Abstracts
Abstract
This article examines the Norwegian curriculum through neoconservative and neoliberal perspectives, arguing that it represents a confusing hybrid of the two. It proposes two ways to address such hybrids: first, by rethinking the role of knowledge for teaching, and second, by revisiting key Bildung concepts. These concepts shed light on fundamental pedagogical challenges concerning (a) the relationship between formal and material learning and (b) the formation of value categories, such as autonomy and responsibility. The article concludes by emphasizing a crucial distinction in teacher education when guiding future teachers: the difference between indirectly and directly relevant knowledge and skills. Without a clear understanding of relevance, teacher education risks failing in its core mission.
Keywords:
- curriculum theory,
- Wolfgang Klafki,
- Bildung,
- religious education (RE),
- action theory,
- relevance theory,
- phronesis,
- critical thinking
Résumé
Cet article examine le curriculum norvégien à travers des perspectives néoconservatrices et néolibérales, en soutenant qu’il représente un hybride déconcertant des deux. Il propose deux façons d’aborder de tels hybrides: en repensant le rôle du savoir dans l’enseignement et en revisitant des concepts clés de la Bildung. Ces concepts éclairent des défis pédagogiques fondamentaux concernant (a) la relation entre l’apprentissage formel et matériel et (b) la formation de catégories de valeurs, telles que l’autonomie. L’article souligne une distinction cruciale dans la formation des enseignants lorsqu’il s’agit de guider les futurs enseignants : la différence entre les connaissances et compétences indirectement et directement pertinentes. Sans une compréhension claire de la pertinence, la formation des enseignants risque d’échouer dans sa mission fondamentale.
Mots-clés :
- théorie du curriculum,
- Wolfgang Klafki,
- l’auto-culture (Bildung),
- éducation religieuse (ER),
- théorie de l’action,
- théorie de la pertinence,
- phronesis,
- pensée critique
Appendices
Bibliography
- Anders, P., Brinkmann, M., Dietrich, C., & Breidbach, S. (2023). Berliner Erklärung und Offener Brief gegen eine Verengung des Bildungsdiskurses [Berlin statement and open letter against a minimalization of the educational discourses]. https://offenerbriefbildungsforschung.wordpress.com
- Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.
- Biesta, G. J. J. (2013). The beautiful risk of education. Paradigm.
- Burner, T., Alvestad, K. C., Gustavsen, T. S., Kacerja, S., Ruud, L. C., Salvesen, G. S., & Schipor, D. (2023). EvaFag 2025: Evaluering av Fagfornyelsen: Suksess, muligheter, spenninger og hindringer i implementering av LK20 i fire fag. Arbeidspakke 1, Delrapport 2 [EvaFag 2025: Evaluation of the renewal of school subjects project. Success, possibilities, tensions, and barriers for implementation of LK20 in four school subjects: Work package 1, sub-report 2]. Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge. https://openarchive.usn.no/usn-xmlui/handle/11250/3085398
- Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In C. A. McMurry (Ed.), The third yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education (pp. 9–30). Public School Publishing Company. https://archive.org/details/relationoftheory00dewe/page/n13
- Eikseth, A. G., & Nilsen, E. (2004). Lærerstudenten kan lykkes. I spenningsfeltet mellom støtte og utfordring [The student teacher may succeed: The field of tension between support and challenge]. In M. Brekke (Ed.), Norsk lærerutdanningsdidaktikk i endring. Læring, undervisning og danning i lys av ny forskning (pp. 92–127). Høyskoleforlaget.
- Europass. (n.d.). Description of the eight EQF levels. European Commission. https://europa.eu/europass/en/description-eight-eqf-levels
- Fuglseth, K. (2012). Ignoring the child and the call for a good balance: Aspects of a phenomenologically based theory of teacher actions. Phenomenology & Practice, 6(2), 84–93. https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/pandpr/index.php/pandpr/article/view/19863
- Fuglseth, K. (2015). Phenomenology as a proto-language in educational empirical research. Some principles and a case-study from video-analysis of e-teaching and e-learning. In M. Brinkmann, R. Kubac, & S. S. Rödel (Eds.), Pädagogische Erfahrung. Theoretische und empirische Perspektiven (pp. 289–304). Springer.
- Fuglseth, K. (2017a). Beyond and behind phronesis, tact, and discretion. Some basic elements of teachers’ judgments from a phenomenological point of view. In M. Brinkmann, M. F. Buck, & S. S. Rödel (Eds.), Pädagogik – Phänomenologie: Verhältnisbestimmungen und Herausforderungen (pp. 257–272). Springer.
- Fuglseth, K. (2017b). No location: The problem of indirect encounters with religion in secular schools. In M. Rothgangel, K. von Brömssen, H.-G. Heimbrock, & G. Skeie (Eds.), Location, space and place in religious education (pp. 151–160). Waxmann.
- Fuglseth, K. (2020). Between past and future in religious education: The categorical answer. In I. ter Avest, C. Bakker, J. Ipgrave, S. Leonhard, & P. Schreiner (Eds.), Facing the unknown future: Religion and education on the move (pp. 209–222). Waxmann.
- Fuglseth, K. (2023). Practical knowledge as an academic study of its own? A methodological approach. In C. Cederberg, K. Fuglseth, & E. van der Zande (Eds.), Exploring practical knowledge: Life-world studies of professionals in education and research (pp. 7–24). Brill.
- Government of Norway. (2014). Education Act. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/education-act/id213315/
- Government of Norway. (2019). Core curriculum — Values and principles for primary and secondary education. https://www.udir.no/lk20/overordnet-del/opplaringens-verdigrunnlag/?lang=eng
- Hilt, L., & Riese, H. (2022). Hybrid forms of education in Norway: A systems theoretical approach to understanding curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(2), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1956596
- Hilt, L., Riese, H., & Søreide, G. E. (2019). Narrow identity resources for future students: The 21st century skills movement encounters the Norwegian education policy context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(3), 384–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1502356
- Imsen, G., Blossing, U., & Moos, L. (2017). Reshaping the Nordic education model in an era of efficiency: Changes in the comprehensive school project in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden since the millennium. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(5), 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1172502
- Karseth, B., Kvamme, O. A., & Ottesen, E. (2020). Fagfornyelsens læreplanverk: Politiske intensjoner, arbeidsprosesser og innhold [Curriculum of the renewal of school subjects project: Political intentions, work processes, and content]. University of Oslo. https://www.udir.no/tall-og-forskning/finn-forskning/rapporter/evaluering-av-fagfornyelsen---politiske-intensjoner-arbeidsprosesser-og-innhold/
- Klafki, W. (1964). Göttinger Studien zur Pädagogik: Vol. 6. Das pädagogische Problem des Elementaren und die Theorie der kategorialen Bildung [Göttingen studies in education: Vol. 6. The pedagogical problem of the elementary and the theory of categorical Bildung]. Beltz.
- Klafki, W. (1975). Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik [Studies in Bildung and didactics]. Beltz.
- Klafki, W. (1976). Aspekte kritisch-konstruktiver Erziehungswissenschaft. Gesammelte Beiträge zur Theorie-Praxis-Diskussion [Aspects of critical–constructive educational studies: Collected contributions for the theory–practice discussion]. Beltz.
- Klafki, W. (1993). Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Zeitgemäße Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik [New studies on Bildung theory and didactics: Contemporary general education and critical–constructive didactics]. Beltz.
- Klafki, W. (1995). Didactic analysis as the core of preparation of instruction (Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung). Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027950270103
- Klafki, W. (2002). Schultehorie, Schulforschung und Schulentwicklung im politisch-gesellschaftlichen Kontext. Ausgewählte Studien [School hierarchy, school research, and school development in a political and social context: Selected studies]. Beltz.
- Knoblauch, H. (2020). The communicative construction of reality. Routledge.
- Ludvigsen, S. (2014). Elevenes læring i fremtidens skole: Et kunnskapsgrunnlag [Student learning in the school of the future: A knowledge base]. Government of Norway. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/NOU-2014-7/id766593/
- Ludvigsen, S. (2015). Fremtidens skole: Fornyelse av fag og kompetanser [A school for the future: Renewal of subjects and competences]. Government of Norway. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/nou-2015-8/id2417001/
- Ministry of Education and Research. (1996). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen [The national curriculum for the 10-year elementary school]. Government of Norway.
- Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2020). Curriculum. Ministry of Education and Research. https://sokeresultat.udir.no/finn-lareplan.html?query=&fltypefiltermulti=Læreplan&filtervalues=all
- Rasmussen, T. (2020). Den historiske dimensjon i KRLE-faget [The historical dimension in the RE-subject]. Prismet, 71(4), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.5617/pri.8355
- Riese, H., Hilt, L., & Søreide, G. (2020). Selvregulering som pedagogisk formål: Diskursive fornyelser i “Fremtidens skole” [Self-regulation as the educational aim: Discursive renewal in “A school for the future”]. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk, 6, 176–190. https://doi.org/10.23865/ntpk.v6.1717
- Sætra, E. (2018). Om forholdet mellom teori og praksis i lærerutdanning [On the relationship between theory and practice in teacher education]. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 102(4), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-2987-2018-04-05
- Schütz, A. (1970). Reflections on the problem of relevance. Yale University Press.
- Schütz, A. (1971). Das Problem der Relevanz [The problem of relevance]. Suhrkamp.
- Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world (R. M. Zaner & H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr., Trans.; Vol. 1). Northwestern University Press.
- Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in learning. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
- Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
- Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. The School Elementary Journal, 98(5), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1086/461912
- Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach (Wilson, S. M., Ed.). Jossey-Bass.
- Tuma, R., Schnettler, B., & Knoblauch, H. (2013). Videographie: Einführung in die interpretative Videoanalyse sozialer Situationen [Videography. Introduction to interpretative video analysis of social situations]. Springer.
- von Oettingen, A. (2001). Det pædagogiske paradoks: Et grundstudie i almen pædagogik [The pedagogical paradox: A basic study of general educational theory]. Klim.