Tímarit um menntarannsóknir - 01.01.2009, Side 113

111
Tímarit um menntarannsóknir, 6. árgangur 2009
dominates the teaching, instruction is highly
influenced by textbooks, pupils are occupied
with workbook work and written assignments,
and pupils generally use the same textbooks
and work at the same pace.
The most comprehensive study which
looked at the consistency between national
curriculum guidelines and teaching methods
was carried out by Kristrún L. Birgisdóttir
(2004). In her study 343 primary school
teachers (88% response rate) from three
geographical areas of the country completed
a questionnaire about their teaching methods
and to what extent they met the demands of the
National Curriculum in regard to differentiated
instruction (einstaklingsmiðað nám). Over
50% of the participants said that the textbook
had a large influence on their teaching and
they were more likely to use whole class
instruction than adaptive teaching methods.
Approximately half of the participants said
they used the National Curriculum guidelines
occasionally (once a month or more) and the
other half used them more seldom or not at
all. In addition, the findings drew attention to
the influence that standardized tests have on
teaching; 48% of the teachers who teach age
groups that take the national tests reported
that the tests greatly influenced their teaching
(Kristrún L. Birgisdóttir, 2004).
The impact of national tests on teaching
practices was also one of the focuses of
the study by Rúnar Sigþórsson (2008). His
study examined the impact of national tests in
science and Icelandic on teachers’ conceptions
of teaching and learning, teaching organization
and student learning in four compulsory
schools. He analyzed the data according to four
main elements: intended curriculum, teachers’
conceptions, implemented curriculum and
attained curriculum. His findings showed that
national tests had considerable influence on the
teaching, particularly at the lower secondary
level (grades 8-10). Although they were
supportive of the National Curriculum, teachers
felt pressured to prepare their pupils well for the
tests and that hindered them in putting enough
emphasis on other aspects outlined by the
National Curriculum. As in the other Icelandic
studies, the prominent style of teaching was
whole class instruction where the teacher was
in the role of the “informer” who dispersed
information to the pupils and rarely asked open
questions. Adaptive teaching methods and
differentiated instruction were seldom used by
the teachers in the two subjects. Hence, there
was a disparity between the intended and the
implemented curriculum. Curriculum areas
not covered by the tests received little attention
in the implemented curriculum. Variety of
learning activities was lacking and problem
solving, reflection, evaluation and creativity
were seldom demanded of pupils (Rúnar
Sigþórsson, 2008).
Similar results were found in an interview
and field observation study of 5 science teachers
at the compulsory level (Meyvant Þórólfsson,
Allyson Macdonald & Eggert Lárusson, 2007).
In this study the teachers were aware of
their pupils’ diverse needs and learning styles,
but they felt constrained by the pressure of
curriculum coverage and the national test.
They felt the need to prioritize teaching factual
information which left little time for adaptive
teaching methods and “hands on” activities.
Studies from the United States which look at
the effects of curricula on teaching replicate the
findings of the Icelandic studies (Barnes, 2002;
Hootstein, 1998). Results show that adaptive
teaching methods are not widely used and that
teachers are not adequately implementing the
policy of differentiated instruction. Although
a majority of teachers are supportive of using
a variety of teaching methods, most teachers
predominately use whole class instruction.
Studies from other countries in subject areas
such as science and environmental education,
English language instruction, and instruction
in classical languages also show disparity
between the intended curriculum and the
implemented curriculum (Bekalo & Welford,
2000; Cotton, 2006; Jones, 2007; Keys, 2005;
Kramer-Dahl, 2008; Verhoeven & Verloop,
2002; Wang & Xuesong, 2008).
Breytingar á uppeldissýn í leikskóla