Shifts in curriculum control: contesting ideas of teacher autonomy

Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy

Volumn 2015, Issue 2, 2015, Pages

  Mausethagen, Sølvi ^a   Mølstad, Christina Elde ^b  

^a Oslo and Akershus University College   (Norway)

^b INLAND NORWAY UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

autonomy; curriculum control; education reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 85015357893     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20020317     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3402/nstep.v1.28520     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Aasen P, Prøitz T.S, Sandberg N. Knowledge regimes and contradictions in education reforms. Educational Policy. 2013; 28(5): 718–738.
2. Bryman A. Social research methods. 2012; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Carlgren I, Klette K. Reconstructions of Nordic teachers: Reform policies and teachers’ work during the 1990s. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2008; 52(2): 117–133.
4. Coburn C, Turner E.O. Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Practice. 2011; 9(4): 173–206.
5. Cohen L, Manion L, Morrison K, Bell R.C. Research methods in education. 2011; London: Routledge.
6. Conway P.F, Murphy R. A rising tide meets a perfect storm: New accountabilities in teaching and teacher education in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies. 2013; 32(1): 11–36.
7. Creswell J.W. Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches. 2007; London: Sage.
8. Cribb A, Gewirtz S. Unpacking autonomy and control in education: Some conceptual and normative groundwork for a comparative analysis. European Educational Research Journal. 2007; 6(3): 203–213.
9. Dale E.L, Engelsen B.U, Karseth B. Kunnskapsløftets intensjoner, forutsetninger og operasjonaliseringer: En analyse av en læreplanreform [Intentions, preconditions and operationalizations in the Knowledge Promotion: An analysis of a curriculum reform]. 2011; Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.
10. Day C. School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. International Journal of Educational Research. 2002; 37(8): 677–692.
11. Engelsen B.U, Dale E.L. Et forskningsblikk på skoleeierne i implementeringen av Kunnskapsløftet og LK06. Læreplan i et forskningsperspektiv [The curriculum in a reseach perspective]. 2009; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 62–114.
12. Evetts J, Gewirtz S, Mahony P, Hextall I, Cribb A. The changing context of professionalism. Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward. 2008; London: Routledge. 19–30.
13. Frostenson M. Lärarnas avprofessionalisering och autonomins mångtydighet [Teacher deprofessionalization and the multifaceted autonomy]. 2012; Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier, 2–2012.
14. Goepel J. Upholding public trust: An examination of teacher professionalism and the use of teachers’ standards in England. Teacher Development. 2012; 16(4): 489–505.
15. Granlund L, Mausethagen S, Munthe E. Lærerprofesjonalitet i spenningsfeltet mellom policy og profesjon [Teacher professionalism in the field of tension between policy and profession]. 2011; Oslo: Oslo University College, Centre for the Study of Professions.
16. Gundem B.B, Hopmann S. Didaktik and/or curriculum. An international dialogue. 1998; New York: Peter Lang.
17. Haft H, Hopmann S, Haft H, Hopmann S. Curriculum administration as symbolic action. Case studies in curriculum administration history. 1990; London: Falmer. 159–173.
18. Helgøy I, Homme A. Toward a new professionalism in school? A comparative study of teacher autonomy in Norway and Sweden. European Educational Research Journal. 2007; 6(3): 232–249.
19. Hermansen H. Recontextualising assessment resources for use in local settings: Opening up the black box of teachers’ knowledge work. The Curriculum Journal. 2014; 25(4):470–494.
20. Hopmann S. On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2003; 35(4): 459–478.
21. Hopmann S. Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal. 2007; 6(2): 109–124.
22. Hsieh H.-F, Shannon S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2005; 15(9): 1277–1288.
23. Ingersoll R.M. Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America's schools. 2003; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Jeffrey B. Performativity and primary teacher relations. Journal of Education Policy. 2002; 17(5): 531–546.
25. Karseth B, Sivesind K. Conceptualizing curriculum knowledge within and beyond the national context. European Journal of Education. 2010; 45(1): 103–120.
26. Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews. Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 2009; Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
27. Locke T, Vulliamy G, Webb R, Hill M. Being a “professional” primary school teacher at the beginning of the 21st century: A comparative analysis of primary teacher professionalism in New Zealand and England. Journal of Education Policy. 2005; 20(5): 555–581.
28. Lundahl C, Tveit S. Att legitimera nationella prov i Sverige och i Norge–en fråga om profession och tradition [To legitimize national tests in Sweden and in Norway - a question of profession and tradition]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige. 2014; 19(4–5):297–323.
29. Mausethagen S. Accountable for what and to whom? Changing representations and new legitimation discourses among teachers under increased external control. Journal of Educational Change. 2013a; 14(4): 423–444.
30. Mausethagen S. A research review of the impact of accountability policies on teachers' workplace relations. Educational Research Review. 2013b; 9(1): 16–33.
31. Mausethagen S. Reshaping teacher professionalism: An analysis of how teachers construct and negotiate professionalism under increasing accountability. 2013c. (PhD thesis). Oslo: Akershus University College.
32. Mausethagen S, Granlund L. Contested discourses of teacher professionalism. Current tensions between education policy and teachers' unions. Journal of Education Policy. 2012; 27(6): 815–833.
33. Mausethagen S, Mølstad C.E, Elstad E, Helstad K. Licence to teach? Læreplananalyse og profesjonsutviking. Profesjonsutvikling i skolen [Professional development in schools]. 2014; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 152–169.
34. Meuser M, Nagel U, Bogner A, Littig B, Menz W. The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. Interviewing experts. 2009; Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 17–41.
35. Molander A, Grimen H, Eriksen E.O. Professional discretion and accountability in the welfare state. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2012; 29(3): 214–230.
36. Molander A, Terum L.I, Molander A, Terum L.I. Introduksjon. Profesjonsstudier [Studies of professions]. 2008; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 13–26.
37. Mølstad C.E. State-Based Curriculum-Making - A Study of Curriculum in Norway and Finland. 2015a. (PhD thesis). Oslo: University of Oslo.
38. Mølstad C.E. State-based curriculum-making: approaches to local curriculum work in Norway and Finland. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2015b
39. Mølstad C.E, Hansén S.-E. The curriculum as a governing instrument - a comparative study of Norway and Finland. Educational Inquiry. 2013; 4(4): 735–753.
40. Mulcahy D. Assembling the ‘accomplished’ teacher: The performativity and politics of professional teaching standards. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2011; 43(1): 94–113.
41. Nerland M, Karseth B. The knowledge work of professional associations: Approaches to standardisation and forms of legitimation. Journal of Education and Work. 2013
42. Noordegraf M. Reconfiguring professional work: Changing forms of professionalism in public services. Administration and Society. 2013
43. Ozga J.T, Lawn M.A. Teachers, professionalism and class. A study of organized teachers. 1981; London: Falmer Press.
44. Priestley M, Biesta G.J.J, Priestley M, Biesta G.J.J. Introduction: The new curriculum. Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice. 2013; London: Bloomsbury Academic. 1–12.
45. Rovde O. Vegar til samling. Norsk lærarlags historie, 1966–2001 [The history of Norsk Lærerlag 1966–2001]. 2006; Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.
46. Sandberg N, Aasen P. Det nasjonale styringsnivået. Intensjoner, forventninger og vurderinger. Delrapport I. [The national governing level: Intentions, expectations and assessment. Report no 1.]. 2008; Oslo: NIFU STEP.
47. Sinclair A. The chameleon of accountability: Forms and discourses. Accounting Organizations and Society. 1995; 20(2/3): 219–237.
48. Skedsmo G. School governing in transition: Perspectives, purposes and perceptions of evaluation policy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). 2009; Norway: University of Oslo.
49. Skedsmo G, Mausethagen S. Emerging accountability policies and practices in education - the case of Norway. Forthcoming in Easley, J. & Tulowizki, P. Educational Accountability: International perspectives on challanges and possibilities for school leadership. 2015; London: Routledge.
50. Slagstad R. De nasjonale strateger [The national strategists]. 1998; Oslo: Pax Forlag.
51. Stone-Johnson C. Parallel professionalism in an era of standardization. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 2014; 20(1):74–91.
52. Tveit S. Educational assessment in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice. 2014; 21(2):221–237.
53. Welner K.G. Consequential validity and the transformation of tests from measurement tools to policy tools. Teachers College Record. 2013; 115(9):1–6.
54. Wermke W, Höstfält G. Contextualizing teacher autonomy in time and space: A model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2014; 46(1): 58–80.
55. Wilkins C. Professionalism and the post-performative teacher: New teachers reflect on autonomy and accountability in the English school system. Professional Development in Education. 2011; 37(3): 1–21.