Uppeldi og menntun - 01.07.2012, Side 162

Uppeldi og menntUn/icelandic JoUrnal of edUcation 21(2) 2012162
HlUtverk HÁSkÓlakennara í nÁmSkrÁrgerð
The study showed that curriculum decision making and development is not expe-
rienced as troublesome or problematic among participants in the study but rather as
part of everyday routine. The study demonstrated that the teachers in the study sense
different authority and agency in curriculum decision making between, as well as
within, the disciplinary curricula. While teachers within anthropology experienced
significant academic freedom in selecting course content for their students, teachers
within physics claimed the selection was based on adherence to ‘universal curricu-
lum’ ideas rather than local needs, teachers’ research or personal standpoints. In en-
gineering, local ties were evident in course selection where teachers took the needs of
the local field into account. During the period of study the local pedagogic discourses
of the three disciplines were faced with different internal and external forces making
their mark on the curriculum.
The findings have both theoretical and practical implications for the curriculum
field of higher education. Theoretically, they demonstrate the strength of applying
Bernstein’s theoretical concepts to study the complicated concept of curriculum with-
in the social and cultural context of higher education. They provide a framework for
exploring differences found between disciplines within the same institution.
On a more practical level, the study demonstrates the importance of seeing teach-
ing and learning as disciplinary specific and acknowledges the different boundaries
and spaces experienced by teachers within different disciplines. The analysis of differ-
ent types of departmental organisation, and pedagogic discourses that operate within
them, enhances our understanding of the possibilities, as well as boundaries, of cur-
riculum development in higher education. Different departmental structures, allow
for different types of communities of practice that can be seen as either hindering or
essential for curriculum development and reform.
Keywords: Curriculum, higher education, Bernstein, disciplinarity
About thE Author
Gudrun Geirsdottir (gudgeirs@hi.is) is an associate professor in curriculum and in-
struction within the school of education at the University of Iceland. She graduated
with a B.A. degree in pedagogy and with a diploma as a secondary school teacher
from the University of Iceland in 1983, an M.Sc. degree in curriculum and instruction
from Pennsylvania State University in 1996, and a Ph.D. in education from Iceland
University of Education in 2008. Gudrun is the chairman of board and director for the
Centre of Teaching at the University of Iceland. Her main research area is higher edu-
cation curriculum and teaching, as well as students´ educational experience within
higher education.