LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Mølstad, Christina Elde; Hansén, Sven-Erik (2013)
Publisher: Education Inquiry
Journal: Education Inquiry
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: curriculum; governing instrument; Norway; Finland; comparative research
Traditionally, the Nordic curriculum has been viewed as a document with school subjects in focus. This article reports on how two national curricula function as instruments for governing education and explores the possible differences in how national curricula govern education. This investigation was carried out by researching curricula for compulsory schools in Norway (2006) and Finland (2004). In Norway, the governing that emphasises output mechanisms is compared to Finland where the governing is distributed in a more intricate manner at three identified levels. All three levels in the hierarchical legal levels (Act, Regulation and circular letters) are directly activated in the formal rule system, whereas only the two first levels, as part of the formal rule system, are used within the Finnish curriculum decision-making structure. A second finding is that a consequence of the use of the formal rule system is that, at the higher level of the legal status, legitimacy is acquired through a process of essential voices being heard in the process of creating the curricula. Unlike the Finnish curriculum, the Norwegian curriculum does not have the same level of democratic procedures behind it concerning consultation over the content.Keywords: curriculum, governing instrument, Norway, Finland, comparative research(Published: 06 December 2013)Citation: Education Inquiry (EDUI) 2013, 4, 23219, http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/edui.v4i4.23219
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Afdal, Hilde W˚ag˚as (2012). Constructing knowledge for the teaching profession. A comparative analysis of policy making, curricula content, and novice teachers' knowledge relations in the cases of Finland and Norway. Oslo: University of Oslo.
    • Aspfors, Jessica (2012). Induction practices: experiences of newly qualified teachers. PhD diss., A˚bo Akademi University.
    • Backstro¨m-Widjeskog, B. & Hans´en, Sven-Erik. (2002). Problem concerning comparative research of curriculum development. In Comparing Curriculum-Making Processes, M. Rosenmund, A.- V. Fries & W. Helle (eds.), 55 71. Bern: P. Lang.
    • Bray, Mark & Kai, Jiang (2007). Comparing systems. In Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods, Mark Bray, Bob Adamson & Mark Mason (eds.), 123 144. Hong Kong, Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
    • Elstad, Eyvind (2010). In PISA: sannheten om skolen? Elstad, Eyvind & Sivesind, Kirsten (eds.). Oslo: 54-66. Universitetsforlaget.
    • Engelsen, Britt Ulstrup (2008). Kunnskapsløftet sentrale styringssignaler og lokale strategidokumenter. Oslo: Universitet i Oslo, Pedagogisk forskningsinsitutt.
    • Granheim, Marit, Kogan, Maurice & Lundgren, Ulf P. (1990). Evaluation as policymaking: introducing evaluation into a national decentralised educational system. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
    • Gundem, Bjørg Brandtzaeg (1993). Mot en ny skolevirkelighet?: laereplanen i et sentraliserings- og desentraliseringsperspektiv. Oslo: Pensumtjeneste.
    • Gundem, Bjørg Brandtzaeg (2008). Perspektiv pa˚ laereplanen. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
    • Hans´en, Sven-Erik (1998). Preparing student teachers for curriculum-making. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(2), 165 179.
    • Hopmann, Stefan. Retracing curriculum theory: the multiple realities of curriculum making. (1991). In Curriculum Work and Curriculum Content: Theory and Practice: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives, Bjørg Brandtzaeg Gundem, Britt Ulstrup Engelsen & Berit Karseth (eds.), 49 69. Oslo: University of Oslo, Institute for Educational Research.
    • Hopmann, Stefan. Laererutddannelsen i Norden - et internationalt perspektiv. (2006). In Laereruddannelsen i Norden, Skagen, Kaare (ed.), 109 136. Kristiansand: Forl. Unge Paedagoger.
    • Hopmann, Stefan, Afsar, Azita, Bachmann, Kari Elisabeth & Sivesind, Kirsten (2004). Hvordan formidles laereplanen?: en komparativ evaluering av laereplanbaserte virkemidler -deres utforming, konsistens og betydning for laereres praksis. Kristiansand: Høgskolen i Agder.
    • Hopmann, Stefan (2007). Epilogue: no child, no school, no state left behind. Wien: LIT-Verlag, 363 400.
    • Hudson, Christina (2011). Evaluation the (not so) softly-softly approach to governance and its consequences for compulsory education in the Nordic countries. Education Inquiry, 2(4), 671 687.
    • Langfeldt, G. Ansvarsstyrning didaktikens slutpunkt? (2011). In Allm¨andidaktik l¨arare, S.-E. Hans´en & L. Forsman (eds.), 133 152. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
    • Lindensjo¨, Bo & Lundgren, Ulf P., ed. (1986). Politisk styrning och utbildningsreformer. Stockholm: Liber Utbildningsfo¨rlaget.
    • Lundgren, Ulf P. (1972). Frame factors and the teaching process: a contribution to curriculum theory and theory of teaching. PhD diss., Go¨teborg, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
    • Lundgren, Ulf P. (1977). Model analysis of pedagogical processes. Lund: CWK/Gleerup.
    • Lundgren, Ulf P. (1979). Att organisera omv¨arlden: en introduktion till l¨aroplansteori. Stockholm: Liber Fo¨rlag.
    • Lundgren, Ulf P., Wallen, Erik & Svingby, Gunilla (1984). Makten ¨over l¨aroplaner: en konferensrapport. Stockholm: Ho¨gskolan for la¨rarutbildning.
    • Ministry of Education and Culture. (2001). Regulation concerning national goals for education (No. 143572001). [Statsra˚det (2001) Statsra˚dets fo¨rordning om riksomfattande ma˚l fo¨r utbildningen enligt lagen om grundla¨ggande utbildning och om timfo¨rdelning i den grundla¨ggande utbildingen. 1435/2001.]. Helsingfors.
    • Ministry of Education and Research. (2006). The regulation of the educational act [Kunnskapsdepartementet (2006): FOR 2006-06-23 nr 724: Forskrift til opplaeringslova.]
    • Ministry of Education and Research. (2010a). The mathematics subject curriculum. [Kunnskapsdepartementet (2010a) Laereplan i fellesfaget matematikk.]
    • Ministry of Education and Research. (2010b). The Norwegian subject curriculum. [Kunnskapsdepartementet (2010b) Laereplan i norsk.]
    • Nordin, Andreas (2012). Kunskapens politik en studie av kunnskapsdiskurser i svensk og europeisk utvildningspolicy. PhD diss., Linneaus University.
    • Oftedal Telhaug, Alfred, Media˚s, Odd Asbjørn & Aasen, Petter (2006). The Nordic Model in education: education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50(3): 245 283.
    • Ozga, Jenny (2011). Governing narratives: ''local'' meanings and globalising education policy. Education Inquiry, 2(2), 305 318.
    • Parliament. Basic Education Act (628/1998) with amendments. [Undervisningsministeriet (1999) Lag om grundla¨ggande utbildning 21.8.1998/628.]
    • Parliament. The Educational Act (LOV 1998-07-17 nr 61). [Stortinget (1998) LOV 1998-07-17 nr 61: Lov om grunnskolen og den viderega˚ende opplaeringa (opplaeringslova)]
    • The Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. [Utbildningsstyrelsen. 2004. Grunderna fo¨r l¨aroplanen fo¨r den grundla¨ggande utbildningen 2004.]
    • The Finnish National Board of Education. (2011). Changes and supplements to the curriculum for basic education 2011. [Utbildningsstyrelsen. 2011. A¨ndringar och kompletteringar av grunderna fo¨r la¨roplanen fo¨r den grundla¨ggande utbildningen 2011.]
    • The Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training. (2006). The quality framework [Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2006. Prinsipper for opplaeringen.]
    • The Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training. (2010a). Distribution of teaching hours per subject. [Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2010a. Rundskriv UDir -08-2010 Kunnskapsløftet - om fag- og timefordeling for grunnopplaeringen og tilbudsstrukturen i viderega˚ende opplaering.]
    • The Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training. (2010b). Circular letter about assessment. [Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2010b. Udir-1-2010 Individuell vurdering i grunnskolen og viderega˚ende opplaering etter forskrift til opplaeringsloven kapittel 3. Utdanningsdirektoratet.]
    • The Royal Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs. (1993). The core curriculum. [Det kongelige kirke-, utdsannings- og forskningsdepartement. 1993. Generell del av laereplanverket]
    • Westbury, Ian (2008). Making curricula: why do states make curricula and how? In The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction, F. Michael Connelly, Ming Fang He & JoAnn Phillion (eds.), 45 65. USA: Sage Publications.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from