Uppeldi og menntun - 01.07.2012, Side 88

Uppeldi og menntUn/icelandic JoUrnal of edUcation 21(2) 201288
ný aðalnÁmSkrÁ og gömUl nÁmSkrÁrfræði
um hÖfundinn
Atli Harðarson (atli@fva.is) lauk MA-prófi í heimspeki frá Brown University árið 1984
og starfar sem skólameistari við Fjölbrautaskóla Vesturlands á Akranesi. Atli stundar
doktorsnám við Menntavísindasvið Háskóla Íslands. Doktorsverkefni hans fjallar um
heimspekileg vandamál tengd markmiðssetningu í námskrám.
A new National Curriculum Guide for secondary
schools and old curriculum theories
AbstrAct
In May 2011, the Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture issued a new
National Curriculum Guide for secondary schools. This publication requires second-
ary schools to describe each course or module in terms of learning outcomes, i.e.
knowledge, skills and competences students are supposed to acquire. It also requires
schools to work towards six general aims (democracy and human rights, equality,
literacy, creativity, sustainable development, and health and welfare). This emphasis
on two types of educational aims places the new Curriculum Guide within a tradition
of curriculum theory that originated in the works of Bobbitt and Tyler, and was fur-
ther developed by Bloom and Taba. Some modern manifestations of this tradition are
known as ‘outcomes based education’ and have been incorporated into the so-called
Bologna process.
This tradition has its roots in Cartesian rationalism and technocratic modes of think-
ing. Its core is summarised in the following three statements: 1) Curriculum design
begins with a statement of aims and decisions about teaching materials, and teach-
ing methods are derived from the aims. 2) The aims, are learner-centred, that is, they
specify how students are supposed to change, i.e. what competencies, skills, knowl-
edge, attitudes, mindset or characteristics they are expected to acquire. 3) The aims
are objectives that can be completed rather than guiding lights that give direction to
an open-ended or lifelong endeavour. These three points often go hand in hand with
emphasis on efficiency and quantifiable results. This tradition of curriculum theory
was influential among curriculum theorists and top-level educational administration
in the 20th century. However, it was at odds with school traditions that were largely
shaped in the 19th century and drew upon humanistic and enlightenment ideals of
education.
Over the past 45 years or so, the tradition of curriculum theory, outlined above, has
been criticized by a number of educationists and philosophers of education. Some of
the most important criticisms were set forth by Schwab and Stenhouse in the early
1970s. They both advocated ideals of liberal education and warned against reducing
subject matter to the role of servant. Schwab also argued that statements of educational