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Please do not quote without the permission of the author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
Reykjavk, 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.

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

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 pre-school 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?

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 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 decision-making
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 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
Assessment methods
- in words
- in symbols or
drawings
- practical
knowledge
- portfolio
evaluation
- performance
achievement

Teaching-as-activity
Preparation,
organisation
and observations
Interaction in the
classroom
- introduction
- management of
discussion
- guidelines

Curriculum
Aims
Concepts
Skills
Attitudes
......

Learning-as-activity
Tasks
- note-taking, recording
- reading
- discussion
- observations
- examples
Homework
Field trips

Content
Discipline
Work-related area
Related subjects

Learning-asachievement

Initial state of the

student

Understanding
Interest and
motivation
Skills
Ability
Commitment

Understanding of
the contents
Interest and
motivation
Skills
Ability
Learning style
Commitment

Figure 1

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 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, Kjrnsli and Lie, 2002, Olsen, 2005).
The Nordic countries were found to have low levels of between-school
variance in the TIMSS study (Kjrnsli 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 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-ofschool (Kjrnsli and Lie, 2002).

10

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 (Kjrnsli 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.
Kjrnsli 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

11

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.
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
teachers 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

12

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. slutml) within each subject and objectives related to knowledge and
skills (d. trinml). Teaching guidelines are also provided but can be used at
the teachers discretion http://www.klaremaal.uvm.dk/
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

13

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
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)

14

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 Mtais (2002) has pointed out that three main models of
centrally prescribed curricula have been adopted:

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.

15

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.

16

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. 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

17

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.
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
hands-on 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

18

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 Mtais (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 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 Mtais also discusses
three models of curriculum prescription input, output and process. It

19

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 selfefficacy 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 self-efficacy, 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.

20

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 problem-solving, 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 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-asactivity has been particularly successful and that despite the emphasis for

21

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.
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 noncoverage 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

22

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 (Auvita 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 lfvera, 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 research (Rnar Sigrsson, 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.

23

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%
(Sklason 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. Blooms 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

24

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 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

25

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 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 Bruners 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.

26

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My colleagues in the research team were Thuridur Jhannsdttir 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.

27

REFERENCES
Bruner, J. (1977). The process of education. Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press. [Second edition, new preface.]
Engestrm, 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. AB. 1988. An appropriate conception of
teaching science: a view from studies of science learning. Science
Education 72,5:597614.
Kjrnsli, Marit and Svein Lie (2002). TIMSS Science results seen from a
Nordic perspective. http://www.timss.no/art_TIMSS_science.PDF.
Le Mtais, Joanna (2002). New Zealand Stocktake: an international critique.
Ministry of Education, New Zealand and National Foundation for
Educational Research, England.
Macdonald, M. Allyson (1991). Elisfrinm. Elisfri slandi V.
Rstefnurit rstefnu Elisfriflags slands Munaarnesi 28.-30.
september 1990. Hsklatgfan, bls. 65-76. [Physics learning].
Macdonald, M. Allyson (2000). Stefnur og straumar nttrufrimenntun hrif eirra nmskr og kennslu. Uppeldi og menntun, 9. rg.

28

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. Dofradttir, Jn Torfi Jnasson, Michael Dal,
Ragna B. Gararsdttir og urur Jhannsdttir (2002).
Samanburarknnun sklakerfum slandi, Danmrku og Svj.
Flagsvsindastofnun Hskla slands og Rannsknarstofnun
Kennarahskla slands.
http://rannsokn.khi.is/matsverkefni/Lokaskrsla%20-%20leirtt%20
%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, Reykjavk (1999). Aalnmskr
grunnskla. http://bella.stjr.is/utgafuskra/leit-nidurstodur.adp?
leitarord=9979-882-08-5
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Reykjavk (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 tomorrows world. www.pisa.oecd.org
Sklason, Sigurgrmur et al. (2004). Skrsla um samrmd prf 10. bekk
ri 2004.
Nmsmatsstofnunhttp://www.namsmat.is/vefur/skyrslur/samramd_prof
/skyrsl_samrmd_2004/skyrsla_sp_1004.pdf
Stewart, Julie Pearson (1999). Editors review. Harvard Educational Review, 69, 3, 336-341.

29

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.

30