The implemented curriculum in Icelandic in years 6 and 7 in light of the National Test in Icelandic in year 7.

Abstract

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 necessary
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. Despite
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 teaching
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, consisting 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 learning;
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 characterised
by a clear distinction between
the content areas of the National Curriculum.
Both teachers and students referred
to spelling as a distinct curriculum area,
which it is not in the curriculum, and taken
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 implemented
curriculum.
In the same three schools, the prominent
teaching style was characterised by
direct teaching and transmission of factual
knowledge, followed by individual seatwork
with exercise books and written assignments. Assessment was mainly summative,
comprised of written end-of-term
tests linked with continuous assessment of
homework, behaviour, etc. All the teachers
acknowledged the importance of meeting
individual needs of students in some
way, but saw little scope for differentiation
within the classroom in their teaching organisation.
The fourth school departed from this
picture in that there were more signs of
integration of the curriculum areas within
the Icelandic curriculum, integration of
Icelandic and other subjects, and thematic
learning. The teachers also seemed to
have more effective means of differentiation
within the classroom. However, these
characteristics vanished in the weeks leading
up to the national test, even though
they were restored after the test, according
to the teachers.
The implemented curriculum had
many of the characteristics that critics of
the National Tests attribute to their effects.
However, none of the year 6 teachers attributed
their teaching organisation to the
test, but rather described it more in terms
of preparation for the lower secondary
section of the compulsory school. The students
echoed this and there seemed to be
a prevailing discourse in the schools about
preparation for the lower secondary sector
that was not separated from the test
preparation. The students discussed the
importance of the test in the same terms as
their year 10 schoolmates; they anticipated
either a pass or fail and saw each as an indicator
of their ability in the lower secondary
classes.
From the above findings I conclude
first, that the wash-back effects of the National
Tests have to be viewed in light of
how they inform teachers’ decisions and
actions in the classroom; second, that the
findings have to be viewed in light of a
strong tradition of teaching and learning
that seems to prevail in Icelandic compulsory
schools; third, that the long-standing
external directive of the National Tests
may have played a part in shaping this
tradition and undermined teachers’ professional
courage and self-efficacy needed
to break from it; fourth, that the prevailing
curriculum areas of the implemented
curriculum may be the easiest to teach and
have to be viewed as an indication of a
need to pay attention to staff development
to strengthen the pedagogical content
knowledge of teachers of Icelandic.