DRAFT!!
Please do not quote without the permission of the author
Analysing the learning demands made in the
official science curricula in three Nordic countries
M. Allyson Macdonald
allyson@khi.is
Iceland University of Education
Reykjavík, Iceland
ABSTRACT
In 2002 a governmental committee in Iceland commissioned a comparative study of the learning
demands made in five academic subjects in the lower and upper secondary official curricula in
Iceland, Denmark and Sweden. Such an assessment is not without its problems with issues of
curriculum, policy-making, international comparisons and discourse theory all jostling for position in
an interpretation of an official curriculum. Thus a key question for the research team was to
determine how the learning demands made in official curricula would be described and assessed.
This paper draws on the assessment of learning demands in the science curricula at the lower
secondary level. The analytic tool developed for the assessment is introduced. The tool is based on
decisions made in planning teaching and learning. The results obtained by using the tool in the
Nordic study are then presented and discussed, followed by examples from curriculum research
which help us to understand the analytic tool itself.
1
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3
ANALYSING CURRICULUM ....................................................................................................... 4
The framework for analysis.......................................................................................................... 4
The analysis .................................................................................................................................. 6
SCIENCE IN THE NORDIC COUNTRIES ................................................................................... 7
The Icelandic curriculum ............................................................................................................. 9
The Danish curriculum ................................................................................................................. 9
The Swedish curriculum............................................................................................................. 10
Time allocated to science ........................................................................................................... 11
LEARNING DEMANDS IN THE CURRICULA ......................................................................... 11
Input - the initial state of learners, choice of content and goals ................................................. 12
Output - assessment and achievement ........................................................................................ 13
Process - teaching-as-activity and learning-as-activity .............................................................. 13
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 14
Curriculum models ..................................................................................................................... 14
Curriculum implementation ....................................................................................................... 17
A NATIONAL CURRICULUM FOR TEACHERS ..................................................................... 19
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 20
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 21
2
INTRODUCTION
The last 15 to 20 years have seen the revision of national curricula in many Western countries and
the Nordic countries are no exception. The national curricula guides differ in the extent to which
they build on previous versions; in some cases the change is incremental, in others a more
fundamental change may be evident.
In Icelandic education the 1990s was a period of considerable reform. A governmental
committee presented a report in 1993/4 on the desirability of new policies in education. New laws
were passed with regard to compulsory schooling and upper secondary schooling. Control of
compulsory schools was passed to local authorities in 1996. At about the same time the then minister
of education initiated his largest project, the revision of the national curriculum guides from preschool to upper secondary level (Ministry, 1999). The revision was planned as a two-step
development process over a period of three years (Macdonald and Hjartarson, 2003). In Finland
Simola (1998) has called a similar process one of “wishful rationalism”.
In 2002 a special committee of the Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture was
assigned the task of addressing the issue of the length of academic upper secondary study, one
option being to shorten the period from four to three years. As part of its considerations the
committee called for a comparative assessment of the learning demands made in five academic
subjects in the lower secondary (compulsory) and upper secondary (optional) schools in Iceland,
Denmark and Sweden as found in the official curricular guides i.e. the intended curriculum. The
subjects to be considered were mother tongue instruction, English, mathematics, social studies and
science (Macdonald et al., 2002).
This paper reports on that part of the comparative assessment which dealt with the science
curricula and particularly the curricula at lower secondary levels. Three questions guided the
research:
 How can we assess/describe the learning demands made in official curricula?
 What learning demands are made in the 1999 Icelandic science curriculum?
 How do they compare with the demands made in neighbouring countries, such as Sweden
and Denmark?
3
The paper begins with a discussion of curriculum issues and the method used to describe and
compare learning demands, followed by a brief overview of school science in the three countries.
The results of the analysis and comparison are then presented and discussed. In the last part of the
paper some issues surrounding comparative curriculum work are raised.
ANALYSING CURRICULUM
There are many ways of approaching the study of curriculum. Curriculum can be
considered as practice, as the decisions made in deciding what is to be taught (Reid, in Stewart,
1999 ). Such practice can occur at several levels. It can also be considered as institution, as the
reasons behind the choices, the values, attitudes and aspirations. Reid suggests though that it is
useful to consider curriculum as institutionalised practice, that is, curriculum shaped and
determined by the various institutions in which it is set (Reid, in Stewart 1999). The curriculum
which is under study in this research is the national curriculum in three Nordic countries, the
curriculum determined at national level by a process of deliberation, where choices have been
made about what is to be taught, and why.
The task addressed by the research team was how the “learning demands” in a national
curriculum could be identified and described. We were asked to work with the curriculum as
institutionalised text, to work only from representations of the official curriculum guides in each
country and as much as possible to restrict ourselves to what was found on web-sites in each
country. Some provision was made for short field visits to schools in Sweden and Denmark. The
report was submitted in September 2002 (Macdonald et al., 2002).
The framework for analysis
We were not provided with a clear definition of what the committee meant by “learning demands”
(which in Icelandic also has a slight hint of “learning expectations”) other than that we should
consider knowledge, skills and attitudes. Indeed it was not even certain that these classic divisions
introduced by Bloom and others had guided the development of the curricula.
We were quick to discover that the three countries had gone about their most recent policy
and curriculum decisions in different ways. In Iceland, the basic policy and its aims and structure is
presented in 70-100 page documents for each school level (compulsory, secondary) with the
curriculum guide for each individual subject being described in separate booklets sometimes up to
4
100 pages long. In Sweden, the basic aims are presented in a 20 page document for each school
level, with guidance for each level in two separate documents (compulsory, secondary), where
individual subjects are covered in about 4-6 pages. We found no independent policy document in
Denmark though the system was undergoing change while we were studying it. Each school subject
in Denmark received though almost overwhelmingly detailed descriptions of content and method.
An initial foray into documents available on the Internet on mother tongue teaching in the three
countries and a preliminary analysis produced nothing but lists of topics or emphases, and this
seemed to be entirely unsatisfactory. Thus it was left to us to develop and use an operational
definition that would make sense not only to us but also to the committee.
The task began to seem impossible. We needed a way of deconstructing the myriad of data
and representations being used in the three countries in order to tease out the conceptions of
teaching and learning being promoted at official levels.
We decided after a small trial to use a teaching and learning model with which I had been
working with for several years (Macdonald 1990, 2003). Essentially the model claims that in any
teaching or curriculum situation a number of decisions have to be made, each of which constitutes a
“learning demand”, that is, that the decisions are based on views of knowledge, teaching, learning
and assessment and the decision reflects what might be demanded of learners. Some of these
decisions are directly concerned with the teachers’ actions, these being the choice of material/topic,
the goals set, the methods to be used by the teacher and the way in which the work is to be assessed.
Ideally the decisions made should also recognise the initial state of the learner, the learning-as-activity
of the students and the learning-by-achievement which is the desired end-state of the learner
(Hewson and Hewson, 1988). In making assumptions about a certain initial state (for example,
ignoring it), a decision is made about the level and nature of learning activity and achievement which
follows that state.
The model suggests that curriculum decisions are made within seven frames – these can be
studied separately, together or in interaction with one another (Figure 1). The positioning of the
frames should not be taken as an indication of linearity – indeed it should be assumed that decisionmaking reflects interactions between frames. The teaching frames (transparent) are almost always
visible in a written curriculum or teaching plan, though teaching-as-activity can be less or more visible
according to the level of prescription in the curriculum. These learning frames (opaque) are often
almost invisible in a curriculum, especially where the curriculum describes in detail what must be
5
taught, but not how or why it must be taught. Each frame requires a set of decisions, sometimes
made in national curriculum guides for teachers, sometimes at school or classroom level by teachers.
Assessment and evaluation
Teaching-as-activity
Curriculum
Content
Aims
Concepts
Skills
Attitudes
......
Discipline
Work-related area
Related subjects
Learning-as-activity
Initial state of the
student
Understanding of
the contents
Interest and motivation
Skills
Ability
Learning style
Commitment
Figure 1
Assessment methods
- in words
- in symbols or drawings
- practical knowledge
- portfolio evaluation
- performance achievement
Preparation, organisation
and observations
Interaction in the classroom
- introduction
- management of
discussion
- guidelines
Tasks
- note-taking, recording
- reading
- discussion
- observations
- examples
Homework
Field trips
Learning-as-achievement
Understanding
Interest and motivation
Skills
Ability
Commitment
A model of decisions in teaching and learning.
The analysis
The analysis was carried out by reading the texts of official curriculum guides, available on the
official web-sites of the three ministries and related state organisations. Most of the texts from
Sweden and Denmark were available in the national language as well as in English. The texts for the
Icelandic national curriculum were generally only available in Icelandic at the time of data analysis,
but part of the general curriculum guide was made available in English in early 2004 (Ministry of
Education, 2004).
We went about our task in two steps. First we used the seven frames to look at each school
subject at each school level in each country in order to bring forth views that allowed us to consider
the key decisions within each subject on its own terms. We wanted to keep connections within each
subject and within each country and to juxtapose conceptions emerging from the frames analysis
6
with key elements in the related policy documents. We wanted to look at the level of coherence
between stated policy and curricular intentions.
In the second step, when we felt that we had understood each country sufficiently well, we
began a systematic two-way comparison, using the frames, between Iceland and Sweden on the one
hand, and Iceland and Denmark on the other hand. We did not do a three-way comparison because
we felt that it would not be particularly valuable to the committee to have comparisons between
Sweden and Denmark.
We asked ourselves: What sort of science were students expected to study and why? To what
extent is the science taught to be based on the initial state of the learner? What sort of learning
activities should occur? How is learning to be assessed? What connection is there between the aims
and objectives and the learning achieved by students?
SCIENCE IN THE NORDIC COUNTRIES
The three Nordic countries under consideration in our study were Sweden, Denmark and Iceland.
Denmark is more continental in climate and culture, has a population of about four million and has a
high population density. Sweden is the largest Nordic country with a population of about eight
million. Iceland has just under 300.000 people and is a small island in the middle of the North
Atlantic. It has strong ties with the Nordic countries in science, but also with the United States; for
example, over half of those who have undertaken doctoral studies have done so in America. All
Nordic countries are committed to “education for all”. There is almost no streaming in compulsory
schools and social inclusion is an issue of concern to many. Compulsory schooling is 10 years in
Iceland (age 6-15), and nine years in Sweden and Denmark (age 7-15). Secondary schooling in
Iceland is a four year process (age 16-19) and three years in Sweden and Denmark (age 16-18).
Extensive work has been done on results from the Nordic countries in TIMSS and PISA (see
for example, Kjærnsli and Lie, 2002, Olsen, 2005). The Nordic countries were found to have low
levels of between-school variance in the TIMSS study (Kjærnsli and Lie, 2002) and in the PISA
studies (OECD, 2004). Science and mathematics achievement appears as rather school-independent.
In the Nordic countries student scores improve as they grow older.
In the TIMSS study countries were grouped into mathematics or science countries and
Norway, Sweden and Iceland all appear consistently as “science countries” while Denmark leaned
7
more towards being a “mathematics country”, which can also be interpreted as less emphasis on
science than on mathematics. One explanation for the Nordic tendency towards science was sought
in geographical factors, with Nordic citizens spending more time outdoors and perhaps learning
some science out-of-school (Kjærnsli and Lie, 2002).
The PISA studies have also measured student performance though the assessment criteria
were less content-dependent than TIMSS. The OECD average score was 500 – in science Denmark
scored 475, Iceland 495 and Sweden 506. The results can also be considered according to the
percentage scoring below 400 or above 600. The Nordic countries have slightly more or about the
expected number of learners in the lower scoring group and have fewer in the uppermost group,
indicating that the sort of learning demands being assessed in the PISA studies may be too difficult
for weaker learners and are not extending the stronger learners (reference).
Gender equity has been important in Nordic policies for many years, thus it came as
something of a surprise in the TIMSS results to find that Danish boys scored higher on science than
girls in Population 2 (lower secondary) and boys scored higher than girls in all Nordic countries in
Population 3 (upper secondary), indicating a gender gap towards the end of the formal school system
(Kjærnsli and Lie, 2002). These gaps may be related to attitude gaps in all the Nordic countries
except Iceland. Interestingly girls in Iceland outperformed boys in science in PISA 2003 (OECD
2004), with Iceland having the highest difference in favour of girls of all countries. In the same
study, Denmark had the second highest difference in favour of boys while Sweden was roughly
between the two (Table 6.7, OECD 2004). These results would imply that perhaps insufficient
attention is being paid to the initial state of the student and the selection of appropriate learning
activities.
Kjærnsli and Lie (2002) also looked at the pattern of TIMSS results with relation to Norway
to find those countries with similar science knowledge to Norwegian children in Population 2. They
found that the countries most similar to Norway were Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, New
Zealand, Canada, Belgium, Scotland and the Netherlands. Most English-speaking countries were
close to Norway and the countries that were least similar in their knowledge were countries from
Eastern Europe. In a related analysis they found that Nordic students have more or less identical
strengths and weaknesses across the different science topics.
We consider now some features of the three national curricula.
8
The Icelandic curriculum
In the Icelandic compulsory school curriculum (IC) the goals of science are for learners:
 To develop a broad knowledge base and an understanding of the main areas of science, its
concepts and methods;
 To have developed a life-view;
 To have an overview of the role of science in culture and history;
 To understand the limitations of data;
 To engage in critical discussion of issues concerning nature, the environment and the
relationship between science, technology and society; and
 To have sufficient self-confidence to use knowledge and skills for further studies, as an
interest or at work.
The guide for science in compulsory schools is detailed and is divided into three themes and
three phases – grades 1-4, 5-7 and 8-10 (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 1999). It was
hoped that content theme, as found in the three content areas of physical sciences, earth sciences and life
sciences would be integrated by teachers with the themes concerning the nature and role of science, and
methods and skills. Detailed objectives are presented within the content theme in ten levels, with the
exception of earth sciences that has only eight levels. These “levels” can be used at the teacher’s
discretion, according to the guide, and sets of objectives need not be confined to the grade implied
by the level i.e. level 5 need not be taught in grade 5.
A national examination in science was reintroduced into the education system in the revised
curriculum after a break of twenty years and took effect in 2002. Taking the examination is however
not compulsory and they can be taken at the end of grade 9 or 10, though the latter is more
common. The first few years of the examination have been characterised by items from the content
theme.
The Danish curriculum
The Danish science curriculum (DC) is detailed and includes the overall aims (d. slutmål) within each
subject and objectives related to knowledge and skills (d. trinmål). Teaching guidelines are also
provided but can be used at the teacher’s discretion http://www.klaremaal.uvm.dk/
9
The compulsory science curriculum in Denmark is divided into three phases. In grades 1 to 6
the science-based subject is called nature and technology. The goals in the younger grades are to develop
a sense of wonder and curiosity through experiences, investigations and experiments; to understand
and experience how science is an interaction between observations, investigations, reading, thought
and experiments; to develop language, scientific concepts and ability to construct arguments, evaluate
and reflect. The areas of emphasis are four – the local world, the global world, the interaction of
man and nature, and scientific methods and reasoning.
The emphasis is on biology in grades 7 and 8. The main areas of knowledge and skills the
students are expected to develop are living organisms and their habitats, environment and health,
biological applications, and scientific methods and reasoning. Basic knowledge and skills in these
four areas are to be taught in an integrated manner, both within the subject and when included in
multidisciplinary subjects or projects. Through their studies, the students should be able to apply
their knowledge and skills to make themselves familiar with issues relating to nature, environment,
health and practical applications of biology, recognise and formulate biological problems and carry
out investigations and experiments, understand biology as a scientific discipline and its influence on
our culture and world view, and finally be able to become involved in biological debates and to
articulate a position and take action.
Physics and chemistry is taught in grades 7 to 10. The main areas of knowledge and skills are
the physical and chemical world, development of scientific knowledge, use of physics and chemistry
in everyday life and society, and scientific methods and reasoning. The students should acquire
knowledge and insight into physical and chemical concepts and develop further skills and
approaches, understand physics and chemistry and their application as a part of their culture and
world view, and become engaged in a critical and responsible fashion with regard to scientific issues.
The Swedish curriculum
The goals for science studies in the Swedish curriculum (SC) are related to
 nature and Man and the ability to see patterns and structures through oral, written and
investigatory activities;
 understanding and experiencing scientific activity as a human activity, as part of culture, as a
relationship between observations and models, experiments and theories; and
10
 using knowledge responsibly, as a basis for examining views and in appreciating the reasoning of
others and showing respect and sensitivity to other views (p. 39-40).
The same three themes – knowledge about nature and man, knowledge of scientific activity and
using this knowledge to develop values – are repeated in the curriculum sections on biology and physics
and chemistry. http://www.skolverket.se/pdf/english/compsyll.pdf
Time allocated to science
One way of looking at science and its value or status in the compulsory curriculum is to consider the
areas of study related to science and the time allocated to them. The total number of compulsory
school days in Iceland (10 years, 180 days) and in Denmark is roughly the same (9 years, 200 days)
but school attendance is considerably shorter in Sweden (9 years, 178 days). Timetabled lessons in
Iceland are 14% and 21% more than in Denmark and Sweden respectively.
The five academic subjects considered in this study make up 54% of the total number of
lessons in Iceland, but 67%-68% in the two Nordic countries. Considerably more time is spent on
mathematics in Iceland (1200 lessons as opposed to 1080 or 900 lessons).
Iceland and Denmark allocate about the same amount of time (624 lessons and 630 lessons)
to science in compulsory schools but the emphasis according to age is different. Students in the last
three years of school in Denmark receive 300 lessons in science, as opposed to 216 in Iceland, but
the situation is reversed in the younger grades where Icelandic children have 408 lessons but the
Danish only 300. In Sweden children in compulsory schools have 800 science lessons, about 25%
more than in Iceland and Denmark.
National assessment examinations in the mother tongue, English and mathematics are
obligatory at the end of compulsory schooling in Sweden and Denmark, with oral and written
components.
LEARNING DEMANDS IN THE CURRICULA
The three Nordic curricula are different in many ways but the questions guiding the study concerned
the learning demands made of students in the three curricula. Le Métais (2002) has pointed out that
three main models of centrally prescribed curricula have been adopted:
11

The input model, where content is specified and where the focus might be on teaching rather
than learning.

The output model, where there is concern for student performance and system effectiveness.

The process model, which might draw on research-based learning methodologies.
Elements of all three models are found in the Nordic curricula being examined here. The seven
decision-making frames will be grouped according to these models, in order to facilitate discussion
of the results, although this grouping was not used in the original submission to the ministry.
Input - the initial state of learners, choice of content and goals
We begin the comparison by looking at the inputs into the curricula. I choose to include the initial
state of learners here, rather than under process, where it could also comfortably find a home.
All three countries have a lower secondary curriculum which has a content base related to
biology, physics and chemistry, with the IC being the only curriculum to include explicitly an earth
science component. Earth sciences form however only a small part of the national standardised
examination in Iceland. Science for the younger grades in DC is called “natural environment and
technology” though the themes are similar to those in the IC and represent accepted practice in the
younger grades where the emphasis starts with individuals and moves from there to the immediate
world and then the larger world.
The learning of (scientific) skills is addressed in all three curricula though in very different
ways. Skills appear in the SC somewhat indirectly through knowledge of science as an activity, with
an emphasis on the relationship between experiments, observations and theory. In the DC the
learning and application of skills is considered to be a part of the curriculum on a par with content
areas. In the IC more general aims concerning methods and skills are to be achieved by the ends of
grades 4, 7 and 10, with the expectation that teachers would integrate them with content objectives
for all three phases.
The nature of science and the role of technology has been an increasingly visible part of new
science curricula in many countries over the last 15 to 20 years. There is surprisingly little discussion
of technology in these curricula. In the Icelandic curriculum technology is addressed as a process
rather than a product in a separate curriculum on Information and technology education. The nature of
science and its role in society are presented in the IC as objectives at the ends of grades 4, 7 and 10.
12
It is possible to find a cautionary note in the IC and the SC. In the latter students should understand
the difference between value statements and scientific statements, and that science can not only be
used for development or improvement but can also be abused.
There is little evidence in the curricula that the initial state of the learner is considered
problematic, perhaps because of (or despite) the emphasis on content areas. This must be considered
an issue when much of present learning research focuses on the social construction of ideas.
The science curriculum team in Iceland prepared their aims and objectives in three steps to
fit the three phases of schooling and trying to ensure continuity and progression between them. The
committee managing the curriculum revisions wanted however a standardised format for all subjects,
with objectives at most levels and each phase being presented in its entirety before moving to the
next phase. This has benefits and disadvantages but it was a decision which obscured the approach
taken by the curriculum writers.
Output - assessment and achievement
The way in which assessment is approached in the three curricula creates different learning demands
on the students, and indicates different expectations of the role of the teacher. It is also of interest to
consider the extent to which formal assessment is designed to assist the student in understanding and
monitoring his or her own achievement, and the extent to which some learning demands might be
emphasized at the expense of others.
In the SC and the DC it is expected that students will be tested not only on written tests, but
also orally and practically, an emphasis which is consistent with the goals. In all three curricula
readers/teachers are reminded that assessment should not only be written, and that it is important to
also evaluate interest, independence, creativity, responsibility and reasoning. Portfolio evaluation is
also encouraged. However it is really only in the SC that assessment criteria are made clear and seem
to reflect reasonably well the themes apparent in the overall goals – particularly that of understanding
knowledge of man and nature and of science as an activity. These criteria are also available to parents
and students.
Process - teaching-as-activity and learning-as-activity
Teachers must make a series of decisions in planning and presenting science lessons, some of which
involve their own activity and some of which are about planned activities for students.
13
It is not always clear, especially in the IC, what curriculum writers actually expected teachers
to do, since the learning objectives are presented in terms of what students should know or be able
to do. Teachers are ostensibly given a free hand in determining what activities to undertake and in
what order. This choice is though limited or exploited by the availability of texts. We have seen
examples in research currently in progress of teachers using the same materials and working from the
same curricula and yet working in very different ways with learners. One teacher emphasises handson work by learners, another carries out all practical work as teacher demonstrations only.
The learning activities in the curricula seem to involve considerable learner participation, with
observations, experiments and group work all being mentioned. Perhaps the most purposeful
activity is that which is encouraged in the SC through discussion and problem-solving. Teachers on
the other hand are not provided with much practical advice in the SC.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
In summary we can say that the view of science expressed in the three curricula is a strange mix of
traditional content or subject areas and an ambitious discourse on the nature of science. The vision
is there – for learners to appreciate the nature of science as a phenomenon with an understanding of
its advantages and disadvantages and its relation to science and technology and for learners to
become responsible informed citizens because of their exposure to issues which affect both society
and individuals. At the same time none of the three countries appears to believe, however, that it is
possible to teach science without falling back on traditional subject areas, such as chemistry or
biology, or looked at another way, the three countries place great value on the content knowledge per
se. The message shown through an interweaving of the areas of the curriculum in the IC appears
difficult to achieve when the detailed objectives are given for the content areas alone, and the
standardised assessment is based on these areas. The curriculum now being implemented in Iceland
is based on ideas which were first formulated in the period 1996-99 and in turn based on curriculum
work from other countries from earlier times. The influence of the New Zealand curriculum is a
case in point.
Curriculum decisions
Le Métais (2002) has discussed the purpose and function of curricula, conceptual frameworks and
pedagogical issues. She suggests that in general curricula do not tend to prescribe teaching
14
methodology, a suggestion that this study would support insofar as actual teaching practice is
concerned. The model we have used indicates the constraints on and expectations of the teaching
and learning process. Le Métais also discusses three models of curriculum prescription – input, output
and process. It would be safe to say that by the late 1900s most centrally prescribed curricula included
elements of all three models and this is the case in the three Nordic countries.
In my analysis I looked at the initial state of the learner at the same time as I considered the
goals, aims and content selection. The goals and content are almost always related to some desired
end-state rather than an initial state, though in the IC there is some recognition of attributes learners
have in the different phases. A source of concern in several Western countries is the low number of
students enrolling in science courses at universities. Is it possible that the ‘inputs’ in science course
have not enhanced motivation by being poorly matched?
Self-efficacy is a concept which is receiving increasing attention in the literature with regard
both to learners and to teachers. Are the ‘outputs’ envisaged in the curriculum being managed in
such a way that learner self-efficacy is enhanced? The introduction of a standardised assessment in
science at the end of compulsory school probably serves to motivate some students and demotivate
others. All the curricula suggest that a variety of assessment methods should be used but it is only in
the SC that this is in any way prescribed. The development of self-efficacy requires that learners have
information about themselves and find ways of attributing success to their own efforts rather than to
external circumstances. The goals set in the curricula indicate a desire for learners with high selfefficacy, who are capable and willing to take part in society and understand the effect of science and
technology in modern society. Recent research by Olsen (2005) has shown that Nordic students
performed relatively well on items requiring textual analysis in PISA 2003. Perhaps we could take
this as a sign that students might be capable of tackling problems and issues as they arise.
Learning theories which have influenced science teaching strategies include behaviourism,
information-processing (cognitivism), constructivism in the Piagetian mode and social constructivism
as advocated by Vygotsky. The rational or technicist approach of aims and objectives adopted in the
Nordic curricula, especially in the IC and the DC, indicate the influence of behaviourism and
information-processing. The guidelines for assessment in the DC and the SC with practical problemsolving, oral examinations and group work indicate a recognition that learning is to some extent
social and grounded in society. Research on alternative conceptions has been carried out in the
Nordic region as has work based on social constructivism. Results of international research on
15
conceptual development lay behind the approach to continuity and progression in the writing of
aims and objectives in the IC. Some classroom research is underway in Iceland which may shed light
on the strategies being adopted by teachers and the nature of the learning activities which arise out of
these strategies.
The definition of scientific literacy in the PISA study in 2003 was as follows (OECDPISA, 2003, p. 133):
Scientific literacy is the capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to
draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about
the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity.
Much of this definition is in accord with the curricular intentions of the three countries with
regard to learning the nature and role of science and about scientific methods and skills – use
knowledge (cf. SC), understanding the natural world (IC; DC; SC), making decisions about the
natural world (IC, SC) and the changes made to it through human activity (SC). In a recent study
Olsen (2005) found that Nordic countries perform better on items which depended on analysis of
text in the stimulus material. Items differed in their closeness to the text, in some cases requiring
skilful reading of the text. Less external information is needed to answer correctly. Nordic countries
were also relatively strong in items relying on competency, i.e. on items testing understanding and
skills in some fundamental scientific processes (Olsen, 2005). What these results would imply is that
learning-as-activity has been particularly successful and that despite the emphasis for example in the
IC and DC on scientific content, that in some way the more nebulous aims are also being achieved.
What is interesting is that this appears to be happening without specific attention being paid to these
aspects by teachers.
Finally, the question of prescription itself arises. Can a curriculum released in the late 1990s
reflect the type of science education needed by youngsters in the next few years? Curriculum reforms
in Norway opted for less rather than more – reducing the level of prescription from levels similar to
those found in the IC and DC to more open-ended guidelines, more like those in the SC. Teachers
may use high levels of prescription as checklists for reporting to other teachers, learners and parents,
but in so doing lose opportunities of working with learners in identifying needs. Others suggest that
high levels of prescription are needed when innovations are being introduced, such as science in the
younger years.
16
Curriculum implementation
Nicolson and Holman (2002) noted the following consequences of a more detailed and prescriptive
curriculum in England:

the need for more science teachers as more science lessons are being taught,

the disappointing trend that despite more science, the popularity of the subject remains low
and few continue with their studies,

the conflict between overlap of topics in a spiral curriculum and non-coverage of topics at a
later stage,

the need to teach for “exam success” as schools are judged on their results,

the excessive content to be covered leaving little time for reflection and consolidation and
less for practical work

the non-critical view of science in the curriculum which might give the impression that it is a
value-free activity.
Many of these points might be useful to consider in the Nordic context.
The relationship between the intended curriculum and its interpretation varies between
countries but the curriculum generally opens the way for teaching materials/textbooks written to
align with the objectives. The author of a series of three new Icelandic textbooks for grades 5-7
(Auðvitað 1, 2 and 3) followed the national curriculum objectives very closely but it is known that
some teachers avoid the practical activities or require them to be done as homework. The National
Educational Materials Centre in Iceland has been translating and publishing new materials for the
lower secondary level (for example Einkenni lífvera, 1996, Orka, 1997, Kraftur og hreyfing, 1998)) These
books are popular with teachers and were actually a source of objectives in 1998-99 in a pragmatic
decision by those preparing the curriculum guidelines. The series is based on translations and
adaptations of science texts written in the United States in the mid 1980s.
The new grade 10 national science examination in Iceland has been built up on the basis of
checklists of activities undertaken by teachers, but the original list reflected the content of the
prevailing texts more than that of the wider curriculum objectives. Objectives relating to the nature
of science and to scientific methods are seldom assessed in the national examination. Doctoral
17
research (Rúnar Sigþórsson, 2005, personal communication) is underway on the effect of
reintroducing the national examination in science after a break of two decades. Initial results suggest
that a positive effect is that more schools must offer more and better science and that a serious
negative effect is the need to concentrate on content and that there is too much content, as Nicolson
and Holman (2002) have observed in England.
The percentage of 10th grade students taking the science examination in 2004 was about
65%, a little less than in 2002 when it was about 70% (Skúlason et al., 2004). There are slight regional
variations with the highest proportion taking the science examination being in the rural northwest
region (72%) and the lowest in the northeast (59%). It is possible that this reflects options available
within schools rather than the real preferences of students. The highest performers came from the
urban southwest and the lowest from the rural south. Boys performed slightly better than girls.
About 44% of the questions were drawn from physics and chemistry, about 44% from biology and
about 11% from geology. Students performed best on the biology questions. Bloom’s taxonomy is
used to classify the questions. About 36% are built on knowledge and understanding, about 41% on
application and analysis and 3% on synthesis.
Research on the experienced curriculum was recently carried out in Northern Ireland where a
team of researchers studied the impact of the whole (reformed) curriculum from the perspective of
the learner (Harland, Moor, Kinder and Ashworth 2002). They investigated such concepts as
breadth and balance, coherence, continuity and progression. They followed a large cohort of
learners for three years, Years 8, 9 and 10. They carried out annual surveys on a 10% sample of
learners and surveys in 51 schools. They undertook biannual visits to five schools where interviews
were taken with the same 12 learners who had initially been interviewed at the end of Year 7,
shadowing of learners and follow-up interviews, interviews with staff and other data about the
schools.
They found that there were six types of curricula being offered and the emphasis was out of
line with learners’ views – too little time on practical activities and cross-cultural themes. Students
experienced compartmentalised subject teaching with little reference to other subjects. Only the high
achievers could discern the continuity which matched teachers’ descriptions. It was found that the
Year 10 assessments motivated the learners, but that the tests also upset the balance and relevance of
the curriculum. As they got older students began to assess the subjects in terms of relevance to a
job, with time allocations having an influence on what was considered valuable. Learners often did
18
not feel over-worked or challenged. Enjoyment decreased over the three years, but the importance
they attached to IT, health education and careers was not matched by the quality and quantity of the
provision.
A NATIONAL CURRICULUM FOR TEACHERS
Jerome Bruner (1977, p. xv) said many years ago:
Let me turn to .... the production of a curriculum. Whoever has undertaken such an
enterprise will probably have learned many things. But with luck, he will also have learned
one big thing. A curriculum is more for teachers than it is for pupils. If it cannot change,
move, perturb, inform teachers, it will have no effect on those whom they teach. It must be
first and foremost a curriculum for teachers. If it has any effect on pupils, it will have it by
virtue of having had an effect on teachers.
In Sweden several reforms have been introduced into the educational system over the last 10
years or so. A group of researchers in Stockholm (Eriksson and Jedemark 2004) followed five teams
of teachers from four schools from different socio-economic conditions for three years. Discussions
within teams were recorded, group interviews taken and classrooms observed. The research project
involved a school in which one of the features of schooling, the timetable, is removed yet the work
of the school is still to implement the curriculum. The questions being explored concerned the views
of teachers and what they considered their task to be, given that the curriculum sets goals to be
achieved in grade 5 and grade 9, as we have seen earlier.
The first results indicate that teachers have redefined their own task from being one of
presenting content to one of finding tasks for individual students so that they will achieve a passing
grade. They choose to change the tasks for individuals by changing the pace at which they must be
carried out and the level of difficulty, perhaps by using different text-books. Teachers also seek
more often to integrate across subjects by adopting a more holistic approach, though the onus is still
on the students to create a whole out of their own task. The researchers feel that the teachers are
redefining their task and that the responsibility for getting students to “pass” seems to be a “a more
powerful driving force than the curriculum or the syllabus.” At the same time students are also
expected to assume a responsibility for learning and for the work of the school.
What we do not know much about in Iceland is the curriculum in the classroom nor how
individual teachers and learners experience it. We do not know much about the relationship between
the texts available from the National Educational Material Centre and the learning activities going on
19
in schools. Nor do we know much about the effect of the reintroduction of national assessment in
science on teaching, though doctoral research on this topic is underway, and reports on the
standardised assessments raise almost as many interesting questions as they answer. We do know
that teachers have found the curriculum to be content-heavy. We do not know very much about the
decisions they make in implementing the curriculum.
Perhaps Bruner´s message is one to be remembered in the revision or reform of science
curricula in the Nordic countries. We know at least in Iceland that in the preparation of the last
national curriculum that the teachers were supposed to “come with the content”, but that the
ideological framework came from a specially appointed team of non-curriculum specialists
(Macdonald and Hjartarson, in press). The curriculum is considered lengthy and prescriptive by
teachers and is strongly aligned with course materials, both existing and in preparation. Should
Iceland opt for the Swedish ‘broad brush’ approach? We need classroom research and research with
teachers to understand better what happens in classrooms and we need new ways of looking at
learning-as-achievement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My colleagues in the research team were Thuridur Jóhannsdóttir and Michael Dal. They worked
mainly on the analysis of the language and social sciences curricula and I thank them for fruitful
discussions. My responsibilities in the analysis were largely in the mathematics and science areas and
also in summaries of the time spent on courses in compulsory and secondary schooling.
20
REFERENCES
Bruner, J. (1977). The process of education. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. [Second edition,
new preface.]
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research.
Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Eriksson, Inger and Jedemark, Marie (2004). Redefining teaching – an activity theoretical study of
school practice in Sweden. Paper presented at the Third Nordic on Cultural and Activity
Research. September, Copenhagen.
Harland, J., Moor, H., Kinder, K. and Ashworth, M. (2002). Is the Curriculum working? The key stage 3
phase of the northern ireland curriculum Cohort study. Slough: NFER.
Hewson, P.W. and Hewson, M. G. A’B. 1988. An appropriate conception of teaching science: a view
from studies of science learning. Science Education 72,5:597–614.
Kjærnsli, Marit and Svein Lie (2002). TIMSS Science results seen from a Nordic perspective.
http://www.timss.no/art_TIMSS_science.PDF.
Le Métais, Joanna (2002). New Zealand Stocktake: an international critique. Ministry of Education, New
Zealand and National Foundation for Educational Research, England.
Macdonald, M. Allyson (1991). Eðlisfræðinám. Í Eðlisfræði á Íslandi V. Ráðstefnurit ráðstefnu
Eðlisfræðifélags Íslands í Munaðarnesi 28.-30. september 1990. Háskólaútgáfan, bls. 65-76. [Physics
learning].
Macdonald, M. Allyson (2000). Stefnur og straumar í náttúrufræðimenntun - Áhrif þeirra á námskrá
og kennslu. Uppeldi og menntun, 9. árg.
Macdonald, M. Allyson (2003). An analytic tool for deconstructing teaching and learning tasks. A
paper presented at the BERA Annual Conference, held in Edinburgh, 11th to 13th September
2003.
Macdonald, Allyson, Andrea G. Dofradóttir, Jón Torfi Jónasson, Michael Dal, Ragna B.
Garðarsdóttir og Þuríður Jóhannsdóttir (2002). Samanburðarkönnun á skólakerfum á Íslandi,
í Danmörku og í Svíþjóð. Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands og Rannsóknarstofnun
21
Kennaraháskóla Íslands. http://rannsokn.khi.is/matsverkefni/Lokaskýrsla%20%20leiðrétt%20í%20mars%202004.pdf
Macdonald, M. Allyson and Thorsteinn Hjartarson (2003). Constructing the information and
technology education curriculum in Iceland: Is there a rift in the North Atlantic? A paper
presented at the LEARN conference in Helsinki, December 2003. [Revised August 2004].
http://namust.khi.is/allyson_thorsteinn_rift9.doc
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Reykjavík (1999). Aðalnámskrá grunnskóla.
http://bella.stjr.is/utgafuskra/leit-nidurstodur.adp?leitarord=9979-882-08-5
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Reykjavík (2004). National curriculum for compulsory schools.
Olsen, R. 2005. An exploration of cluster structure in scientific literacy in pisa: evidence for a nordic
dimension? Nordina 1/05
http://www.naturfagsenteret.no/tidsskrift/rolf%20v%20olsen_105.pdf
OECD (2004). Learning for tomorrow´s world. www.pisa.oecd.org
Skúlason, Sigurgrímur et al. (2004). Skýrsla um samræmd próf í 10. bekk árið 2004.
Námsmatsstofnunhttp://www.namsmat.is/vefur/skyrslur/samramd_prof/skyrsl_samræmd
_2004/skyrsla_sp_1004.pdf
Stewart, Julie Pearson (1999). Editor´s review. Harvard Educational Review, 69, 3, 336-341.
Nicolson, Peter and Holman, John (2003) The National Curriculum for science: looking back and
forward. School Science Review, September 2003, 21-28.
Simola, Hannu (1998). Decontextualizing teachers’ knowledge: Finnish didactics and teacher
education curriculum during the 1980s and 1990s. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
42(4), 325-338.
22