-
National curricula in Norway and Finland – The role of learning
outcomes
Authors:
Christina Elde Mølstad
Department of Education
Faculty of Educational Sciences
University of Oslo
[email protected]
Postboks 1092 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway
Phone: +4741145779
Berit Karseth
Department of Education
Faculty of Educational Sciences
University of Oslo
Journal: Nordic Studies in Education (special issue)
1
Abstract
In recent years, learning outcomes have entered the educational policy scene in Europe and become
a core focus in many curricula. While content orientated curricula have dominated in Northern
Europe, a shift towards output orientation can be observed also here. In this article we employ
approaches to curriculum from the Central European curriculum tradition (Gundem & Hopmann,
1998b), with Didaktik and Anglo-Saxon models (Westbury, 1998), to examine how learning outcomes
are incorporated into written national curricula for compulsory school in Norway and Finland. With
variations between the two countries learning outcomes is a major part of the Norwegian and
Finnish subject curricula. This reflects international and national policy agenda advocating a shift
towards learning outcomes.
Keywords: Norwegian curriculum, Finnish curriculum, learning outcomes, licensing.
Introduction
In recent years, the term learning outcomes has emerged as a core concept in European educational
policy. Learning outcomes can be described as what pupils or students can actually do with what
they know and have learned. This definition implies that outcomes are actions and
performances that contain and reflect the learner’s competence in using content, information,
ideas and tools successfully (Melton, 1996; Spady, 1994). The concept has been established for
some time through qualification frameworks in many countries, such as Scotland, South Africa and
New Zealand (Young, 2003). The Bologna process and the European Union’s establishment of the
European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning are driving forces for the use of learning
outcomes within Europe.
The way the curriculum has been defined traditionally, legitimated and developed in the Northern
European sphere is contested by this strong emphasis on learning outcomes. While the genre of the
2
curriculum has been highly content- and input-oriented (Karseth & Sivesind, 2010; Vitikka, Krokfors,
& Hurmerinta, 2012) in Northern Europe, the supporters of a new curriculum discourse call for a shift
towards an output orientation, where students’ learning is prioritised. Hence, this shift in focus, at
least rhetorically, represents a new way to define education, a curriculum that is legitimated in
accountability systems. Not only does the curriculum emphasise measurable descriptions of learning
outcomes and expected qualifications (Sivesind, 2013), but national standard based testing of
students’ performances has become a core strategy of a new quality management system in order to
monitor and improve students’ achievements (Fend, 2011).
In this paper, we examine how learning outcomes have been incorporated into the written national
curricula for compulsory school in Norway and Finland. We address this issue with the question: Do
the subject curricula reflect the international and national policy agenda advocating a shift towards
learning outcomes? In order to answer the question, we analyse the composition of the curricula in
terms of the content of selected subjects, as well as the relationships among purposes, objectives
and assessment criteria. Our contribution is to illustrate that common global trends that influence
many nations at the same time can be included in national curricula in different ways. This reveals
that there are variations among countries within Europe and even Northern Europe, which are often
treated as unities. Our contribution is to show that among European and specifically, Northern
European countries, there are important differences concerning integration of learning outcomes
into their respective national curricula, despite their same basis in Didaktik.1
Although Finland and Norway share some common traditions, there are significant differences that
we assume have impacts on their curricula. Both countries have long traditions in national curricula;
however, they have established the contents of their curricula differently (Mølstad & Hansén,
Forthcoming 2013). The two countries represent two cases that have several socioeconomic
1
We use the German spelling of Didaktik in order to emphasise the Central and Northern European
connotations of the concept (cf. Gundem and Hopmann (1998b)).
3
similarities, but show cultural and political differences reflected in education and educational policy
(Afdal, 2012). Both countries can be said to have had curricula based on Didaktik (Hopmann, 2007;
Vitikka et al., 2012). Finland’s success in the international testing of students’ school achievements
contributes to the interest in a comparative approach, in which curricula can be contrasted, and
similarities and differences explored. Norway is chosen, since the present curriculum reform in the
country has high focus on outcomes. Our comparison provides insight into how two fairly similar
countries that have traditionally based their curricula on Didaktik are adjusting to the focus on
learning outcomes.
In our inquiry, we start by presenting the curricula contexts for the two countries, using the main
features of the continental curriculum tradition and its core concept Didaktik, as well as the features
of an Anglo-Saxon tradition. Second, we describe our research approach and methodology, before
addressing the analysis of the curricula subjects in Norway and Finland. Finally, we compare and
discuss how the learning outcomes category is manifested and legitimated in the different curricula.
Curricula context in Norway and Finland
Through a long tradition of a comprehensive educational system with national curricula, the Nordic
countries have partly common histories and traditions. From the first decade in the 1900s, the
subject plans in the Nordic countries were in many respects similar to modern national curricula
(Klette & Carlgren, 2000). The curricula for basic education in these countries are determined by
national and regional agencies and defined by acts of national parliaments, constituting written texts
from the government directed at school activities (Gundem, 2008). Furthermore, regarding our two
cases, Norway and Finland share the basic values of a modern welfare society, and the cultural, social
and partly historical conditions are in some respects quite similar (Mølstad & Hansén, Forthcoming
2013).
Curriculum in Norway
4
The curriculum in Norway is nationally determined and established by the government and
parliament, within a long tradition of being a state-based curriculum (Westbury, 2008). The school
has had the role of realising the values of Norwegian society: equality, justice, ‘Norwegianness’ and
diligence. Consequently, it was important to be able to prescribe the content of teaching in certain
ways through school legislation and curriculum guidelines (Gundem, 1993b). Traditionally, the
teacher had determined the teaching methods. However, in the 1970s reform and more so in the
1980s, the choice of content also became an issue, where teachers or local-level educators were
given more freedom to express their opinions and make decisions. In the period from 1990 to
1995, the influence of educational experts was reduced in favour of a strong political centre. This
change was part of the establishment of the idea of a strong state combining central
management with social democratic confidence in the strong state (Telhaug, Medias, & Aasen,
2006).
The goal of the current reform in Norway, the Knowledge Promotion (2006) the object of this study,
was to transfer much of the system back to a more decentralised structure, with a significant share
of action and responsibility allocated to local school authorities and local schools (Engelsen, 2008). A
core purpose described in the main documents underpinning the reform, as well as in the curriculum
documents, was that competence aims should be placed within the context of school subjects and
fields of knowledge. The school subject was described as the premise for the objectives (Det
kongelige utdannings- og forskninsdepartement, 2004, p. 34). Furthermore, the basic skills should be
integrated into the aims and contribute to the development of competence in the subject, while also
being part of this competence. According to the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, the
new subject curricula should become simpler, clearer and more binding, and they should contain
“distinct learning targets for each subject describing the desired competence” (Det kongelige
utdannings- og forskninsdepartement, 2004, pp. 12). Hence, the political expectation was for the
reform to represent a shift from an orientation towards detailed content descriptions to emphasis on
5
students’ learning outcomes. In line with this focus on outcomes, national testing of basic skills
was introduced in 2004. Although the authorities do not publish league tables, the media publish
their ranking of schools on annual basis (Tveit, 2013).
Curriculum in Finland
The curriculum system in Finland has hovered between centralised and decentralised governing
structures since the comprehensive school system was established in the 1970s. The arguments
behind the centralised decisions emphasised the demands of equal basic educational opportunities
for each child, regardless of social position, settlement or economic status (Mølstad & Hansén,
Forthcoming 2013). In the curriculum of 1985, the contents and objectives were given as a short list
(Lampiselkä, Ahtee, Pehkonen, Meri, & Eloranta, 2007). From 1994, there was an expression of
decentralisation, and the centrally formulated parts contained only general guidelines or a
curriculum framework, which had to be concretised in schools and local communities (Mølstad &
Hansén, Forthcoming 2013). Moreover, teaching staff were given increased responsibilities for
developing and deciding the curriculum content on the basis of provided guidelines (Hansén, 1998).
The Finnish curriculum of 2004, ‘the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education’ (Finnish National
Board of Education, 2004), is the object of this study. Compared to the previous curriculum, this is
more detailed with clearly prescribed requirements. Besides the description of the objectives and the
core contents of the different subjects, the national core curriculum also devoted attention to the
principles of pupil assessment, special needs education, pupil welfare and educational guidance.
Furthermore, this curriculum framework explained the principles of an effective learning
environment, working approaches and the concept of learning. Under the curriculum, schools were
increasingly held accountable for the outcomes they were expected to produce (Mølstad & Hansén,
Forthcoming 2013). However, there is no national testing nor school ranking lists in the country
6
(Varjo, Simola, & Rinne, 2013) and the Finnish teachers are highly trusted (Vitikka et al., 2012). The
grading scale used is from 4 (weak) to 10 (excellent) (Kumpulainen & Lankinen, 2012).
Afdal (2012) identifies the differences in the curriculum-making process in Norway and Finland.
While the Finnish model is a broad, open and time-consuming academic process, the procedures in
Norway follow a tight, short and cyclical process, which is steered by political ideology (Afdal, 2012,
p. 86).
Perspectives on curriculum
How a curriculum is conceptualised and defined by researchers depends on which theories they draw
on, as well as the context of their analysis (Gundem & Hopmann, 1998b; Sivesind, 2008, 2013).
Hence, the distinctiveness of a national educational system and the geographical identity of
researchers is important in order to understand the meaning of a curriculum, what it includes and
excludes. However, recent research shows that curriculum reform worldwide seems to follow
common, general ideas on how education should prepare individuals to participate in a ‘world
society’ (Meyer, 2007).
Although moving in the same direction, there are institutional differences and distinctive national
cultures that uphold varying frames of reference in the field of curriculum. It is at least possible to
distinguish between two major curriculum traditions, the Anglo-Saxon one of curriculum studies and
the Central and Northern European tradition of Didaktik (Gundem & Hopmann, 1998a). The
differences in the two traditions lie in how teaching is conceptualised, national-local governing
structures, and teacher education.
A core reference in the Central and Northern European curriculum approach, the concept of Didaktik
is defined as the art or study of teaching (Gundem & Hopmann, 1998b; Hopmann & Riquarts, 2000).
Content
7
Teacher
Learner
Figure 1. Didaktik triangle.
An important aspect of Didaktik is the primacy of the content, illustrated by its position on top of the
well-known Didaktik triangle (Figure 1), with the teacher on the bottom left and the learner on its
right (see for example, Hopmann (2007); Künzli (1998); Künzli (2000)). Although simply stated,
Didaktik deals with the following three questions: 1. What is to be taught? This is the content of
teaching. 2. How is ‘content’ to be taught and learned? This is the method aspect of teaching. 3. Why
is the ‘content’ to be taught and learned? This is the goal aspect of teaching. However, it is the first
and third question that dominates within Didaktik (Künzli, 2000), which means that the curricula
have been oriented towards overall purposes and subject content, as opposed to its Anglo-Saxon
counterpart, which is oriented towards an objective-driven curriculum model. This latter model is
designed to develop specific capabilities directly connected to the needs of (Hopmann, 2003b; Ross,
2000; Westbury, 1998).
While content is the priority in the Didaktik tradition, objectives and expected learning outcomes are
the cornerstones in an objective-driven curriculum model (Ross, 2000). Outcomes can be defined as
learning results that students are to demonstrate at the end of significant learning experiences;
statements of desired outcomes of learning are expressed in terms that make it clear how
measurement can be achieved. By putting outcome descriptions or behavioural objectives to the
fore, content is primarily seen as a means to achieve the outcomes (Andrich, 2002). This approach is
based on the assumption of a direct and often linear relationship between objectives, on one hand,
and learning activities and performance, on the other. This model is in deep contrast to the
fundamental understanding of Didaktik and the educative difference between matter and meaning
and the autonomy of teaching and learning (Hopmann, 2007, p. 109). Within this approach, the
8
distinction between content as such and its ‘educative substance’ is essential. As Hopmann (2007), p.
116 suggests, “Any given matter (Inhalt) can represent many different meanings (Gehalt), any given
meaning (Gehalt) can be opened up by many different matters (Inhalt). However, there is no matter
without meaning, and no meaning without matter” (p. 116). Thus, to orchestrate teaching in line
with Didaktik implies a considerable amount of autonomy.
Curriculum, Didaktik and the role of education in the Nordic countries are tightly connected to the
concept of licensing. Licensing is based on an explicit differentiation between the responsibilities of
content and methods; in this view, a teacher has the methodological abilities to handle whatever
content is required. Then the outcome of the instruction is not measured (Hopmann, 1991). As
Gundem (1993b) elaborates, licensing represents an administrative mechanism where the
responsibility for planning and control is separated from the responsibility for practice. When there is
a system of licensing that provides professional autonomy of teachers, tracking the impact of new
curricula does not make much sense. Then the curricula are realised in a diversity of local activities
and outcomes. Within this licensing system, the common core of professionalism, Didaktik, can be
connected to the ability to relate the institutional frame (the curriculum) with local activities and
outcomes by means of pedagogical arguments (Hopmann, 2003a). There is weak control and
evaluation of the processes and almost no external control of the outcomes of education. This model
stands in contrast to the product-centred system of external controls, as practised, for example, in
the USA (Hopmann, 2003a).
We have so far limited our presentation to two traditions. This approach may seem too simple to
capture the complexity of the field of curriculum, and education specialists have offered different
overviews (Pinar, Reynolds, P., & Taubman, 2006); Ross (2000); (Young, 2008). Sundberg and
Wahlström (2012) analysis of the curriculum development in Swedish compulsory education from
1962 to 2011 illustrate how different models come into play. Sundberg and Wahlström (2012), pp.
353 state that “a denationalised and instrumental conception of education is characterised, at a
9
general societal level, by a shift in the direction of internationalisation and privatisation, and, in the
more concrete arena of governance and curriculum, by a shift towards management by
requirements and control”. They further mention that a combination of two basically contradictory
concepts of knowledge is used, the technical-instrumental form of curriculum and a neo-conservative
view of curriculum content. Likewise, Engelsen and Karseth (2007) describe how different types of
models are visible in various parts of the current curriculum in Norway, illustrating that several
models can be applied at the same time. Despite these more contested approaches, there are some
fundamental differences (described through the distinction between the Didaktik and the AngloSaxon tradition) that we deem a highly relevant tool in our analyses of recent curriculum reforms in
the Nordic countries. One of the most important aspects is how the two approaches provide various
degrees of attention on content and objectives. Therefore, these two concepts are essential in our
analyses of the subject curricula.
Research approach
We have chosen to analyse three different current subject curricula within the Norwegian and
Finnish compulsory school which all include learning outcomes. The Finnish curriculum is published
in both Swedish and Finnish. We have read the Swedish version, since we do not master the Finnish
language. The chosen subjects are mother tongue, mathematics and music. For the mother tongue
subjects, we have selected Norwegian in the Norwegian curriculum and Finnish in the Finnish
curriculum. The subject selection represents three highly different fields, thus providing us various
examples and a legitimate analysis of how learning outcomes are incorporated into subjects in
Norway and Finland.
Our analysis is based on our theoretical perspectives addressed above, thus we are interested in
examining how the curricula reflect the two curriculum traditions. We evaluate how elements such
as content, purposes, objectives, learning outcomes and assessment are presented in the curricula.
10
Specifically, we investigate how the two countries’ subject curricula focus attention on content and
objectives, and what sorts of objectives are used.
We started by counting the pages or numbers of listed points for each of the elements presented in
the curricula. Some of the information in the curricula is not presented as text following each other
in full sentences, but rather as fragments or sentences enumerated in a list of points. These points
have been counted to establish a perception of how many content descriptions, objectives or
learning outcomes are included in the curricula, in addition to the full-text pages. This provided us
with quantitative information on the presence of the different categories.
Second, we investigated whether the language used in the curricula could be categorised as activity
oriented (teaching), content oriented (subject), development/process oriented (learner) or focused
on the product of learning (outcome). This step informed us about the composition of the curricula
and thus, how learning outcomes as a category is manifested in the different curricula (see Appendix
1 for a summary of these analysis).
The comparative research approach raises some methodological challenges. At least three aspects
have to be taken into consideration when working comparatively and enhancing the level of
equivalence between the compared phenomena: linguistic equivalence, organisational equivalence
and contextual equivalence (Backström-Widjeskog & Hansén, 2002). Linguistic equivalence concerns
the question of how to understand each other when different languages are involved. The challenge
is to identify key notions and concepts that correspond and refer to the same phenomena. Striving
for linguistic equivalence contains both the translation and an adequate utilisation of notions and
concepts. As already stated, we have used the Swedish version of the Finnish core curriculum. The
Norwegian curriculum has been read in Norwegian. The use of documents in two languages and
writing in a third pose a challenge. We have dealt with this issue by thoroughly discussing
translations and consulting competent colleagues both in Norway and in Finland.
11
Organisational equivalence relates to the challenge of understanding how the organisation of the
curricula establishes a frame that exposes prerequisites for comparison. The two countries share
some common traditions and habits, and in many respects, have gone through similar kinds of
reorganisations of their educational systems. Compulsory education is structured similarly; teacher
education is provided by higher educational institutions, and the teachers’ responsibility for
educating young people is highlighted (Mølstad & Hansén, Forthcoming 2013). By investigation of
the organisational structures of the educational systems in the two countries it is possible to
establish a reasonable comparison in relation to organisational equivalence.
Contextual equivalence involves positioning the study in a context that is made understandable and
comparable. To establish contextual equivalence, it is important to gain a thorough understanding of
the curricula context in the two countries, as we have provided in the previous section.
Profile and composition of the subject curricula in Norway
The curricula of the three school subjects start with a few paragraphs of the purpose of the subject,
followed by descriptions of main subject areas and teaching hours. Next, the basic skills are briefly
presented. Thereafter, the competence aims of the subject are described after years 2, 4, 7 and 10
and after each level in upper secondary education. The last topic in each curriculum deals with the
provisions for final assessment.
The purposes point to how the subjects contribute to the well-being of society and individuals. These
paragraphs are important with regard to how school subjects are legitimated within basic education.
The subject content as a distinct element in the curriculum is concisely described in a few sentences
and encompasses all levels. Hence, with reference to the Didaktik tradition described above, content
as such is not a central element in the written texts. Rather, the focus is on objectives and basic skills.
12
What has become more visible in the new curricula, compared to the former ones, is the emphasis
on basic skills. In all the three subject curricula, five basic skills that should be adapted to each
subject and integrated into competence objectives are described. These skills are the ability to
express oneself orally, the ability to read, numeracy, the ability to express oneself in writing, and the
ability to use digital tools. The text on basic skills in the Norwegian subject curriculum is the most
extensive of the three, which indicates the central position of reading and writing, as well as the
other skills in the subject. In the process of revising the subject curricula, the curriculum groups
appointed by the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training were asked to use a generic
framework for basic skills (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2012), as a reference document in their work. The
framework (approved by the Ministry of Education and Research) describes a grid for each basic skill
that defines progression through levels. It is expected that the framework be used for further
development of the curricula and the assessment system. The emphasis on basic skills in the
curricula aligns with the intentions of the reform and reflects the discourse on the need to increase
the level of basic competences.
The main component of the subject curricula in Norway is the presentation of competence aims.2
The different aims are introduced by the clause, “The aims for the education are that the pupil
shall be able to...” Hence, there is an expectation of certain learning outcomes or the students’
acquisition of a particular competence. The way competence aims are formulated varies across
subjects. Some are defined precisely and are related to basic skills, e.g., “The students should be
able to count to 100” by the end of grade 2 (mathematics). Other aims are more general, and it is
therefore more difficult to measure their learning outcomes. For instance, students at the end of
grade 2 should be able to talk about how words and pictures interact in picture books for one’s own
reading in the library (Norwegian). Although it is evident that at lower levels (grades 2 and 4), we find
2
Aim is the concept used in the English translation of the term mål in the subject curricula. Interestingly, in the
former curriculum, the English term objective is used as the translation of mål.
13
competence aims that represent a combination of activities and products of learning, the overall
picture is that the language used points to expected outcomes.
Let us give two examples to illustrate. The Norwegian subject curriculum for grade 10 consists of 29
aims divided among three areas. The competence is described with verbs such as explain, assess,
give examples, recall and present. Furthermore, some of them also point to certain activities.
Likewise, the mathematics subject curriculum for grade 10 consists of 24 aims divided among five
areas (mostly about numbers and 8 aims for algebra). Similar to the Norwegian, the mathematics
curriculum describes the competence aims with verbs such as be able to compare, use, analyse,
make estimates and demonstrate. The aims also refer to specific concepts, relations and activities.
Taken together (see also Appendix 1), the composition of the subject curricula in Norway
underpins an outcome-oriented model. Competence is at the core and represents the main
element in the curricula. The language of the aims description underlines an aspiration of
determining students’ actions and performances. However, competence at the core does not
mean that there is no reference to the subject content, but the outcomes have been prioritised and
define the position of the other elements. Furthermore, as pointed out, the way competence aims
are presented differs among levels. Some interesting differences also exist among the three subjects
that reflect certain features of their respective fields of knowledge. We will return to these aspects in
the discussion. As mentioned previously, the subject curricula also describe provisions for the final
assessment. However, the subject curricula have been introduced without accompanying assessment
criteria and standards (cf. Tveit (2013). Hence, although the curriculum reform represents a shift
towards an outcome orientation, the subject curricula do not include any mandatory criteria for
assessing the levels of competence in the different subjects. While the competence aims are
described as something the students should be able to do, they only to a very limited degree point to
the quality of the level of achievement. Hence, the development of criteria is handed over to the
local authorities and schools.
14
Profile and composition of the subject curricula in Finland
In this section, we present our analysis of the subjects in the Finnish curriculum, “The Finnish
national core curriculum for basic education” (Finnish National Board of Education, 2004). We have
used the version in Swedish with 320 pages and 9 chapters (identical to the Finnish version). Chapter
7 covers the curricula for the subjects. We analyse the subjects of mother tongue and literature
(Finnish as the mother tongue, 11 pages), mathematics (9 pages) and music (3 pages). In all the
subject curricula, the purpose is first presented, then the objectives and core content for levels 1–2,
3–5 and 6–9. Levels 2 and 5 also include descriptions of good performance, and level 8 has final
assessment criteria for a grade (mark) of 8.
The purpose of the chosen subjects in the national core curriculum is defined for all the levels of each
subject. It can be said that the purpose is broadly defined with a focus on the development of pupils
and gaining knowledge on a specific subject. Additionally, the stated purpose of the subject is
connected to socialisation and enabling the pupils to be a part of society. The socialisation part is
more emphasised for the subjects of Finnish as mother tongue and mathematics than for music.
Moreover, the core content of the three subjects is defined for levels of compulsory school. Although
the descriptions concentrate on content, they also specify activities with words such as practice and
listening. One example of prescribed content from the music subject is as follows: “exercises that
develop voice control and vocal expression; single- and multiple-voiced repertoire representing
different styles and genres, with part of the repertoire learned by heart” (Finnish National Board of
Education, 2004, pp. 232). Here, content in music is both focused on subject content and activities.
This stands in contrast to an example from mathematics: prime numbers, whole numbers, rational
numbers, real numbers (Finnish National Board of Education, 2004, pp. 164). In this case, no
activities are included, just identification of content. With some minor variations, it is possible to
15
report that in all the three subjects, the core content is prescribed, with some descriptions of
activities.
The objectives of the subjects are divided into levels of compulsory school and focus on the pupils’
learning process with the use of terms such as learn to, develop and improve. Teaching activities, as
well as long-term goals, are highlighted. The broad objectives concentrate on the pupils, but more on
their learning process than the learning outcomes. This approach is evident in the types of words
used in the objectives, for example, practise, develop, strive, get used to and gain experience. The
emphasis is not on the product, but on the process and activities. Another example is that for levels
6–9 of mathematics, all the objectives start with learn to; most of them deal with general
mathematical abilities and some with internal processes such as learn to trust oneself and take
responsibility. All the 9 objectives are formulated broadly and focus on process.
The subjects include descriptions of good performance, divided into the various levels of compulsory
school, and final assessment criteria, which are only provided for the highest levels. These
descriptions are focused on pupils’ learning outcomes, evident in the Finnish as mother tongue
subject with the use of terms such as are able to, recognise, can, can produce and know. Another
example of a criterion is from mathematics: “The pupils will know how to solve a first-degree
equation.” Since it specifies what the pupils will have learnt, it is possible to assess if they have met
this criterion. Thus the criteria are formulated as learning outcomes.
The subject curricula in Finland clearly show that learning outcomes are central in the description of
good performance and final assessment criteria for grade 8. Here the focus is mostly on expected
results at specific levels. However, there are some variations between levels and subjects. For the
Finnish as mother tongue subject, it can be stated that the higher the level, the greater the focus on
learning outcomes, which also holds true for the other two subjects. Taken together, our analysis
shows that the subject curricula consist of distinctive elements or categories as non-measurable
16
learning objectives, content descriptions and expected learning outcomes (see Appendix 1 for the
summary of analysis). This finding indicates emphasis on more than one Didaktik element in the
curricula.
Discussion and conclusion
Our analysis (see also Appendix 1) shows that the Norwegian curricula for the different school
subjects present competence aims as the core category. These aims are described as what the
students should be able to do, in other words, as learning outcomes. In the Finnish curricula, content
and criteria for both good performance and final assessment seem to be given almost equal
attention as learning objectives. Furthermore, while the competence aims of the Norwegian curricula
are formulated as predictable performances that could be measured after a certain time, the
learning objectives in the Finnish curricula are more long-term oriented towards understanding and
familiarisation with social values and norms. Hence, the Norwegian curriculum texts seem more
limited in their orientation towards learning objectives; in contrast, the Finnish texts seem more
process oriented and less directed towards certain anticipated outcomes. Moreover, because
separate content descriptions for the different levels provides as broader scope in the subject
curricula in Finland, it may also be argued that content selection is not only linked to the
achievement of certain objectives or learning outcomes, but opens up to a more intrinsic justification
of content. On the other hand, a one-sided focus on expected learning outcomes risks narrowing
the range of deliberation on what the school subject curricula should constitute.
This implication may seem paradoxical, since a prominent argument behind the knowledge
promotion reform in Norway was to increase the profession’s autonomy in the curriculum
decision-making process. It may also be argued that the Norwegian curriculum development is
dependent on decisions made at the local level. As already mentioned, the Norwegian
curriculum does not include any statements regarding the level of achievement or good
17
performance/final assessment criteria, as opposed to what is found in the Finnish curriculum.
This restriction could mean that the Norwegian national curriculum texts work as a governing
mechanism only to a limited extent. Although we recognise that what is prescribed in written
documents does not necessarily represent what is undertaken, studies of prescriptions are important
in order to capture the cultural and social context of education at the level above educational
practice. Research on policy discourse has revealed that “Policy words are not mere rhetoric; they are
policy, or, at least, ‘policies are textual interventions into practice’” (Ball, 1993, p. 12 in Saarinen
(2008), pp. 720). Hence, the curriculum as a text sets important parameters for professional as
well as public discourse. We may therefore argue that the school subject curricula as textual
interventions ignore the importance of discussing the content in its own right. This reasoning,
we maintain, illustrates the move in the Norwegian curriculum discourse away from what we
have described as the Didaktik tradition. The subject curricula thus represent a new framework
where learning outcomes replace the role of content as the main category. Content is given a
subordinated position. By a more multiple orientation, the Finnish curriculum seems to uphold a
stronger link to the Didaktik tradition by including the importance of long-term objectives with
a more defined content. On the other hand, by focusing on criteria and description of good
performance, the Finnish curriculum signals an expectation that certain learning outcomes be
achieved at the different educational levels.
One of the major functions of national curricula is to govern education. Our analysis shows that the
Norwegian subject curricula mostly provide directions through learning outcomes, because subject
curricula content and teaching objectives are not specified and are thus entrusted to the schools and
teachers. This approach provides licence to the teaching profession. In contrast, learning outcomes in
the Finnish subject curricula are not the sole governing category. Therefore, the Finnish subject
curricula exercise a broader administration by providing learning objectives focused on teaching,
content and learning outcomes connected to assessment. Therefore, the teachers are offered more
18
instructions for teaching. In Finland, it is mandatory to produce a local curriculum based on the
national core curriculum (Mølstad & Hansén, Forthcoming 2013). This requirement also implies trust
in the teaching profession, which relates to the concept of licensing as described earlier (Gundem,
1993a; Hopmann, 1991). Thus, by placing trust in the teachers, both countries’ national curricula in a
way support licensing of their educators. However, it is important to remember that curriculum is
not the only document that governs education; for example, materials for helping and guiding
practitioners are provided by the government. If a narrow governing model, such as the one used in
Norway, is complemented with lots of directives from the government, it might not allow as much
trust for the teaching profession. In Norway, the curriculum is often supplemented with circular
letters providing guidance for its interpretation (Mølstad & Hansén, Forthcoming 2013).
From the preceding discussion, it can be concluded that it is possible to find learning outcomes as a
major part of the Norwegian and Finnish subject curricula for compulsory school. This result reflects
international and national policy agenda advocating a shift towards learning outcomes. Based on this
finding, it is possible to say that the curricula in Norway and Finland, despite their differences, have
taken steps away from the Didaktik-based system. Norway has advanced further than Finland with its
highly outcome-based curriculum, very much in line with the objective-driven model. Its possible
implications are learning outcomes can challenge the trust in teachers, and we have a new way of
defining the national curriculum in Norway and possibly in Finland.
19
Appendix 1. Summary of main analysis
Purpose
Content
Basic skills
Norway
Finland
The purpose is written in the
introduction to the subjects and defined
for the whole subject:
The purpose is written in the
introduction to the subjects and defined
for the whole subject:

Norwegian subject curriculum:
less than 1 page.

Finnish as mother tongue: ½
page.

Mathematics: ½ page.

Mathematics: less than ½ page.

Music: less than 1 page.

Music: less than ½ page.
Main subject areas are described with a
few sentences, which capture the
content for all subject levels:

Norwegian subject curriculum:
1 page.

Mathematics: 1 page.

Music: 1 page.

Finnish as mother tongue:
almost 4 pages in total.

Mathematics: altogether 3 ½
pages.

Music: ½ page in total.
Basic skills are described in the
introduction to the subjects:

Norwegian subject curriculum:
1 page.

Mathematics: 1 page.

Music: ½ page.
Objectives focus on the pupil’s learning
process provided for specific school
levels:
Learning objectives
as long-term aims
Learning objectives
as competence aims
Core content prescribed for subjects is
provided for specific school levels:
Competence aims as learning outcomes
are thoroughly described for all three
subjects and provided for specific school
levels:

Norwegian subject curriculum:
3 pages.
20

Finnish as mother tongue:
almost 3 pages in total.

Mathematics: 1 page in total.

Music: ½ page in total.

Mathematics: 4 pages.

Music: 2-3 pages.
Learning outcomes as assessment
criteria are provided for specific school
levels:
Description of good
performance and
final assessment
criteria

Finnish as mother tongue: 4
pages in total.

Mathematics: altogether 3 ½
pages.

Music: ½ page in total.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Curriculum Studies, Educational Leadership and Governance (CLEG) research group at
the University of Oslo, as well as Professor Helen Gunter and Professor Sven-Erik Hansén for their
thorough comments and feedback.
References (incomplete)
Afdal, Hilde Wågsås. (2012). Constructing knowledge for teaching profession : a comparative analysis
of policy making, curricula content, and novice teachers` knowledge relations in the cases of
Finland and Norway. (PhD), Unipub forlag, Oslo.
Andrich, David. (2002). A Framework Relating Outcomes Based Education and the Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28, 35-59.
Backström-Widjeskog, Bettina, & Hansén, Sven-Erik. (2002). Problme Concering Comkparative
Research of Curriculum Developmen. In M. Rosenmund, A.-V. Fries & W. Heller (Eds.),
Comparing curriculum-making processes (pp. 55-71). Bern: P. Lang.
Det kongelige utdannings- og forskninsdepartement. (2004). St.meld. 30 (2003-2004) Kultur for
læring.
Engelsen, Britt Ulstrup. (2008). Kunnskapsløftet sentrale styringssignaler og lokale
strategidokumenter (pp. h): Universitet i Oslo, Pedagogisk forskningsinsitutt.
Engelsen, Britt Ulstrup, & Karseth, Berit. (2007). Læreplan for Kunnskapsløftet - et endret
kunnskapssyn? Norsk Pedagogisk Tidskrift, 91(5), 404-414.
Fend, H. (2011). New governance of education. Potentials of reform and risks of failure. In D. Tröhler
& R. Bardu (Eds.), Educational Systems in Historical, Cultural, and Sociological Perspectives
(pp. 39-53). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education,.
Gundem, Bjørg Brandtzæg. (1993a). Mot en ny skolevirkelighet?: læreplanen i et sentraliserings- og
desentraliseringsperspektiv. Oslo: Pensumtjeneste.
21
Gundem, Bjørg Brandtzæg. (1993b). Rise, development and changing conceptions of curriculum
administration and curriculum guidelines in Norway: the national‐‐local dilemma. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 25(3), 251-266.
Gundem, Bjørg Brandtzæg. (2008). Perspektiv på læreplanen. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Gundem, Bjørg Brandtzæg, & Hopmann, Stefan. (1998a). Introduction. Didaktick Meets Curriculum.
In B. B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum: an international dialogue
(pp. 1-8). New York: P. Lang.
Gundem, Bjørg Brandtzæg, & Hopmann, Stefan (Eds.). (1998b). Didaktik and/or curriculum: an
international dialogue. New York: P. Lang.
Hansén, Sven-Erik. (1998). Preparing student teachers for curriculum-making. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 30(2), 165-179.
Hopmann, Stefan. (1991). Retracing curriculum theory: the multiple realities of curriculum making. In
B. B. Gundem, B. U. Engelsen & B. Karseth (Eds.), Curriculum work and curriculum content:
theory and practice : contemporary and historical perspectives : conference papers :
University of Oslo, Institute forEducational Research, 10-12 October 1990 (Vol. 5/91, pp. 4998). Oslo: Instituttet.
Hopmann, Stefan. (2003a). On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
35(4), 459-478.
Hopmann, Stefan. (2003b). On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. In P. Haug & T. A. Schwandt
(Eds.), Evaluating Educational reforms (pp. 111-132). Greenwich: IAP.
Hopmann, Stefan. (2007). Restrained Teaching: the common core of Didaktik. European Educational
Research journal, 6(2), 109-124.
Hopmann, Stefan, & Riquarts, Kurt. (2000). Introduction. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts
(Eds.), Teaching as a Reflective Practice. The German Didaktik Tradition (pp. 3-11). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Karseth, Berit, & Sivesind, Kirsten. (2010). Conceptualizing Curriculum Knowledge Within and Beyond
the National Context. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 103-120.
Klette, Kirsti, & Carlgren, Ingrid. (2000). Restructuring in education and reconstruciton of the teacher.
In K. Klette, I. Carlgren, J. Rasmussen, H. Simola & M. Sundkvist (Eds.), Restructuring Nordic
Teachers: An analysis of Policy Texts from Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway (pp. 7-22).
Oslo: University of Oslo. Insitute for Educational Research.
Kumpulainen, Kristiina, & Lankinen, Timmo. (2012). Striving for educational equity and exellende:
Evaluation and Assessemnt in Finnish Basic Education. In H. Niemi, A. Toom & A. Kallioniemi
(Eds.), Miracle of education: the principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish
Schools. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Künzli, Rudolf. (1998). The Common Frame and the Places of Didaktik. In B. B. Gundem (Ed.), Didaktik
and/or curriculum: an international dialogue (pp. 29-45). New York: P. Lang.
Künzli, Rudolf. (2000). German Didaktik: Models of Re-presentation, of Intercourse, and Experience.
In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: the German
didaktik tradition (pp. 41-57). Mahwah, New Jeresy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lampiselkä, Jarkko, Ahtee, Maija, Pehkonen, Erkki, Meri, Matti, & Eloranta, Varpu. (2007).
Mathematics and science in Finnish comprehensive school. In E. Pehkonen, M. Ahtee & J.
Lavonen (Eds.), How Finns learn mathematics and science (pp. 35-47). Rotterdam, The
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Melton, Reginal. (1996). Learning Outcomes for Higher Education. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 44(4), 409-425.
Meyer, J. (2007). World Models, National Curricula, and the Centrality of the Individual. In A. Benavot
& C. Braslavsky (Eds.), School knowledge in comparative and historical perspective: changing
curricula in primary and secondary education (pp. 259-271). Dordrecht: Springer.
Mølstad, Christina Elde, & Hansén, Sven-Erik. (Forthcoming 2013). Curriculum as a governing
instrument - A comparative study of Finland and Norway. Education Inquiry, 4(4).
22
Pinar, William F., Reynolds, W, P., Slattery, & Taubman, P. M. (Eds.). (2006). Understanding
Curriculum. An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum
Discourses. New York: Peter Lang.
Ross, Alistair. (2000). Curriculum: construction and critique. London: Falmer Press.
Sivesind, Kirsten. (2008). Reformulating reform: curriculum history revisited. (Dr.philos.), Unipub forl.,
Oslo.
Sivesind, Kirsten. (2013). Mixed images and merging semantics in European curricula. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 45(1), 52-66.
Spady, Wiliam G. (1994). Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. Arlington, USA:
American Association of School Administrators.
Sundberg, Daniel, & Wahlström, Ninni. (2012). Standards-based Curricula in a Denationalised
Conception of Education: the case of Sweden. European Educational Research journal, 11(3),
342-356.
Saarinen, T (2008). Position of text and discourse analysis in higher education policy research. Studies
in Higher Education, 33(6), 719-728.
Telhaug, Alfred Oftedal, Medias, 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.
Tveit, Sverre. (2013). Educational Assessment in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy
& Practice.
Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2012). Rammeverk for gunnelggende ferdigheter.
Varjo, Janne, Simola, Hannu, & Rinne, Risto. (2013). Finland's PISA Results: an analysis of dynamics in
education politics. In A. Benavot & H.-D. Meyer (Eds.), PISA, power, and policy: the
emergence of global educational governance (pp. 51-76). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Vitikka, Erja, Krokfors, Leena, & Hurmerinta, Elisa. (2012). The Finnish National Core Curriculum:
Structure and Development. In H. Niemi, A. Toom & A. Kollinniemi (Eds.), Miracle of
Education. The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools (pp. 8396). Rotterdam, Netherlands: SensePublishers.
Westbury, Ian. (1998). Didaktik and curriculum Studies. In B. B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.),
Didaktik and/or Curriculum: An International Dialogue (pp. 47-77): Peter Lang.
Westbury, Ian. (2008). Making Curricula: Why Do States Make Curricula and How? In F. M. Connelly,
M. F. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction (pp. 45-65).
USA: Sage Publications.
Young, Michael. (2003). National Qualifications Frameworks as a Global Phenomenon: A comparative
perspective. Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 223-237.
Young, Michael. (2008). Bringing Knowledge Back In. London: Routledge.
23