Trial lecture - time and place
Adjudication committee
- 1st opponent: Professor Daniel Sundberg, Department of Education and Teachers' Practice, Linnaeus University, Sweden
- 2nd opponent: Associate Professor Aslaug Fodstad Gourvennec, Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Stavanger, Norway
- Chair of Committee: Professor Anne Line Wittek, Department of Education, University of Oslo, Norway
Chair of defence
Professor Tone Kvernbekk, Department of Education, University of Oslo, Norway
Supervisors
- Professor Berit Karseth, Department of Education, University of Oslo, Norway
- Associate Professor Kari Anne Rødnes, Department of Teacher Education and School research, University of Oslo, Norway
Summary
This article-based thesis investigates how knowledge is framed and understood in the Norwegian Language and Literature (L1) curriculum document introduced in 2020. Knowledge in the curriculum is explored through an analysis of policy documents and among teachers of Norwegian Language and Literature in upper secondary schools. The purpose is to explore how the aim of strengthening the knowledge dimension of school subjects is implemented in the curriculum and how teachers perceive specialised content knowledge in the curriculum.
The study is qualitative, and the methods used are content analysis of documents and interviews with teachers of the Norwegian subject in upper secondary schools. Twenty-eight teachers from both general and vocational programmes were interviewed. The first article is based on document analysis, while the other two articles are based on an analysis of teacher interviews. To illuminate the content knowledge of the curriculum, the study`s theoretical framework combines social realism theory with didactic theory. In this thesis, the idea of powerful knowledge is a key theoretical lens.
The findings indicate that, although there were intentions in the policy documents to strengthen the content knowledge in school subjects, the analysis of the Norwegian Language and Literature curriculum document indicates that this has been realised only to a limited extent. The findings illustrate that the design and structure of the new curriculum are complex, comprising many parts, such as Relevance and central values, Core elements, Interdisciplinary topics and Basic skills, which are not tailored to specific educational levels. Furthermore, the content knowledge in these parts lacks explicitness.
Based on the document analysis of the curriculum and the interviews with teachers, the competence aims are the dominant category of the curriculum. Teachers explained that this was a familiar curriculum category, and in the curriculum text, the competence aims are sorted and adopted at each grade level. Teachers in vocational programmes stated that it is only the competence aims that offer them guidance on the subject’s vocational orientation.
In the other curriculum categories, they found little guidance for vocational orientation.
The analysis of the competence aims shows that they prescribe more clearly what skills the students should develop than what specialised knowledge the students should encounter. When the competence aims are open in terms of content knowledge, teachers look for content in other parts of the curriculum. Different content orientations are presented in these parts. As a result, teachers have different perspectives on what constitutes central and specialised content knowledge.
This thesis demonstrates that framing explicit and specialised content knowledge in a curriculum that is both competency-based and has a common curriculum document that spans from primary to upper secondary school is a challenging task. As a result of a common curriculum document, much of the content knowledge becomes generic and less specific. Competency-based and content-based curricula hold different perspectives of knowledge. A competency-based curriculum prioritises students’ ability to demonstrate and apply knowledge, while a content-based curriculum focuses on the specific content knowledge that students should attain during their education.
Overall, the thesis is an empirical exploration of how knowledge is framed and positioned in the Norwegian curriculum and how a sample of teachers perceives the content and design of a subject’s curriculum. The thesis questions whether the curriculum model in Norway provides a clear enough direction for teachers’ choice of content knowledge and whether upper secondary students encounter content knowledge that prepares them adequately for what lies ahead