View
224
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Analysing the learning demands made in the official science curricula
in three Nordic countriesM. Allyson [email protected]
Paper presented at the ASERA conference, Hamilton, New Zealand, July 2005
ASERA, Hamilton 2
Research questions
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?
In revisiting the assessment these practical questions are also considered in terms of larger issues
ASERA, Hamilton 3
Three issues
Comparative study – like with like? Curriculum – what is curriculum? Commissioned research – limits and
advantages
ASERA, Hamilton 4
Nordic countries - background Sweden
• largest – about eight million people – variety of geographic features – often considered archetype of Nordic countries
Denmark• smaller – about four million people – high
population density – flat – island and peninsula – more continental in climate and culture
Iceland• very small – about 300.000 people – island
in North Atlantic – Nordic though has ties to USA
ASERA, Hamilton 5
Nordic countries - education
Education for all• Very little streaming, social inclusion
Compulsory schooling• Sweden, Denmark – age 7-15 – nine years• Iceland – age 6-15 – ten years
Secondary schooling• Sweden, Denmark – age 16-19 – three years• Iceland – age 16-20 – four years
Curriculum areas each conform to a particular template
Rational/technicist presentation
ASERA, Hamilton 6
Nordic countries - time
Amount of time spent in compulsory school in Iceland is 14% more than in Denmark and 20% more than in Sweden
Five curriculum areas in the research • 54% of time in Iceland• 67-68% of time in Sweden and
Denmark Maths – 1200 hours in Iceland, 1080 in
Denmark, 900 in Sweden
ASERA, Hamilton 7
Nordic countries – science curriculum Most detailed in Denmark and least in
Sweden Iceland – grades 1-4, 5-7, 8-10 – natural
science, divided into three areas (physical science, life sciences, earth sciences)
Denmark • 1-6 – nature and technology• 7-8 – biology• 7-9/10 – physics and chemistry
Sweden – 1-5, 6-9 – science studies
ASERA, Hamilton 8
Nordic countries – science curriculum Iceland and Denmark – 624 and 630
hours in science – more in upper grades (last three years) in Denmark (300 vs 216), more in lower grades in Iceland (408 vs 300)
Sweden – 800 science hours in all
ASERA, Hamilton 9
Analysis of curricula
Description of each science curriculum in terms of a decision-making model • Try to understand each curriculum on
its own terms but in such a way that comparable features are made visible
Two-way comparisons• Iceland-Denmark• Iceland-Sweden
ASERA, Hamilton 11
Decision-making model
Learning-as-activity
Learning-as-achievement
Initial state of the learner
ASERA, Hamilton 12
Decision-making model
Learning-as-activity
Learning-as-achievement
ContentGoals
Teaching-as-activity Assessment
Initial state of the learner
ASERA, Hamilton 13
Inputs – content, goals, initial state of the learner General in lower grades, moving from
self/immediate environment outwards; subject-based in upper grades
More knowledge-based in Iceland and Denmark, more problem-solving in Sweden
Skills – developed through specific activities in Sweden, separate area in Denmark, to be integrated with content areas in Iceland though skills have their own goals
Technology moving out of science into new curriculum areas, especially in Iceland; all three show care for the environment; nature of science important, seem to be fewer doubts about value of science in Sweden; science for citizenship
ASERA, Hamilton 14
Icelandic science curriculum
About the nature and role of scienceAbout methods and skills
From the physical sciencesFrom the earth sciences
From the life sciences
ASERA, Hamilton 15
Outputs – assessment and achievement Assessment at end of compulsory schooling
• Sweden and Denmark, compulsory, oral and written, group problem-solving, graded internally
• Iceland, optional, written, graded externally Internal assessment – to cover interest,
independence, creativity, responsibility and reasoning
Portfolio evaluation encouraged In Sweden – assessment criteria in line with
goals appear in official curriculum
ASERA, Hamilton 16
Process – teaching and learning as activities Few guidelines for teachers in
Iceland, objectives are in terms of what learners should be able to do
Emphasis on learner participation Problem-solving a distinct learner
activity in Sweden but little advice for teachers.
Constructivism/behaviorism - tension
ASERA, Hamilton 17
Ambitious but ambiguous
Emphases include nature of science, relationship of science and technology, informed citizenship
Yet there are traditional subject areas and an emphasis on content knowledge
ASERA, Hamilton 18
Comparative study
Did we manage to compare the learning demands in the curricula?
We were asked for a comparison of knowledge, skills and attitudes
We supplied the answer differently – was there any added value?
ASERA, Hamilton 19
Curriculum
Reordered for this paper as inputs, outputs and process
Issues of motivation, self-efficacy – goals/objectives are in terms of an end-state (towards, standardised assessment) and not an initial state (away from, individualised instruction)
Learning and curriculum - behaviourism/information processing vs. constructivism/social constructivism
ASERA, Hamilton 20
Curriculum - interpretation
Nicolson and Holman 2002 – English study; need more teachers, continued low popularity, assessment
Eriksson and Jedemark 2004 - Sweden – removal of timetable, teachers defined new tasks
Harland, Moor, Kinder and Ashworth 2002 – Ireland – considered curriculum from the perspective of the learners – three cohorts – breadth and balance, coherence, continuity and progression
ASERA, Hamilton 21
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.