Somalia.In 2022, the number of people born abroad (first-generation migrants) was approximately 420,000 in Finland, a country with a total population of approximately 5,500,000.The number of so-called second-generation migrants (those born in Finland) was approximately 86,000 (Statistics Finland, 2022).In 2018, around 6% of students had a migrant background in Finland (OECD, 2019); however, there is a lot of variation between municipalities and schools as well as between urban and rural areas.In this article, our interviewees with ethnic minority backgrounds are from racialized minorities, and first-or second-generation migrants.Valli, 2021;Vitikka et al., 2016).Hence, the curriculum bears the features of invisible, student-centered pedagogies, in contrast to visible, teacher-centered pedagogies (see Barrett & McPhail, 2023).Our analysis is twofold: our focus is on students' experiences of participation in the classroom and how they think they can influence the ways they are learning, but we are also interested in teachers' views regarding how they think students' participation should be encouraged and/or restricted.Thus, we scrutinized the connection between teachers' perceptions and students' opportunities to participate in school, and we also used field notes to support or contest our conclusions based on the interviews and to illustrate how students' and teachers' perceptions are manifested in classrooms.Consequently, in this article, we ask: (1) How do students from various ethnic and social class backgrounds perceive their opportunities to participate in the classroom and influence their own learning?(2) What perceptions do teachers have of students' participation in the classroom and of teaching students from diverse ethnic and social class backgrounds?
Throughout the analysis, we also kept in mind two issues: First, the case school can be described as wellperforming, as the students generally have relatively good learning results.Second, because of the emphasis of student-led learning in the current national core curriculum, the question of students' opportunity to participate in the classroom is highly relevant in Finland.However, little is known about how it manifests in classrooms for students.

The Finnish comprehensive school for all
The Finnish educational system is based on 9 years of comprehensive schooling that is common for all children and young people.Children start school at the age of seven and they are 16 when they finish comprehensive school that consists of primary school (Grades 1-6) and lower secondary school (Grades 7-9).Most students attend their local, publicly funded school.Ranking lists of schools are not permitted or published, and in comprehensive schools, there are no national standardized tests that evaluate the students' skills (Kauko et al., 2020).In Finland, the national core curriculum for basic education provides the guidelines for the objectives and content of teaching and for student assessment, and it also contains the mission and values of education as well as the goals for developing school culture, learning environments and working methods (Vitikka et al., 2016).The national core curriculum serves as the basis for local curricula at the municipal and school levels, that is, all municipals and schools have their own curricula that considers local needs and perspectives (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2023).School level curricula guide teachers' everyday work by setting the aims and defining the content of teaching and learning, but Finnish teachers have high levels of freedom to choose between alternative teaching methods and materials and the way students are assessed (Toom & Husu, 2016).
The most recent national curriculum reform in Finland took place in 2014, and its aim was to revise pedagogy and school culture to develop the school proactively to meet the needs of the future (Vitikka et al., 2016).In the current national core curriculum for basic education, the focus has shifted from teaching to learning and from what to teach and learn, to how to teach and learn (Valli, 2021;Vitikka et al., 2016).Students are encouraged to solve problems both independently and with others as well as to become aware of their personal ways of learning (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016).
Moreover, participation and democratic action are among the principles that guide the development of the school culture in the national core curriculum.It states that students "participate in the planning, development and evaluation of the activities in accordance with their developmental stage" (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016, p. 29).Participation is closely connected to learning, as students learn by participating in their own learning as well as in interaction with other people (Valli, 2021).More importantly, within the curriculum there is an emphasis on individual student's right to a good education and successful learning as well as the promotion of economic, social, regional and gender equality (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016).

Theoretical framework: Studying participation through visible and invisible pedagogies
The theoretical starting point of this study is Basil Bernstein's (2000) concept of participation, one of the three pedagogic rights that constitute a heuristic model for analyzing and explaining the conditions for democracy and democratic schooling (Frandji & Vitale, 2016).In a democratic school, all students should receive and enjoy the three pedagogic rights (Bernstein, 2000).In this article, we focused particularly on the right to participation.It signifies students' right to participate in school procedures that involve the construction, maintenance, and transformation of order.Participation is action that has outcomes, and it operates at the political level (Bernstein, 2000).
The other two rights are enhancement and inclusion.Enhancement operates at the individual level and presupposes all students' right to experience social, intellectual, and personal boundaries and acquire critical understanding.Enhancement is the condition for confidence that is a necessity when acting either in school or in society (Bernstein, 2000).In earlier studies on this in Finland there is an indication that open interaction between pupils and school staff, along with classroom practices that allow pupils to reflect and ask questions, promote the right to enhancement (Luoma, 2021).The right to inclusion operates at the social level and entails that all students have the right to be socially, intellectually, culturally, and personally included in the school community (Bernstein, 2000).These three pedagogic rights are interconnected and complementary, which means that while one right may exist without other rights, in a democratic school, all three rights must be actualized (Frandji & Vitale, 2016;Luoma, 2021).
In this article, we used Bernstein's theorization of visible and invisible pedagogies to analyze participation in an urban Finnish lower secondary school.According to Bernstein's (2000) definition, a visible pedagogic practice refers to conservative pedagogy, and an invisible practice refers to progressive pedagogy; hence the former can be regarded as a teacher-centered and the latter a learnercentered pedagogy.However, to understand Bernstein's ideas of these two types of pedagogy, his concepts of horizontal and vertical knowledge as well as framing and classification must also be considered (Bernstein, 1975(Bernstein, , 1981(Bernstein, , 2000; see Table 1).
In Bernstein's (2000) theorization of knowledge structures, the everyday, horizontal knowledge refers to knowledge that is local, context dependent and available to all and that arises out of common, everyday life.The school, vertical knowledge in turn, relates to knowledge that has its origin and development in official institutions (Bernstein, 2000).Hence, vertical knowledge can be described as reflective, universal, analytical, powerful, and high-status knowledge, and there are often social classbased differences in access to it, since children from disadvantaged backgrounds may have less Table 1.Theoretical framework for analyzing participation in schools (see Barrett & McPhail, 2023;Beach & Öhrn, 2011;Bernstein, 2000Bernstein, , 2003;;Bourne, 2004) exposure to vertical knowledge at home, in comparison to their peers from middle class families (Rosvall, 2011b;Whitty, 2010).
Framing is a concept that has been used to analyze students' opportunities to influence pedagogic practices and their own learning (e.g., Bjarnadóttir & Geirsdóttir, 2018;Bjarnadóttir et al., 2019;Hjelmér & Rosvall, 2017;Rosvall, 2011a).According to Bernstein (2000), framing regulates two discourses: First, framing of instructional discourse indicates who possesses the control over selection, sequencing, pacing, and criteria of knowledge to be acquired.Second, framing of regulative discourse implies who has control over the social base, as regulative discourse transmits attitudes, values, rules of conduct, and principles of social order (Bernstein, 2000;Morais, 2002).In the UK, Reay and Arnot (2004) utilized framing in their study of participation to examine students' control over their learning, as framing "directly influences students' ability to participate" (p.155).
When framing is strong, the teacher controls the elements of pedagogic practice; when framing is weak, students have more opportunities to control what happens in the classroom and school, and hence influence their learning.However, the framing values of the instructional and regulative discourse may vary (Bernstein, 2000).This means that the teacher may have the control over selection and sequencing of the contents to be learned, but students are able to affect the pacing of their learning.It is noteworthy, though, that to have a weak framing of instructional discourse, there must be a weak framing of regulative discourse, as the regulative discourse is the dominant, moral discourse that "creates the rules of social order" and "tells children what to do, where they can go, and so on" (Bernstein, 2000, p. 34).
Classification is the twin concept of framing (Bernstein, 1975(Bernstein, , 1981(Bernstein, , 2000)).While framing is about control in pedagogic relationships, classification conveys the power in various relations.Through classification, it is possible to examine relationships between different categories, be they agents, discourses, practices, and so forth.If classification is strong, there is strong insulation and strong boundaries between categories.In the case of weak classification, there is less insulation, and hence the categories are closer to each other (Bernstein, 1975(Bernstein, , 1981(Bernstein, , 2000)).In the school context, classification can be used to analyze relationships between different forms of knowledge and school subjects.Morais (2002) argues that to provide all students, regardless of their social class or cultural background, with equal opportunities to access to high-level knowledge and hence to success in their academic paths, there must be a strong classification between horizontal (everyday) and vertical (school) knowledge.However, she also points out that especially students from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit from teaching that enables communication between students' own experiences (everyday horizontal knowledge) and (vertical) school knowledge because in this way, learning content can be more meaningful to students who lack academic support at home (Morais & Neves, 2018;Whitty, 2010).In Finland, the current national core curriculum appears to weaken the classification of school subjects, as the aim is to lower boundaries between them through promoting integrative instruction and multidisciplinary learning modules (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016).
To sum up, framing is typically strong in a visible pedagogy, as the teacher has control over pedagogic practices (selection, sequencing, pacing, criteria, and social base).Furthermore, a visible pedagogy is characterized by strong classification of different forms of knowledge (vertical and horizontal) and of school subjects.An invisible pedagogy, in turn, refers to weak framing of pedagogic practices, which enables students to have control, at least to some extent, over their learning.However, if the framing of evaluation criteria is weak, the teacher still possesses considerable control, as students do not know what is expected from them in terms of assessment.Classification of knowledge forms and school subjects is weakened in an invisible pedagogy; teaching and learning are based on interdisciplinary curricula and students' own interests and experiences (Barrett & McPhail, 2023;Beach & Öhrn, 2011;Bernstein, 2000Bernstein, , 2003;;Bourne, 2004).

Ethnographic data and methodology
The ethnographic data of this study was produced as a part of the research project Local Educational Ethos: a study on well-performing comprehensive schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods.The initial task of the project was to examine the daily life of three lower secondary schools, which were in relatively disadvantaged residential areas, that is, their residents' socioeconomic backgrounds were statistically below the cities' average, but which nonetheless achieved relatively good learning outcomes and outperformed other schools in similar areas.The selection of the three schools was based on previous research on urban and school segregation in Finland (Bernelius, 2013), statistical data on the socioeconomic composition of the schools' catchment areas and on the schools' measured learning results,2 and discussions with local educational authorities regarding these schools.
In this article, we used ethnographic observation and interview data from one of the three case schools in the Local Educational Ethos project.The first author was responsible for conducting a yearlong ethnographic fieldwork in this school, which enabled us to document what goes on in the case school, and to profoundly understand the school and its cultural context, that is, the setting in which learning and social encounters between different actors occur (Hammersley, 2018;Walford, 2008).
The ethnographic fieldwork was conducted during the 2019-2020 academic year.Two school class groups in the seventh grade (students aged 13-14) participated in the study.Upon starting the fieldwork, students in these class groups were informed of the purpose of the research and its voluntariness.Parental consent was requested from the guardians of the students who participated in the study.Ethical review was not required according to the guidelines of Finnish National Board for Research Integrity (TENK) and under the Finnish legislation.We use a pseudonym "Heron" when referring to the case school, and the names of the participants are also pseudonyms, to protect the anonymity of the school and its members.
The first author observed the two class groups during lessons, breaks and other school activities and interviewed students (n = 24), members of the school staff (n = 14) and parents (n = 3).The aim was to interview as many students as possible during the fieldwork because all the students' views and perceptions were regarded as valuable.The criteria for selecting the staff for interviews was that they taught the class groups that participated in the study or had other experience of working with them.As parents are a part of the school community, we also wanted to interview the students' parents to consider their perceptions of the school.
The data analyzed for this article comprise field notes from about 40 observation days and interviews with 24 students and 11 teachers.Three members of the school staff and three parents are omitted from the analysis as we focused on classroom practices in this article.There were 40 students in the two class groups, and 23 of them participated in the interviews.In addition, one student in the ninth grade was interviewed because of their active participation in the school's activities.A significant number of students (17) in the two class groups were not interviewed, as many guardians did not provide the required parental consent.Based on observations, the consent appeared to be more difficult to obtain from the guardians of students with ethnic minority backgrounds and from lower social classes (Bruton et al., 2020;Peltola, 2021).
Slightly less than half of the 40 students in the two class groups had an ethnic minority background.However, only six of the 24 students we interviewed had an ethnic minority background (their families originating from Southern Europe and the Middle East).Three students had mixed parentage (one parent was Finnish and the other was from another European country) and 15 students were White Finns.The students provided information on their parents' occupations, and based on these data, the students' social class backgrounds were heterogeneous.Some parents were clearly in middle class or working class roles but there were also parents in precarious labor market positions.Hence, the social positions of the students could not be clearly defined in all cases, and neither was this positioning asked from them.Seventeen girls and seven boys were interviewed.The 11 teachers taught a wide range of subjects in Grades 7-9 (students aged 13-16): academic as well as artistic and practical subjects (in Finnish schools, these subjects include arts and crafts, music, home economics, and physical education).All teachers had several years' work experience either in Heron or at other schools, and 10 out of 11 taught the class groups that participated in the study.Almost all teachers were White Finns, which reflects the ethnic composition of teachers in Finnish schools.As teachers in Finnish schools must hold a master's degree (primary school teachers have a master's degree in education and lower secondary school teachers in the subject they teach), and the profession is highly appreciated (Toom & Husu, 2016), teachers are considered to belong to the middle class in Finland.
The interviews with the students were semi-structured, and according to their preference, the students were interviewed individually, in pairs or in groups of three.During the interviews, students were asked about their school (what is this school like) and studying as well as the school's surrounding neighborhood (what is it like to live in this neighborhood).Of special interest were students' perceptions of their learning and classroom practices.The interviews with the teachers were also semistructured, and all 11 teachers were interviewed individually.The questions that were posed to the teachers related to their work in Heron: what is it like to work at this school and in this neighborhood?
In ethnographic research, the data production, analysis and interpretation often overlap, and the preliminary analysis may begin during the data collection phase.Furthermore, incidents in the field and discussions either with participants or research fellows during the fieldwork may affect the analytical interpretations and specify or broaden the focus (Lahelma et al., 2014).In this study, a significant amount time was allocated to open observation and to all that was potentially interesting in the everyday life of Heron.However, as the fieldwork proceeded, the theoretical framework of Bernstein's (2000) pedagogic rights started to fascinate the first author and guide her gaze.She formulated questions based on Bernstein's notions of participation, such as who controls classroom practices and how (Reay & Arnot, 2004), and alongside open observation, she utilized these questions to make sense of what happens in the classroom and how students can participate during lessons.
Once the fieldwork ended, the first author coded the data with Atlas.tisoftware that helped us to organize and handle the extensive data.The codes we identified in the data were guided by the themes that we were interested in in this study, that is, students' right to participation.The core code was "participation" and there were several subcodes that were also related to Bernstein's theorization, such as "framing" and "classification."Either I or O was added to a code to indicate whether it referred to interviews (I) or observations (O).This helped us to compare the two different types of data and to strengthen the trustworthiness of our conclusions.Some of the subcodes had a longer naming, such as "I: students: influencing in the classroom" (that is, how the students that we interviewed described their opportunities to influence in the classroom) and "I: teacher: students' influence in the classroom" (that is, how the teachers that we interviewed talked about students' opportunities to influence in the classroom).
After coding, we discussed the codes and the themes and analyzed the data with thematic content analysis (e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2019).We also followed the principles of thinking with theory (Jackson & Mazzei, 2013), as we examined the data in dialogue with the research literature.More specifically, we asked what themes concerned pedagogic rights, especially participation, and how these themes related to issues of social class and ethnicity.It is important, however, to bear in mind that in ethnographic research, a long-term fieldwork, and the researcher's experiences around it serve as the basis for ethnographic knowledge: data analysis is a vital part of every study, but the ethnographer may have a strong understanding of the most essential themes already during the data production process (Kwame Harrison, 2018).
This notion of ethnographic knowledge leads us to the researcher's position in ethnographic research.The researcher must engage in reflexivity at every stage of the research: before entering the research site, while conducting the fieldwork, during the data analysis, and while reporting the findings (Gordon et al., 2005).In this study, we acknowledge our positions as White, female, middle class researchers.The first author had previous experience of working as a teacher in a comprehensive school, and therefore the research setting was familiar to her.However, during the fieldwork, her role was not a teacher but something between an outsider and an insider who constantly had to negotiate her position in the school (see Gordon et al., 2005).Consequently, we paid a lot of attention to ethical issues and discussed power relations in the field, the interpretations we made, and the ways of representing our findings throughout the research process.Despite this, ethnography can never be objective (Hammersley, 2018), but it provides a tool to document and understand social life and interactions in a specific setting (Kwame Harrison, 2018).

Results
The empirical section is divided into three parts.First, we focus on students' experiences and perceptions of strongly framed lessons.Second, we examine on which occasions students have opportunities to exert influence and what their wishes are regarding participation and learning.Third, we analyze how expectations of students' behavior are connected to students' opportunities to participate during lessons.Despite the specific interest on experiences of students from ethnic minority and working class backgrounds, we also used interviews with middle class, White Finnish students to illustrate that in Heron, there was little variation in the experiences of students from different social class and ethnic backgrounds.

Students' request for strongly framed lessons?
The interviewed students in Heron perceived their opportunities to influence classroom practices to be limited.Some of the students stated that there were a few teachers who listened to their opinions and wishes regarding working methods and sequencing of content.Nevertheless, many of the students thought they were unable to influence what happens in the classroom or teachers were not asking how they learn best.Among the interviewees, there were several students who were happy with the current situation, however, and they did not even want to exert influence in the classroom.According to these students, teachers were experts in their own subject field and knew best what and how students should learn.In the following excerpts, there are three students' perceptions regarding influencing in the classroom from three separate interviews: The students' views above reflect strong framing of pedagogic practices, as these students wanted teachers to possess control over what happens in the classroom.Moreover, as Linda added in the previous excerpt, lessons with a clear and coherent structure, and hence strong framing, were a positive aspect of Heron.This is similar to what Rosvall (2011a) and Yoon and Rönnlund (2021) found in their studies: students favored strong framing and visible pedagogies because they were comfortable with a clear routine, knew what the teacher expected from them in terms of requested knowledge and felt they had better opportunities to succeed in exams.However, strong framing and visible pedagogies reduce students' opportunities to participate in the classroom and influence their learning (Bjarnadóttir & Geirsdóttir, 2018;Rosvall, 2011a).Strongly framed pedagogic practices may also constitute a threat to fostering democratic, active citizenship among students, and it is noteworthy that teacher-led teaching and a lack of democratic discussions are reported to be common features of Finnish classrooms (Klette et al., 2018;Raiker & Rautiainen, 2017;Raiker et al., 2017).
In the interviews, one of the students, Malik, described how he knew what the most suitable working method for him was.However, he was not comfortable with lessons during which he had to solve problems actively and independently: Interviewer: How do you learn best?Malik: By doing, I'm not very good at reasoning in all subjects, I want a clear instruction on how to do things.'Cos sometimes, we're kind of asked to think outside of the box, and I'm not good at this, especially in mathematics.(Ethnic minority, working class background) Malik preferred strong framing of instructional discourse to weakly framed lessons, because in this way, he thought he could learn better.His views are similar to the other three students, Yasmine, Patrik, and Linda, who did not want to influence what happened in the classroom and were happy about the teacher being the bearer of the knowledge to be learned.Thus, the students' perceptions of the most suitable and efficient pedagogic practices were connected to the knowledge they valued or regarded as important.Descriptively, one of the teachers, Oskar, argued that students preferred traditional teaching methods to modern ones: In general, students like the old-fashioned way of doing things simply because they often experience this type of digital overload if there is lots working with iPads and so forth.And every time I try to modernize my teaching, I receive lots of immediate feedback from my students, asking if I could only teach, if we could go back to the old way of doing things.(Oskar, teacher) In Oskar's view, students want the teacher to have control over pedagogic practices.He explained how he had tried to implement new teaching methods, but students had not approved of them.Thus, Oskar had weakened the framing of regulative discourse and allowed students to exert some control over classroom practices but at the same time, he legitimized the strong framing with students' preferences of learning methods.Students' reluctance to influence pedagogic practices in Heron resonates with Beach's (2008) description of educational conservatism.According to his findings in Sweden, students were eager to reject invisible pedagogies that emphasize creativity and self-determined learning, as they were interested in achieving good grades and securing their chances of getting a degree place of their choice.However, Beach (2008) points out that students cannot detach themselves from the values, knowledge and practices of society that affect their studying and future trajectories.He mentions textbooks as one the artifacts that students are exposed to and that define what is counted as valuable knowledge in school (Raiker et al., 2017).
Textbooks are widely used in Finnish schools, and they have a central role especially in academic subjects (Raiker et al., 2017).For some of the students interviewed in Heron, influencing in the classroom equaled being able to affect sequencing of the content of textbook chapters: Interviewer: Are you able to exert influence in academic subjects?Patrik: In my opinion, at least in mathematics we are, because you can stay in the previous chapter if there's something unclear or move on to the next chapter if you want to.(Finnish, middle class background) Ester: Our [students] opinions are asked a lot here.The teachers aren't like "now [do it] like this, this, this," but [they are] really like "is this or that good, which one do you prefer" and so on.
Interviewer: In what situations or how are your opinions being asked?
Ester: For example, if we're learning a new textbook chapter, we are asked whether we want to listen to it, whether we want the teacher to read it aloud or whether we want to do exercises.(Mixed parentage, middle class background) In addition to sequencing of contents, students had some control over working methods, as Ester stated in the latter excerpt.That is, the students were sometimes able to decide how textbook chapters were being studied.Nevertheless, the textbook was at the heart of learning, and the students did not question what they were learning or whether they should be able to influence what knowledge is being taught in the classroom (Bjarnadóttir et al., 2019).Moreover, Raiker et al. (2017) criticize the use of textbooks in Finnish classrooms by stating that focusing on them diminishes dialogue between the teacher and students.The interviewed teachers did not emphasize the importance of textbooks, but their perceptions of what students should learn centered around the curriculum: To be honest, I don't give them [students] that many opportunities to plan the learning contents because, we don't have time for that.Even then, when I plan the contents, we still don't have time to go through everything that is in the curriculum.(. ..)We have such little time and there are so many contents in [my subject field].So, how can I assume my students to have an understanding of what is relevant.'Cos they don't even know about the matter or what's out there, so to let them plan in a big way . . .(Aleksi, teacher) In Aleksi's talk, there is a strong classification of school (vertical) knowledge and students' everyday (horizontal) knowledge.The curriculum and its content guides teaching and learning by addressing the knowledge to be acquired, and Aleksi's views imply that students cannot be given much freedom to influence learning content, as they lack skills in judging what the relevant, high-status knowledge is and hence what is worth learning.The massive number of contents that needs to be taught thus affects pedagogic practices, obviously on the selection of contents but also on pacing: there must be strong framing of pacing to accomplish the objectives of the curriculum or at least most of them (Bjarnadóttir et al., 2019).
According to Bernstein (2003) and previous studies (e.g., Arnot & Reay, 2004;Morais & Neves, 2018;Reay & Arnot, 2004), strong framing of pace may be harmful particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, because they may lack support at home that is often necessary to keep up with fastpaced teaching.Furthermore, all students need time for good learning (Morais & Neves, 2018).Therefore, this conflict emerging in strong framing and explicit requirements of participation was present both in the discourse of the students, but also in those of the teachers, but in slightly different ways.
In Heron, it appeared that the teachers were more worried about pace than the students were; covering the curriculum content is a teacher's responsibility, and based on student interviews and observations, strong framing of pacing was not an issue among the students.There were relatively few differences in this between students with different social and ethnic backgrounds.However, there were many students from ethnic minority and working class backgrounds who did not participate in the interviews and who might have had contrasting views about the matter, given our observations.It is evident, though, that when teachers feel pressure about the time and the knowledge to be taught, students' opportunities to participate and have control over their learning become more limited: the dilemma in the teachers' discourse is between the conflicting goals in the curriculum, but for students the conservative approach (see Beach, 2008) was the dominant one and little power over the framing was anticipated.

Students' opportunities and wishes regarding participation
We explored differences in the space for participation between different subjects taught in school.Artistic and practical subjects (physical education, arts and crafts, music, and home economics) cover approximately one-third of students' weekly lessons in Finnish schools.Some of the students and teachers we interviewed stated that in these subjects, students often have more opportunities to influence the ways they were learning than in academic subjects.Arts and crafts and physical education were mentioned as subjects in which students had the freedom to choose between tasks.In terms of knowledge forms, academic subjects focus on vertical knowledge whereas knowledge in artistic and practical subjects can be regarded as horizontal.Susanna was a teacher in one of the artistic and practical subjects and described how it is possible to consider students' ideas to promote the joy of learning and yet follow the curriculum: I aim to consider their [students'] wishes as much as I can, because there are many things that can be taught in many ways, you can teach them through joy, like those skills required by the curriculum can be sort of hidden [in the activities].And I'm never too strict about my plans, even if I've decided that during this lesson, we do this, I can modify my plans if students get a feeling that they want to do something else, then why not, we can do something else.(Susanna, teacher) It is not our intention to say that horizontal knowledge in artistic and practical subjects is inferior to vertical knowledge in academic subjects, if this rough division is applied.Artistic and practical subjects play an important role in promoting students' well-being as well as their emotional, aesthetic, and social skills.They also have the potential of fostering creativity and through this, problem solving is essential in changing contemporary society (Hakala et al., 2015).Moreover, these subjects often offer opportunities to participate for those students whose Finnish language skills are still developing or who struggle with academic subjects.In Heron, many of the students, regardless of their background, mentioned artistic and practical subjects as their favorite subjects in school.However, when applying for strongly tracked (academic and vocational) secondary education after comprehensive schooling, and especially general upper secondary education that emphasizes general knowledge and ability, only grades and grade-pointaverages from academic subjects are taken into account.Hence, a strong classification of subjects becomes apparent, and students are aware of how different subjects are valued in the application process and later in working life (e.g., Tossavainen & Juvonen, 2015).
When asking the students what they wanted to influence in the classroom, their wishes were mostly practical and related to working methods, that is, how teaching was organized.As stated earlier, the students did not express opinions about what they wanted or should learn.A possible explanation for this was that the interview question of "influencing what you do during lessons" directed the students' attention to action, not to the content.Previous research shows, though, that in general, Finnish students' right to participate is limited in elementary schools, and their views on contents of education are seldom heard (Harinen & Halme, 2012;Raiker et al., 2017).
Even though many of the students appreciated teacher-led teaching, there was also a need for more student-centered learning and working methods among the students.The students, like Ervin and Leo in the excerpt below, acknowledged there were individual learning preferences and styles, and therefore students should be able to decide how and where they want to learn.
Ervin: [I wish] that everyone would have an opportunity to study the way they can, how they learn best.Like, if someone wants to study alone, then they can study alone.If someone wants to study with someone else, then they can study that way.
Leo: I think, the way you can have a good time.So that you don't lose motivation straight away . . .Ervin: I've noticed I learn best if I'm alone.Study alone, do assignments alone.It has affected me a little.I've been able to learn better, to understand things better.But that way there's nothing fun in learning, it's more fun to learn with friends.(Ervin, ethnic minority, working class background, and Leo, Finnish, middle class background) The students emphasized the importance of a nice atmosphere and friends in the classroom; many of them found learning more motivating if they were given an opportunity to collaborate with friends and choose a place where they study.Working outside the classroom, for example in the hallway, was mentioned in many interviews.For the students, this appeared to represent an important means of influencing their own learning, as it promoted having a good time during lessons, and when being outside the teacher's gaze, they presumably had more opportunities to control particularly the pacing of learning, which in their interview talk was described as freedom.
Ervin's description in the excerpt above contains an interesting paradox.He thought he could learn better when he studied alone but he preferred working with friends because he found learning more fun then.In international comparisons, Finnish students, especially students from lower social class backgrounds, have been reported to lack enjoyment and engagement at school (af Ursin et al., 2023), and an important question is how to promote students' well-being and joy in schools and still provide them with powerful knowledge.Bjarnadóttir et al. (2019) noticed that weakly framed lessons, in which students have control over pacing and are able to have fun, may result in less content-related learning than strongly framed, teacher-led lessons.This resonates with Ervin's views on how studying alone was more productive than working with peers (Dovemark, 2004).In terms of students' equal opportunities in access to learning contents, teacher-led whole class instruction may be more effective than individualized teaching, although it may hinder students' active participation in classroom discussions (Klette et al., 2018).Hence, studying outside the classroom and promoting student-led working methods may give students a sense of influence over their own learning but in that case, teachers have the responsibility for ensuring that all students have access to the content to be learned.Moreover, focusing on a nice atmosphere and good mood may be a threat to high quality education that disseminates vertical, academic knowledge (Dovemark, 2011).
The field notes provide an interesting example of how giving students an opportunity to influence their learning during a lesson may encourage students to choose the easiest option that involves the least work and learning: During the classwork, the teacher Mikael showed me what they did in the previous lesson.He had given the students an assignment with three options: 1.Not so ridiculously long, 2. Ridiculously long, 3. Ridiculously long and difficult.The students had the freedom to choose one of these options.Most of the students had chosen the easiest one ("they chose the easy way out," Mikael said) and only three students the most difficult one.(Field notes, September 2019) According to Dovemark (2011), giving students freedom of choice in terms of learning content and activities may result in students choosing a less demanding way of learning (Kosunen et al., 2022).Hence, this type of influence can be potentially harmful, as students do not necessarily know the consequences of their choices and how those affect their future schooling (Dovemark, 2011).In Heron, the teachers reported that they sometimes allowed students to choose between tasks and working methods and influence sequencing of contents.One of the teachers, Mikael, who let students choose between three options in the previous excerpt, described how he gives students a sense of influence by letting them make decisions about some aspects of teaching and learning.However, he also pointed out that he still has control over what students learn and how they proceed in the classroom: Anyhow, I have actual control over how we proceed in the subject because students rely on my vision of what the best pedagogical option for them is.And this is why students think they can influence what they are doing and make decisions about that.And that is probably one of the reasons why students feel that they are listened to in my lessons, and they can influence their own learning.(Mikael, teacher) Based on previous excerpts and studies (e.g., Dovemark, 2011), the balance between student influence and high-quality teaching is complicated.Mikael's way of enabling students to choose between tasks can be described as a "limited way of exercising influence," as students can influence small matters concerning working methods and content (Dovemark, 2004, as cited in;Hjelmér, 2011, p. 37).This type of teaching can still be regarded as strongly framed, because the teacher possesses actual control over classroom practices and students' opportunities to exert real influence are limited.However, as Dovemark (2011) points out, too much freedom in influencing may lead to less learning, which is problematic especially in terms of students' right to learn, in Bernstein's (2000) words, their right to enhancement.Conversely, students must have opportunities to participate at school and to be involved in democratic actions that have outcomes (Bernstein, 2000).

Expectations of good behavior in the classroom
Students' perceptions of what they want and what they can influence in the classroom were also related to behavioral aspects.Some of the students wished that lessons would be quieter and more peaceful so that it would be easier to focus on studying, which contradicted the wish for freedom and having a good time in the classroom: Arlinda wanted to influence the learning environment so that it would be easier for her to focus on studying.Her view suggests that teachers should have more control over students' behavior, that is, framing of regulative discourse should be stronger.Aaron's understanding of the matter was slightly different, as he placed more responsibility on students and how they should control their noisy behavior: this notion reflects well on the middle class norm of being a student (see Huilla, 2022), having a certain conduct and character and acting in a specific manner (Bernstein, 1975).One of the students, Mia, connected influence with good behavior: in her opinion, students could exert some influence in the classroom, provided that they behaved well during lessons: Interviewer: Do you think students have an opportunity to influence what you do during lessons?
Mia: Well, it depends, in some lessons, for example, we had the same teacher [in one of the academic subjects] in primary school, and she said that if we behave well, we don't have to write that much.So, in a way we can [influence] but in a way we can't.We just have to behave well.(Finnish, middle class background) In terms of democratic participation, the students' views on influence and good behavior are thoughtprovoking.The three students had slightly different opinions about the matter but nevertheless, their perceptions indicate that strong framing of regulative discourse is needed or present during lessons in Heron.According to Bernstein (2000), strong framing of regulative discourse labels students as, for example, conscientious, industrious, and receptive, which can all be regarded as attributes of good behavior in the classroom.Arlinda and Aaron stated that a learning environment free from distractions made by other students helps them to focus on studying and hence, their wish to influence other students' behavior is connected to their experiences of how they learn best.Mia's view of the importance of good behavior, in contrast, refers to the control the teacher has over students and to what is counted as acceptable behavior.From teachers' perspective, strong framing of regulative discourse may ensure that the learning environment promotes students' opportunities to learn effectively, and it has been observed that a peaceful study environment may prevent early school leaving among young people in Finland (Merikukka et al., 2019).However, when teachers spend a considerable amount of time controlling students' inappropriate behavior, it may take time from teaching and learning, and students may have fewer chances of asking questions and reflecting their learning with the teacher and peers (Luoma, 2021).
Teachers' expectations of good behavior and thus strong framing of regulative discourse are present in the field notes.The following excerpt is from a lesson in an academic subject where framing of regulative and instructional discourse was strong, that is, the teacher had control over students' behavior as well as selection, sequencing, and pacing: When the lesson starts, the teacher asks students to line up before entering the classroom.The students are surprised, but they line up.After that, the teacher lets the students come in one by one.Two boys arrive two minutes late, and the teacher reminds the students how important it is to arrive on time.The structure of the lesson is: 1.The teacher and students go through the homework.2. The teacher shows a PowerPoint presentation, and the students take notes in their notebooks.3. The teacher and students look at photos and discuss them.4. The students are divided into small groups.There are questions on the whiteboard and the students must discuss them in small groups.The students have only a few minutes for discussion.This is the only occasion the students have an opportunity to discuss with their peers, as all other discussions and activities are controlled by the teacher.The whole lesson is strikingly teacher-led and has a very clear structure.All discussions center around photos chosen by the teacher and questions posed by her.During the lesson, the teacher asks once whether the students managed to take notes from the whiteboard.(Field notes, October 2019) This lesson with a visible pedagogy did not provide the students with opportunities to participate or exert influence in the classroom.The focus was on vertical knowledge that the teacher had chosen and that derived from the curriculum.In terms of framing of regulative and instructional discourse, there was variation between lessons and teachers in Heron, but based on observations, lessons with a visible pedagogy were more common than ones with an invisible pedagogy, particularly in academic subjects.In the interviews, the teachers did not explicitly discuss this theme, but one of the teachers, Alma, described how the students at this school benefit from strongly framed lessons: Can I even say this aloud that teachers still do this . . .sort of school-like, this is what we teachers discuss, what and how we should still do, but in public and if the National Agency of Education hears, we can't say this aloud, because they want all sorts of projects, cross-curricular learning and all that fancy stuff. . .But in my opinion, these students also need this kind of teacher-led teaching.That is the secret that works very well here.And I feel that you can't say this aloud nowadays, that teacher-led teaching works really well for many students, especially in this kind of multi-cultural school where students have challenges in understanding instructions, many have difficulties in the Finnish language.And then, many students have problems related to self-regulation and executive functioning, so if they are given a lot of freedom to study independently and do project work and so on, those kids will get lost, quickly.(Alma, teacher) Alma's perceptions of what type of teaching students in Heron require align with findings by Kneppers (2023) in Norway that represents an example of another Nordic country that aims to promote egalitarianism in education: from teachers' perspective, clear classroom management, good routines and a clear structure in lessons were important in a school with a diverse student body and students with inadequate language skills.In the excerpt above, Alma mentions students who have difficulties in self-regulation and executive functioning, which also implies a need for strong framing of regulative and instructional discourse.In Kneppers (2023) study, students who attended a school in a middle class neighborhood had more opportunities to be active and to participate during lessons, as expectations regarding students' behavior in the classroom are based on social class assumptions (Luoma, 2021).Overall, it appeared that also in Heron, which was in a relatively disadvantaged area and had many students from vulnerable backgrounds, teacher-led teaching with strong framing of regulative discourse was far more common than student-centered learning with an emphasis on students' active participation.

Discussion
Students' opportunities to participate in the classroom and influence the ways they are learning are issues related to equality and democratic education, as schools should be a place where students are afforded equal opportunities to practice the skills they need in becoming active and conscious citizens in a democratic society (Ben-Porath, 2013;Bernstein, 2000).In this study, which was conducted in a school that has relatively high number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the teachers considered that students often benefit from teacher-led teaching and clear instructions (see Kneppers, 2023), and in our material, many students usually preferred this educational conservatism (Beach, 2008).
However, teacher-led, strongly framed lessons do not necessarily promote students' active participation, give them space to express their thoughts and opinions, or improve their skills in independent problem-solving (Luoma, 2021).In addition, strongly framed lessons contradict the requirement of promoting participation derived from the curriculum.In the student interviews, there was a tension between learning the subject matter in strongly framed settings and enjoying one's time in school in less strong framing.This conflict leads to the question of purpose of schooling: are these two goals of learning the content and influencing one's own learning mutually exclusive, and if so, how should they be prioritized (Juvonen et al., in press)?
The findings from this study that was conducted in one setting cannot be generalized to apply to all urban schools in Finland or in other national contexts, but they provide insights into how schools and educators may approach the issues of student participation and educating for democracy, particularly in schools that face challenges of socioeconomic and ethnic segregation (Ben-Porath, 2013).Our findings and the dilemma between educating students for active citizenship and ensuring effective learning indicate that there is a clear demand for more research on the topic in Finnish classrooms.

Conclusion
The context of this ethnographic study was a lower secondary school located in a relatively disadvantaged area in the metropolitan area of Helsinki, Finland.We analyzed students' opportunities to participate in the classroom and influence the ways they are learning, and we also examined teachers' perceptions of students' participation and of teaching students from diverse ethnic and social class backgrounds.The theoretical framework of this study centered on Bernstein's (2000) concept of participation that presupposes that all students, regardless of their social class and (when elaborated) ethnic backgrounds, should have the right to participate in school procedures that involve construction, maintenance, and transformation of order.The national core curriculum in Finland is in line with this notion (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016).
Despite the aims stated in the national core curriculum, the relationship between a democratic ideal of students' active participation and the reality of a school-that is, what happens in the classroom-is complex (Raiker et al., 2017).In the case school Heron, many of the students from all backgrounds we interviewed were content with strongly framed lessons in which teachers had control over pedagogic practices.In their opinion, teachers were experts in their subject field and knew best what students should learn.Based on observations, most lessons, particularly in academic subjects, were indeed strongly framed, and many of the interviewed teachers also advocated this type of visible pedagogy.
Participation is one of the three pedagogic rights that constitute a democratic school (Bernstein, 2000).These rights are also interconnected and build on each other (Rönnlund et al., 2019).For example, the first pedagogic right, enhancement, is about students' right to critical understanding and new possibilities (Bernstein, 2000).It can be construed as how students perceive themselves as learners and what constitutes a good learner (Reay & Arnot, 2004), but it also entails students' right to acquire critical thinking that is closely connected to vertical, high-status knowledge most often associated with academic subjects (Nylund et al., 2020;Rönnlund et al., 2019).
How students construct images of themselves as learners and how they can develop their critical thinking skills is an important question: access to enhancement may be limited in strongly framed lessons, as students have fewer opportunities to participate in the classroom.However, teaching that disseminates vertical knowledge is essential in promoting all students' right to enhancement, and teacher-led, wholeclass instruction may provide students equal opportunities to access the content that is studied (Klette et al., 2018).The much-debated concern over declining learning outcomes and the impact of family background on students' school performance in Finland is also an issue here.If students and teachers in a school with a diverse student body but nevertheless with good learning results perceive visible pedagogies as the best way to learn, how necessary is it to challenge current practices and actively promote a change?
We can attempt to answer this question through examining the occasions on which students can exercise influence in Heron.In general, practical, and artistic subjects appeared to provide students with more freedom than academic subjects.In practical and artistic subjects, students could make decisions about what they learn and how they learn.Moreover, these subjects are important regarding students' wellbeing and aesthetic skills as well as fostering their creativity.Participating in these subjects may be easier for students whose language skills are still developing or who have difficulties in academic subjects.Nevertheless, the classification of knowledge (horizontal/vertical) that these different types of subjects distribute is somewhat strong.To provide all students with opportunities to participate in discussions and practices that help them to develop their critical thinking skills (Luoma, 2021;Rönnlund et al., 2019), classification of subjects and forms of knowledge matters.Hence, students' ability to influence their own learning in practical and artistic subjects may not be enough in terms of democratic participation and access to all pedagogic rights.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Interviewer: Would you like to influence more what you do during lessons?Yasmine: No because the teachers know what they're teaching us.(Ethnic minority, working class background) Patrik: In my opinion, the teachers know what they are doing, and I don't think it's necessary to intervene in that in any way.(Finnish, middle class background) Linda: No, not really, I think it's more like the teacher's duty. . .The lessons are clearly planned here, which is a good thing.(Finnish, middle class background) Interviewer: Would you like to influence more what you do during lessons?Arlinda: Well, yeah, because, for example, I'd like our lessons to be more peaceful sometimes.Cos our class [group] is quite noisy.(Ethnic minority background, social class background unknown) Interviewer: Do you think that students in this school can influence what happens in the classroom?Aaron: I don't know.Maybe something, if we're doing exercises, other students remain quiet, so that you can concentrate.(Finnish, middle class background) .