Tímarit um menntarannsóknir - 01.01.2011, Qupperneq 140

140
Rúnar Sigþórsson
Abstract
The implemented curriculum in Icelandic in years 6 and 7 in
light of the National Test in Icelandic in year 7.
Context
National tests have been in place in the
Icelandic school system for decades and
have always been highly controversial.
They are favoured as a necessary means
of control and organisation, as a source of
information and comparison, and as nec-
essary external evaluation. On the other
hand they are criticised as an external
source of control that deprives teachers
of professional autonomy, narrows the
curriculum, and limits the possibilities to
individualise teaching and learning. De-
spite this controversy, very few Icelandic
studies have attempted to put the pros and
cons of the tests into a theoretical context
and examine their impact on teaching and
learning.
The study
The current article reports the findings of
a study aimed at answering the question:
What characterises the organisation of teach-
ing and learning in Icelandic in four Icelandic
compulsory schools and to what extent does it
take account of the National Test in Icelandic in
year 7. The research was a qualitative case
study in four schools. Data were gathered
with individual interviews with teachers,
classroom observations of their lessons,
and focus group interviews with students.
The data were analysed according to a
conceptual framework of curriculum, con-
sisting of four components: The intended
curriculum, representing the National
Curriculum; the implemented curriculum,
representing what actually happens in the
classrooms in terms of teaching and learn-
ing; the attained curriculum, representing
the learning experiences of the students
and their learning outcomes; and teachers
as the link between the intended and the
implemented curricula, whose decisions
and actions shape what actually happens
in their classroom.
Findings and discussion
In three out of the four schools the content
of the implemented curriculum was char-
acterised by a clear distinction between
the content areas of the National Curricu-
lum. Both teachers and students referred
to spelling as a distinct curriculum area,
which it is not in the curriculum, and tak-
en together grammar and spelling took up
about half of the teaching time. Reading,
literature and writing got the rest of the
time allocation, while spoken language,
expression and viewing, and listening
skills were largely absent from the imple-
mented curriculum.
In the same three schools, the promi-
nent teaching style was characterised by
direct teaching and transmission of factual
knowledge, followed by individual seat-
work with exercise books and written as-