Även om ”en skola på vetenskaplig grund” idag är ett högaktuellt ämne är det ingalunda något nytt fenomen. I artikeln studeras tendenser i policyinitiativ som de senaste 25 åren haft till syfte att forskningsbasera den svenska skolan. Utgångspunkt tas i de problembilder som framkommer i policy samt vilka modeller för forskningsbasering som samtidigt lyfts fram som lösningen på dessa problem. Resultatet pekar mot att det de senaste 25 år har skett en succesiv förskjutning från indirekta till mer direkta initiativ. Under 1990-talet och det tidiga 2000-talet var många policyinitiativ ordnade utifrån att främst vilja skapa de rätta förutsättningarna för en forskningsbasering av skolan. Under 2000-talet blir initiativen alltmer fokuserade och ambitiös med syfte att åstadkomma direkta förändringar i lärares undervisning. När det kommer till modeller för forskningsbasering blir det samtidigt alltmer tydligt hur policy vänder sig till och söker legitimitet hos delvis nya aktörer och institutioner, som exempelvis hälso-sjukvården. Med detta går det också att urskilja en insnävning vad gäller att definiera och innehållsligt välja ut vilken forskning som bör sprids till skolans aktörer. Konsekvensen med en sådan modell för forskningsbasering menar vi kan bli att läraren främst får inta rollen som passiva mottagare av forskning.

In this special issue, we start from a general policy assumption about teachers and teachingparticularly clearly summarized in the 2005 report Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developingand Retaining Effective Teachers by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation andDevelopment (OECD). The report states that teacher policy is high on national agendas andthat teachers are ‘the most significant resource in schools’ for improving efficiency and equityin school. Thus, the policy report states school improvement largely depends on ‘ensuringthat competent people want to work as teachers, that their teaching is of high quality, andthat all students have access to high quality teaching’ (OECD, 2005, p. 7). Against a backgroundof an increasingly centralized transnational and national governance of school,emphasizing international comparisons (Dale & Robertson, 2009; Lawn & Grek, 2012; Meyer& Benavot, 2013; Nordin & Sundberg, 2014; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010) and a curriculum characterizedby performativity and educational effectiveness (Ball, 2003; Kelly, 2009), we are interestedin teachers’ significance and conditions for teacher agency. However, we regard thepolicy field mainly as the background, from which we retain the fundamental claim that‘teachers matter’. In contrast to policy documents, the intention in this special issue is toexplore in what different ways, at what different times and in what different spaces teacherstruly matter, without having any answers in advance – that is, outside the area of policyhighroads but still against a backdrop of a policy of accountability and standards.

Theoretically based conversations are not sufficient to closing the elusive performance gap between different education environments, but we believe they are a necessary part, and our hope is that the content of this book can contribute to worthwhile dialogues. A conclusion from this study is that the encounter between the teaching content, the social learning environment and the student is central to a student’s opportunity to develop new knowledge, develop a sense of citizenship and develop individual potential. The teacher’s democratic stance in the authoring of teaching content in the classroom makes a difference for what the student gets the opportunity to co-author and learn. We argue that the much-debated concept of powerful in connection with knowledge might be misleading as a basis for curricula and teaching and suggest a shift from matters of facts to matters of concern, as well as a shift from powerful knowledge to meaningful knowledge, if we really want different groups of students to direct their interest towards the teaching content and become involved in their own education.

The purpose of this study is to discern and discuss issues with relevance to the tension between contextuality and generalisation, which recurrently are identified over time in research reviews of teaching methods. The 75 most cited reviews on teaching methods listed in the Web of Science from 1980 to 2017 were analysed. Since our interest is the claims made in each article about the teaching method under study, the analysis concerned the abstract, results, discussion, conclusion, and implication parts of each review. Three main issues, cutting across the reviews over time, were identified: 1) the abundance of moderating factors, 2) the need for highly qualified teachers, and 3) the research-practice gap. It is argued that the three issues reflect tensions in original research. The implications of these findings are discussed in the article. One main conclusion is that such issues ought to be more explicitly attended to and elaborated in both primary and secondary level research. The importance of viewing validity as a multidimensional concept, including internal, external, and ecological aspects, is underlined. Further, ideas from realistic reviewing are used to discuss a contextually bound approach to causality.

In school systems around the world there is an increasing focus on students' academic achievement and school result. Sweden is no exception in that respect. Parallel to an intensified control of pupils' level of achievement (cf. PISA), there are increasing demands for school decision makers to gradually improve students' academic performance. The question of how schools are changing and improving thus becomes an important issue for all levels, from policy makers to professionals in schools, but also for researchers. Several decades of research on how school’s improvement efforts ultimately affect student learning highlights the importance of paying attention to the balance between "... individual initiative and school/system change, between internal and external resources and ideas, between pressure for accountability and support for change, and between independence and collaboration "(Hopkins et al., 2014). In this context, the coordination of top-down and bottom-up strategies in schools' improvement work seems to be crucial (Fullan, 1994). At the same time, research shows that the building of schools' development capacity is primarily focused on professional learning and development for principals and teachers, which in turn is expected to improve teaching and student learning (cf. Day, 2012; Stoll 2009). From previous studies of local school improvement work, the results show changes in aspects of principals’ and teachers’ learning, which can be connected to certain improvement strategies (Adolfsson & Håkansson, 2014). This paper will investigate these indications further.

The focus of this paper is to explore schools' capacity building for improvement in terms of professional learning as strategies over time change character from top-down to bottom-up, a perspective seemingly little illuminated in past research. Within the framework of an ongoing three-year research project in six Swedish compulsory schools, the intention here is to elucidate the way in which top-down and bottom up strategies affect schools' improvement in general and the schools' capacity for development of different forms of learning capital in particular. The following research questions are addressed in the paper:

•In what ways are principals' leadership and learning but also teachers' understanding of their teaching and the improvement work in terms of learning capital, related to changes in school improvement strategies?

•What changes in schools overall learning capital and capacity building can be found in relation to changed strategies to initiate and manage local school improvement work?

The theoretical foundation of this study is based on curriculum theory (cf. Lundgren, 1989). From school improvement research there are also certain concepts to acknowledge. One crucial concept is the “nested school system”. It consists of a number of nested sub-systems, e.g. the classroom, teachers working teams, school leadership teams, the local authority et cetera (Resnick, 2010). Although these systems are related internally, school improvement work in each system rests on specific rationalities and incentives (i.e. loosely coupled). Another important concept is “capital”, which refers to different learning qualities in the capacity building of school improvement. Shulman and Shulman (2004) distinguish four forms of capital defining different qualities of schools' capacity building in terms of learning: i) moral or cultural capital, ii) curriculum capital, iii) instructional capital, iv) change capital. The moral or cultural capital means ability to engage in school and teacher team collaborative work and learning about teaching, while curriculum capital involves significant dimensions of teachers' assignments, such as knowledge of school subjects, curriculum, syllabuses, teaching strategies, et cetera. Instructional capital is about the ability to translate theoretical knowledge into practical teaching, while change capital contains the step from participation and training in different school improvement activities to the incorporation of (more or less) changed and more effective ways of teaching (ibid.).

Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used

The paper draws on a “classical” theoretical and methodological framework of curriculum theory (i.e. the frame-factor theory), with its different levels of analysis – the societal/ideological level, the curriculum level; and the teaching and classroom level (cf. Lundgren 1989). In order to study and analyse ongoing school development processes and changes in schools’ capital building, different kinds of sources have been used. Throughout the ongoing evaluation project data from the schools’ improvement work have been collected (e.g. local documents, interviews and survey studies with students, teachers, principals, and officials from the local authority), to support analyses of learning capital on different levels.

The main type of source used in this study is focus group interviews with principals (n=8) and teachers (n=80). Another is recordings and field notes from planning meetings that continually were held during the project with principals. In the beginning of the project two group interviews with all participating principals where carried out. After two years a second round of interviews followed up these interviews, with the same principals. A semi-structured interview-guide was used and the interviewer was a research assistant who had not met the group before. In addition approximately 20 group interviews with teachers were carried out. The main focus in these principal and teacher interviews was experiences and views on the schools’ improvement work in general and change in schools’ capacity building, principals’ and teachers’ learning in particular.

Keeping with the theoretical points of departure, the analysis follows a two-step procedure. In the first step the newly collected empirical data was compared to data from previous interviews and planning meetings. With the capital concept (Shulman & Shulman, 2004), the focus in this step of the analysis was to elucidate patterns of change over time in the school’s capacity building. In connection to the frame-factor theory and in accordance with Fullan (2001), meaning that educational processes must be studied in relation to both their external and their internal conditions, these results were in a second step analysed in relation to a continous shift from top down strategies to bottom up strategies for initiation and implementation of local school improvement work.

Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings

The results of the empirical analysis will be presented in terms of changes in schools learning capital and capacity building in relation to changed strategies to initiate and manage local school improvement works. In light of the thesis that different strategies will support different qualities (capital) of the schools’ capacity building in their local improvement work, the results indicate that changes from an emphasis on top-down strategies to an emphasis on bottom-up strategies seems to create conditions for other forms of capital within the scope of the local school improvement work. For example, bottom up (horizontal) strategies seem to in greater extent support the schools’ moral and venture capital building, compared to top down (vertical) strategies. These changes will be discussed in terms of how shifts in school strategies appear in: i) principals' leadership and learning, and ii) teachers' understanding of their teaching and the improvement work.

In light of the concept of the “nested school system” it will finally be argued that different aspects of learning capital are necessary for successful and solid school improvement work. Moreover the results indicates that the organization of local school improvement work has to actively engage all the sub-systems of the school system (i.e. re-couple the nested systems). In other words, successful school improvement strategies, where different aspects of the capital building are included, seem to comprise a balance between top down and bottom up strategies (c.f. Hopkins et al, 2014),

References

Adolfsson, Carl-Henrik & Håkansson, Jan (2014). Learning schools in Sweden – principals understanding of ongoing school improvement in an era of accountability. Contribution to the ECER-konference in Porto, September 2014.

Day, C. (Ed) (2012). The Routledge international handbook of teacher and school development. London: Routledge.

Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating Top-Down and Bottom-Up strategies for Educational Reform. In Anson, R.J. Systemic reform. Perspectives on Personalizing Education. Washington: US Department of Education.

Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L, & Mackay, T. (2014). School and system improvement: a narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, vol. 25, No 2, 257-281.

Lundgren, U.P., (1989). Att organisera omvärlden: en introduktion till läroplansteori. (Organizing the Surrounding World: Introduction to Curriculum Theory; in Swedish). Stockholm: Utbildningsförlaget på uppdrag av Gymnasieutredningen.

Resnick, Lauren B. (2010). Nested System for the Thinking Curriculum. Educational Researcher, vol. 39 No. 3  183-197.

Shulman, L. S. & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. Journal of curriculum studies, vol. 36, No. 2, 257-271.

Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change. 10, 115-127.

There is a salient international and national interest in research based educational policy and reform. The main drivers in this development have been the increasing volume on knowledge and statistics on education in different parts of the world available for comparison and learning. Research and knowledge reviews have been assumed to improve educational policy making as well as making better use of available educational knowledge. The transnational export/import of research/knowledge reviews is however also systems part of the new governance of education as responses to the demands of audit and performance. They are means for not only representing but also constructing and codifying educational knowledge. A selection of constitutive international research reviews in the field of teaching and learning s provide with the empirical data analysed (for example the McKinsey report, OECD-reports on the performances of educational systems, John Hatties meta analysis “Visible learning”, Cambridge Primary Review). The results will be discussed in terms of what role transnational research and knowledge reviews play in representing/constructing the knowledge field of teaching/learning and carry out boundary-work between educational research, policy and practice.

Runt om i världen har ett nytt fjärde generationens paradigmkring skolförbättring gett forskningsresultat medstor potential för ökad måluppfyllelse. Vissa avtryck börjar nu ta form i svenska skolor, men ännu har inga större resultatförbättringar märkts. Så hur väl håller internationellt etablerade modeller som Timperleys för kollegialt lärande, eller andra metoder för utveckling av undervisningen?

I boken Utmärkt ledarskap i skolan får vi en sammanfattning av vad den senaste internationella skolförbättringsforskningen säger om attleda utvecklingen av undervisning och lärande. Utifrån inblickar i svenska skolor uppmärksammas såväl möjligheter som fallgropar i utvecklingsarbetets olika faser.

Genom att belysa ett hållbart ledarskap i skolan får vi de nycklar vi behöver för systematiska och långsiktiga förbättringar med fokus på elevernas lärande. I Utmärkt ledarskap i skolan får du som skolledare, förstelärare och lärare kompetensutveckling och handledning i ditt dagliga pedagogiska ledarskapsarbete.

Vad utmärker skickliga lärare? Går det verkligen att objektivt bedöma frågan utan att hamna i subjektiva värderingar och preferenser? Hur ser vägarna till lärarskicklighet ut och vad kan forskningen bidra med för svar?

Då lärarskicklighet är den enskilt mest betydelsefulla faktorn för att nå goda elevresultat är frågan om vad som kännetecknar en utmärkt lärare central. Utmärkt lärare bygger på författarnas genomgång av de senaste tjugo årens svenska och internationella forskning om såväl yrkesutveckling som lärarkompetens och visar vilka kvaliteter som kännetecknar lärarskicklighet.

Genom olika perspektiv och exempel utreds även forskningens svar på vad som bör göras för att tillgodose behovet av lärare och skapa förutsättningar för en ständigt pågående yrkesutveckling. De sammantagna resultaten ger forskningsgrundade målbilder och stakar ut vägen för att få fler att utvecklas till skickliga lärare genom lärarutbildning, kollegialt lärande, kompetensutveckling och professionsprogram. Fem slutsatser ger riktningen för framtiden.

Utmärkt lärare ingår i den så kallade Utmärktserien och vänder sig till blivande och verksamma lärare, men också till rektorer, skolchefer, skolutvecklare, politiker, beslutsfattare och andra med intresse för att utveckla skolans kvalitet och måluppfyllelse.

Tidigare utgivna böcker i serien är: Utmärkt undervisning (2020), Utmärkt skolutveckling (2016), samt Utmärkt ledarskap i skolan (2018).

Undervisning ska bygga på vetenskaplig grund, men vad innebär det i så fall? Vad finns det för forskningsstöd och evidens för de olika idéer, strategier och metoder som förekommer i skolan? Finns det till exempel några generellt hållbara principer och strategier för undervisning som är oberoende av ämne, elevernas ålder och de nationella och kulturella sammanhangen? Vilken betydelse har informations- och kommunikationsteknik (IKT), specialpedagogik och mångkulturalism?

Utmärkt undervisning handlar om vad vi kanlära från de viktigaste internationella och svenska forskningsöversikterna från de senaste två decennierna. De viktigaste forskningsresultaten kring lärarens betydelse, sambandet mellan undervisningsstrategier och elevers lärande och bedömningens roll belyses från flera olika perspektiv. Det är första gången en sådan översikt har gjorts i Sverige, och fram tonar en bild av lärarens yrkesidentitet i både ett internationellt och ett nationellt perspektiv.

Huvudtemat i boken är vad som kan anses vara god och framgångsrik undervisning. Författarnas grundsyn är att kunskapsutveckling inom undervisningsområdet bygger på en ömsesidig och långsiktig dialog mellan erfarenhetsgrundad och teoretiskt grundad kunskap.

Sammantaget ger boken en översiktskarta som rektorer, lärare, lärarstudenter, utbildningspolitiker och en intresserad allmänhet kan navigera i.

What is significant is that the curriculum is always linked to institutional decision-making. Any such discussion must continually address multiple and interconnected issues: what subject matter is to be taught; what content should be selected; why this subject matter should be taught and this content selected; how it should be taught; for whom it should be useful; and whose knowledge it represents. Today, these questions are crucial as we face social, political and cultural changes that challenge ideas about educating citizens for new futures as well as ideas regarding the very core processes of teaching and learning.

Leda lärande är en vänbok till professor emeritus Per Gerrevall vid Linnéuniversitetet. Ett tjugotal medverkande kollegor, forskare och lärare tar upp olika aspekter av ledning och ledarskap i olika pedagogiska kontexter och verksamheter. De olika verksamhetsområdena som tematiseras i boken är akademi och högre utbildning, idrottsfältet och de pedagogiska professionerna.

Kapitlen i boken anknyter till några av de forsknings- och verksamhetsområden som Per arbetat inom under en lång framgångsrik och inspirerande karriär inom akademin. På temat leda lärande ger bokens innehåll olika infallsvinklar på hur pedagogiska praktiker utvecklas och förfinas genom de ställningstaganden och val som framsynta lärare och ledare gör. Det gäller såväl inom högre utbildning, där ledare märker ut frågor, perspektiv och utforskningar inom kunskaps- och forskningsfronterna. Det gäller inom idrottsfältet där de goda och framgångsrika ledarna ser nästa steg i talangens utveckling. Och, det gäller också inom utbildning och skola där den pedagogiska ledaren tillsammans med de studerande märker ut mål och navigerar mot uppsatta mål i de lärandes bildningsgång.

Bokens olika kapitel ger sammantaget en rik repertoar av nycklar för att leda lärande på ett kvalificerat sätt och för att tackla några av de utmaningar som lärandefrågorna, internationellt och nationellt, står inför i en tid av stora samhälleliga omställningar. Alla med intresse för frågor om ledning, lärande och pedagogik har utbyte av bokens olika kapitel såväl som i professor Per Gerrevalls verk och gärning.

Theory-based evaluation in response to the issues of education reforms in the early 2000s

The current surge of interest in evidence based policy has re-actualised issues of research, policy and pedagogic practice. Research are expected to support the development of systematically substantiated reforms as well as evidence-based practices. At the same time, criticism has been brought against dominant evaluation models. The question is whether they really respond to an increasingly complex landscape of governance, and the varying conditions and variations that characterize today’s schools? This article examines the potential of a theory-based evaluation model in order to systematically and empirically investigate education reforms. This approach provides the ability to include analysis of how transnational, national and local discourses converge and diverge in relation to each other, to take different kinds of contexts into consideration, and how these contexts affect the recontextualisation of pedagogic discourse. In order to further develop the approach of a theory-based evaluation, the authors point to recent steps within mixed methods research in relation to the design of, and findings in an empirical case study of the Swedish curriculum reform, Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the recreation centre, Lgr 11. Based on policy analyses, four hypotheses are presented: (i) the hypothesis of reform; (ii) the hypothesis of teachers’ professional practice; (iii) the hypothesis of teaching repertoires; (iv) and the hypothesis of assessment practices. Each of these hypotheses has been followed up by questionnaire responses and interviews.  The sequential explanatory design in this study relates critically transnational policy arenas to national education reforms and pedagogic practice in order to test the weight of the empirical evidence obtained. On the grounds of conclusion, there are reasons to revive and further develop the tradition of theory-based evaluations. Therefore, the article put forward theoretical and methodological proposals for the continued direction.

On being systematic and reflective when compiling research

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the importance of compila- tions of research being both systematic and reflective. The general point about the importance of reflection is illustrated by describing how a specific approach to compiling research, SMART (Systematic Mapping and Analysis of Research Topographies), has been used. SMART is based on a pragmatic perspective. This entails an openness to different scientific research traditions. The pragmatic starting point also means that compilations of research are linked to questions about how society and democracy can be developed. In this article, we describe how the ap- proach has been used to compile research on 1) inclusion and 2) teaching, respectively. Finally, the article discusses 1) the importance of compila- tions of research being both systematic and reflective 2) the question of how we should understand the increasing number of research reviews in the field of education science and 3) implications of the reasoning in the article for policy and practice. 

The aims and meaning of education and teaching are contested. This article empirically explores the aims that dominate present research about teaching as reflected in high-impact reviews of research about teaching (n = 75). Four types of aims are discerned: knowledge/cognitive aims, social aims, aims encompassing the development of personal characteristics and democratic aims. With some exceptions, the reviews analyse teaching with regard to knowledge and cognitive aims only and do not explicitly attend to the aims of schooling or guiding documents. The implications of these empirical findings are discussed in light of the educational philosophies of Dewey and Thorndike.

The article aims to explore to what extent and in what ways discourseinstitutionalism can contribute to the understanding and analysis ofcurriculum change in a globalized context. By focusing specifically oncurriculum change, this article proposes how discourse institutionalismcan contribute to the so-called ‘crisis of curriculum theory’ by addressing(i) the non-linearity of change, (ii) the process of the translation of ideasand (iii) actor agency. The text is structured in three sections. In the firstsection, we elaborate on the notion of curriculum change as a vitalconcept for the field of curriculum theory in a globalized context, focusingon processes of recontextualization and the translation of curriculumcontent. In the second, we elaborate on discourse institutionalism as acontributing approach to the analysis of such processes of curriculumchange, constructing a conceptual framework. In the third and finalsection, we give some examples of how the conceptual framework canbe used in analysing curriculum change, using the 2011 Swedish curriculumreform (Lgr 11) as an empirical reference, and the result showsthat the conceptual framework offers a wide repertoire of possibleapproaches to analysing curriculum change, both vertically andhorizontally.

The question of what drives curriculum change has for decades been an issue among educational scholars working in the field of curriculum theory (CT). Due to the globalisation of the curriculum field (cf. Andersson-Levitt, 2008), issues of how to address, understand and explain the role of transnational forces and actors as drivers of change have become central to the field (Nordin & Sundberg, 2014). As a result of this ’transnational turn’ it is necessary for scholars in the field of curriculum studies to reinvent their analytical tools (cf. Young, 2013; Deng, 2015) in order to be able to analyse curriculum-making as a complex and multi-layered practise taking place in a complex interplay between transnational, national as well as local arenas and a diversity of endogenous and exogenous forces and determinants. In response to this expressed need for scholars working in the field of CT to reinvent their analytical tools (cf. Deng, 2015) the aim of this article is to turn to discourse-institutionalism (DI) developed by Vivien Schmidt (2008, 2010, 2011, 2016) in order to examine its methodological potential and to develop an analytical framework for analysing curriculum change in the light of the ‘transnational turn’ within CT. We make use of Schmidt´s distinction between a coordinative and a communicative policy discourse. Somewhat simplified the coordinative discourse refers to the interaction among different kinds of policy elites while the communicative discourse refers to the interaction between these elites and the public. Furthermore, we make use of Schmidt’s stratified understanding of ideas at different policy levels, from philosophical ideas that are very stable over time, to programmatic ideas that changes somewhat easier to policy ideas who can change rapidly in order to capture the transformation of ideas travelling between different arenas and used by different actors. The different kinds of ideas we relate to the five different categories arenas (where?), actors (who?), content (what?), language (how?) and legitimation (why?). Combining these different categories facilitates a coherent analysis of curriculum change as simultaneously content and discursive interaction between different policy actors at different policy levels. Ongoing research on the most recent Swedish curriculum reform, Lgr 11 is used to provide empirical illustrations of how the framework and its concepts can be used for theoretical analyses and methodological designs especially focusing travelling curriculum policies on ‘competencies’.

In this explorative paper we will address the impact of Europeanization (Lawn 2011) on national curriculum reforms with empirical reference to the Swedish elementary school, and based on this case discuss the question of transnational curriculum convergence (Andersson-Levitt 2008) The main interest is directed towards the question of what counts as knowledge in national curricula changing and the research questions of this paper are: (i) what explanatory frameworks are plausible to make sense to processes of curriculum change in the interface between transnational and national arenas? (ii) to what extent and in what ways can the Swedish elementary school reform (Lgr 11) be seen as an expression of a European educational policy discourse when it comes to conceptualising knowledge?

      Theoretically we draw on discursive institutionalism (Schmidt 2008, 2011) using a differentiated concept of curriculum as a way to capture the complex dynamics of contemporary curriculum change. We argue that this discursive institutional contextualisation is necessary in order to explain curriculum changes in the nexus of the transnational and the national, tracing discursive processes of coordination and communication to analyse why some discourses prevail and becomes institutionalised while others don’t. Central policy texts have been analyzed as simultaneously a language written text, discourse practice (that include text production and interpretation) and socio-cultural and political practice (Fairclough, 1995). Taken this methodological point of departure a step further the analysis has also combined a discursive institutionalism approach. Processes of discourse formation in policy-making have been investigated as dialectical to processes of re-contextualisation and institutionalization of specific discourses.

      A preliminary conclusion is that the recent Swedish elementary school reform converges to the broader European knowledge discourse on the level of philosophical ideas underpinning curriculum change but that several core concepts used in European policy texts are being rethought and given a different meaning when re-contextualised in the national arena. Exploring new methodological approaches in the analysis of curriculum change is highly relevant as transnational discourses have an increasing impact on Nordic curriculum policy.

In this article we will address the impact of Europeanization (Lawn 2011) on national curriculum reforms with empirical reference to the Swedish compulsory school, and based on the concept of competence discuss the question of transnational curriculum convergence (Andersson-Levitt 2008). The main interest is directed towards how the answers on the question of what counts as knowledge and skills are changing in national curricula. The research questions of this article are: (i) what explanatory frameworks are plausible to make sense to processes of curriculum change in the interface between transnational and national arenas? (ii) to what extent and in what ways can the Swedish compulsory school reform (Lgr 11) be seen as an expression of a European educational policy discourse when it comes to conceptualising knowledge? (iii) how are transnational elements re-interpreted and translated into the Swedish national curriculum policy agenda in conceptualising key competencies?

      Theoretically we draw on discursive institutionalism (Schmidt 2008, 2011) using a differentiated concept of curriculum as a way to capture the complex dynamics of contemporary curriculum change. We argue that this discursive institutional framework is necessary in order to explain curriculum changes in the nexus of the transnational and the national, tracing discursive processes of coordination and communication to analyse why some discourses prevail and becomes institutionalised while others don’t. Central policy texts have been analyzed as simultaneously a written text, discourse practice (that include text production and interpretation) and socio-cultural and political practice (Fairclough, 1995). Taken this methodological point of departure a step further the analysis has also combined a discursive institutionalism approach. Processes of discourse formation in policy-making have been investigated as dialectical to processes of re-contextualisation and institutionalization of specific discourses.

      A conclusion is that the recent Swedish compulsory school reform converges to the broader European knowledge discourse on the level of philosophical ideas underpinning curriculum change but that several core concepts used in European policy texts are being reconceptualised and given a different meaning when re-contextualised in the national arena. Exploring new methodological approaches in the analysis of curriculum change is highly relevant as transnational discourses have an increasing impact on Nordic curriculum policy.

Competence-Based-Approaces in Education (CBA) has become an important education policy idea internationally the last decades emphasizing a set of generic key competences as targeted outcomes of education and national curricula. However, a substantial body of research have suggested that in order to understand and explain its evolution there is a need to analyze curriculum-making as a complex and multi-layered practice taking place in a complex interplay between transnational, national as well as local arenas. In order to contribute to such a research this paper turn to discourse-institutionalism (DI) as outlined by Vivien Schmidt (2011, 2016) proposing a stratified understanding of ideas operating at different policy levels, ‘background ideas’ being very stable over time and ‘foreground ideas’ who can change more rapidly, capturing the translation of ideas travelling within and between different policy arenas and used by different actors. In this paper we will (1) compare ideas of competences as expressed in four influential frameworks for CBA, and secondly (2) we will exemplify how these ideas, with special reference to the OECD, have been translated when recontextualized within Swedish curriculum policy making using the most recent Swedish curriculum reform for the compulsory school as an empirical example. The result of the text analyses shows that when recontextualized within national borders transnational ideas of CBC are being translated in ways that enables for national politicians to adapt to transnational discourses while simultaneously maintaining public legitimacy. In the case of Sweden this political act of balancing different policy discourses has led to a national version of CBA, discussed in this paper as ‘hybrid competences’.

Competence-based approaches (CBAs) in education have becomean internationally important educational policy concept in recentdecades. However, a substantial body of research has suggestedthat in order to understand and explain the evolution of CBAs,there is a need to analyse curriculum-making as a complex andmulti-layered practice. To contribute to this research field, thispaper makes use of Vivien Schmidt’s concept of discursiveinstitutionalism(DI), which focuses on ideas and discourse. First,we compare ideas of competences as expressed in four influentialCBA frameworks, and second, we exemplify how these ideas, withspecial reference to the Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development, have been translated when re-contextualisedwithin Swedish curriculum policy-making. The results show thatwhen re-contextualised within national borders, transnationalideas of competences are reconfigured. In the case of Sweden,this process has led to a national interpretation of CBAs,discussed in this paper as ‘hybrid competences.’

International comparisons of educational achievements have come to play a crucial role in understanding the educational field today. This book provides an in-depth analysis of the development of international large-scale assessments. The life and achievements of transnational educational experts who paved the way for these assessments are discussed as well as the rise of institutions specialising in the making and managing of educational statistics such as the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Emerging transnational policy spaces and their effect on national education policy are also problematised using the concept of ‘Europeanisation’ as a theoretical reference. By bringing together historical and contemporary comparisons using different methodological approaches the goal of this book is to contribute to a widened understanding of educational policy-making as an open-ended and complex process that cannot be reduced to a rational process of linear implementation, or a deduction of world models of education. Instead the result of this book shows that transnational policy flows in many directions in European education today. It also shows that despite processes of Europeanisation in European education the national context still plays an important role in understanding how transnational policy is being negotiated, translated, interpreted or even contested when re-contextualised in different arenas. Every context has its specific historical, societal and political conditions making legitimation possible and/or impossible. 

In this article we will address the impact of Europeanisation on national curriculum reforms with empirical reference to the Swedish compulsory school, and based on the concept of competence discuss the question of transnational curriculum convergence. The main interest is directed towards how the answers to the question of what counts as knowledge and skills are changing in national curricula. The analysis shows that the recent Swedish compulsory school reform converges to the broader European knowledge discourse on the underlying level of philosophical ideas but also that several core concepts used in European policy texts are being reconceptualised and given a different meaning when re-contextualised in the national arena.

This guide accompanies the following article: Roman, H., Sundberg, D., Hirsh,A., Forsberg, E. &Nilholm, C. Mapping and analysing reviews of research on teaching, 1980–2018, in Web ofScience: An overview of a second-order research topography, Review of Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3258

A third level of educational research is emerging, in addition to original research and secondary‐level reviews. Whereas most third‐level research syntheses focus on rather restricted topical areas, this study introduces a comparative and integrative overview of prominent second‐order research on teaching, including many different types of reviews and aspects of teaching. The purpose of the study is to illuminate patterns in a second‐order research topography in the widespread and multi‐faceted field of research on teaching from 1980 to the present, in order to discuss its implications for research and review‐making. The overview encompasses 75 most‐cited reviews of research on teaching published in international, refereed journals from 1980 to 2018 in the Web of Science. The overview utilised a specific coding procedure covering methodology, review topics and context. The study shows that several research traditions have contributed to advances in the research on teaching over time. Reviews have become more formalised, but the distribution of different types of review formats and research traditions is relatively constant. The single most established review format is meta‐analysis, but it is less dominant than might be expected in an era of evidence‐based education. The reviewers mainly belong to educational psychology, applied linguistics/research on language teaching, or research on science teaching. Whereas most reviews of research on science teaching are qualitative, reviews performed by psychologists and language‐education researchers are mainly quantitative or based on mixed methods as a way to rationally and cumulatively summarise and downsize unmanageable amounts of research.

This chapter adress the question of knowledge in curricula and introduces theories, concepts and research on how different orientations of the view of knowledge and their respective foundations in different traditions, have consequences for the school's knowledge content and the organisation of teaching in schools. Drawing on research on how the view of knowledge can be related to different curriculum models over time and to how different countries today relate to different forms of knowledge in their curricula, for example knowledge and generic competences (such as 21st century skills), with exmples from case of Sweden. Three dimensions structure the chapter, the institutional, the programmatic and the textual curriculum. Conclusions are drawn concerning how current changes as emerging societal challenges re-configure the content and structures of knowledge in curricula and teacing practices. 

Curriculum Coherence: Exploring the Intended and Enacted Curriculum

In recent decades, curricula have held a central place in European and national education policy. Not least, the curricula have become targets for politicians’ ambitions to improve the goal attainment and results of education systems and schools. Internationally, a policy movement has emerged around standard- and result-focused curriculum constructions with the intention of driving the quality development of school activities and teaching towards accordance with available international and national outcome measures and quality indicators (Desimone, 2013; Honig & Hatch 2004; Sundberg & Wahlström, 2012). In this type of curriculum construction, emphasis is placed on clear knowledge requirements (‘standards’) that can be evaluated at individual, classroom, school and national levels. International agenda-setters, such as the OECD and the EU, have gained increased influence in national curriculum discourses on the structure, focus and content of curricula (Karseth & Sivesind, 2010). However, a number of research studies have indicated that standard-based curriculum constructions are designed according to a linear top-down model with centrally prescribed and specified knowledge requirements that are rarely applied locally in accordance with the intentions. A number of national, cultural/pedagogical and political traditions and systems, as well as local conditions, affect how the curricula are understood, interpreted and translated into different teaching practices that also accommodate tensions different  knowledge views and ideologies (Bernstein, 2000; Buchman & Floden, 1992; Sundberg & Wahlström, 2012, 2018).

The idea of policy alignment has become a guiding principle for policymakers around the world in the last decades in order to overcome the gaps between policy and practice. If a new education policy (e.g., curriculum emphasis on the development of competencies) contradicts another newly introduced policy or an existing policy, the implementation of the new policy will encounter serious setbacks. In this paper, curriculum coherence, as an example of policy alignment, are examined and analysed while exploring the interplay between the intended and the locally enacted curriculum. Two general models and types of definitions are identified, theoretically discussed and empirically explored regarding how they are played out in different teaching practices. The first is a coordinative approach in which curriculum reforms are driven by formal standardisation. Curriculum coherence is foremost about linking learning materials, teacher preparation, monitoring and supervision, etc. to national curricula, which in turn, promotes some registers of teachers teaching repertoires. The second, in contrast, is related to how goals, content and knowledge requirements and assessment are consistent across the intended and the enacted curricula, that is, substantial consistency. Curriculum coherence concerns, from this perspective, how various institutionalized background ideas and assumptions about knowledge, learning and assessment are linked to the intended curricula. 

In the paper, the two main approaches to curriculum coherence are explored and investigated with the Swedish standards-based curriculum reform as an example. The Swedish curriculum follows in several aspects the transnational and European policy trend focusing on uniform and specified standards and knowledge requirements in the curriculum in order to obtain measurable results, performance and performance indicators (Wahlström & Sundberg, 2018). The design also tries to achieve a strong linking of the various elements in the curriculum chain: selection of content, organisation and assessment. This means that the standards are clearly adapted to the grading criteria (Sundberg & Wahlström, 2012). The overall purpose of the paper is to conceptually and empirically investigate the concept of curriculum coherence, its potential explanatory values as well as potential pitfalls and shortcomings in empirical curriculum research. The guiding research question is: What versions and definitions of curriculum coherence are found in recent international curriculum research literature and how does it relate to different curriculum patterns in the locally enacted curriculum in schools and classrooms. 

Methods

The completed study was based on empirical material from four case schools and is included within the framework of the research project, Exploring the Elusive Teaching Gap— Equity and Knowledge Segregation in Teaching Processes (Swedish Research Council, 2018‒2022). The selection of schools was based on variation in terms of high- and low-performing schools (5-year criteria based on average of merit values applied). The selection of case schools also included some variation regarding urban and rural areas with differences in socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds in the student composition (Wahlström, 2019).

The empirical material consists of video observations of lessons, a total of 16 at each school spread over a school year (n = 64). The observations thus follow a class and the teaching of Swedish and natural science in Year 8. The data collection period was a school year so as to capture a longer series of lessons. The main unit of analysis consisted of various themes (cf. ‘curriculum tasks’), which represent a longer sequence of lessons that are combined with the same content theme. Within each theme, the lessons at the beginning, middle and end are analysed as different categories, as previous classroom research has shown that the communication pattern and student and teacher activities change depending on which phase of the task they are actually in (Wahlström & Sundberg, 2018). Based on the prescribed content of the curriculum/syllabus, teachers write themes and curriculum assignments that usually transcend individual subjects and extend over a specific period of time (e.g., electricity, heat in natural science, poetry, news, facts and fiction in Swedish). Teachers’ curriculum decisions regarding the planning, implementation and evaluation of these themes are important because they indicate the teachers’ curriculum agency in relation to various aspects of the curriculum framework, framework factors, professional experience, student needs, etc. In addition to video observations, ‘stimulated recall’ interviews with teachers and with focus groups of students were used, usually every other time after lessons were filmed (n = 37). The classroom studies have also been accompanied by data collection about each school, including curriculum documents such as guidelines, schedules, work plans, planning, tests, follow-ups, etc. at the school level (n = 35) and ended with an interview with the principals (n = 4) in order to follow up how a national curriculum is adopted and translated into classroom instruction at different local conditions.

Conclusions

Previous research has suggested that curriculum coherence in the implemented and taught curriculum can be an important aspect to study in order to understand differences in goal attainment in schools and achievements between schools and classes (Oates, 2010; Newman et al 2001; Sullanmaa et al 2019). The analyses show that three different analytical levels appear central in exploring curriculum coherence. First-order curriculum coherence is about teaching in the classroom. It means that the teaching connects classroom activities to the students’ lives and that teaching and evaluation correspond to the goals in an understandable way for teachers and students, that there is a real connection between the intended curriculum, overall goals, content, assessment and the teaching students encounter. 

Second-order curriculum coherence concerns the consistency between the local school’s goals and pedagogy and what happens in the classrooms. Research has shown the importance of the local enactment and understandings among professionals in translating the intended curricula into practical pedagogy and teaching practices (Tikkanen et. al., 2019). Curriculum coherence here means that the school’s pedagogical ideas (local curriculum) and classroom activities are connected in a deliberate way, that is, not only coordinated but also interpreted, discussed and implemented collectively and collegially. This means that it should be able to identify and trace the central ideas in various lesson plans, course plans, themes, tests and examinations, etc.; that is, that the school’s collective work with the curriculum has a real impact on teachers and their teaching. 

Finally, third-order curriculum coherence means that there is a coherence in the chain of decision-making from the practical teaching classroom context to school and principal levels to district and national levels setting conditions for the enactment of the curriculum. General conclusions on the results of the study are discussed and related to European and international curriculum research. 

References

Buchmann, M., & Floden, R. E. (1992). Coherence, the Rebel Angel. Educational Researcher, 21(9), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X021009004

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research, critique. (Rev. ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Desimone, L. (2013). Teacher and administrator responses to standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–53. 

Honig, M. I., Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16‒30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008016

Karseth, B., & Sivesind, K. (2010), Conceptualising curriculum knowledge within and beyond the national context. European Journal of Education, 45, 103‒120. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2009.01418.x

Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297‒321, https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023004297

Oates, T. (2010). Could do better: Using international comparisons to refine the National Curriculum in England. Cambridge Assessment. University of Cambridge, Local Examinations Syndicate.

Sullanmaa, J., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J. & Soini, T. (2019). Curriculum coherence as perceived by district-level stakeholders in large-scale national curriculum reform in Finland, The Curriculum Journal, 30(3), 244‒263. doi:10.1080/09585176.2019.1607512 

Sundberg, D. & Wahlström, N. (2012). Standards-based curricula in a denationalised conception of education—The case of Sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 342‒356. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2012.11.3.342

Tikkanen, L., Pyhältö, K., Pietarinen, J., & Soini, T. (2019). Lessons learnt from a large-scale curriculum reform: The strategies to enhance development work and reduce reform-related stress. Journal of Educational Change, 51(21), 543–567. doi: 10.1007/s10833-019-09363-1

Wahlström, N. & Sundberg, D. (eds.) (2018). Transnational curriculum standards and classroom practices: the new meaning of teaching. Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Wahlström, N. (Ed.). (2019).  Classroom research—Methodology, categories and coding. Linneaus University Press. diva2:1361576

This chapter provides a critical examination of curriculum coherence as a policy idea, with examples from different classroom contexts. Curriculum coherence has been considered a major driver of standardisation in education and a lever for improved knowledge achievements in terms of international large-scale testing in education. A core assumption has been that a strengthened coupling of curriculum elements – goals, content, assessment criteria, textbooks, teachers’ professional development and so forth – according to set standards will improve goal attainment and student performance. A second core assumption has been that clear, precise and detailed achievement standards will benefit equality and equity and have a levelling effect on differences in student achievement in high- versus low-performing schools. However, as will be shown in this chapter, these assumptions ignore some critical factors identified from educational research, as well as basic sociopolitical conditions for curriculum enactment in different schools and classrooms. The chapter discusses crucial aspects for achieving curriculum coherence and ends with a discussion on the concept and its potential and pitfalls in addressing the challenges of the elusive teaching gap and the increasing knowledge segregation in policy-making and teaching practices.

To understand and explain the new meanings of teaching, with all its varied expressions, the focus needs to be directed towards communication about and between different arenas. Education involves relations in large as well as small contexts. Teachers cannot be expected to create meaningful relations between students and school content alone. Schooling is embedded in larger societal narratives of the benefits and purposes of schooling, both for the individual and for society as a whole, which is the reason it is important to explore the meaning and consequences of educational reforms. All educational reforms carry a specific discourse on education that explains the ways education and its current and future prospects are understood at a certain time and in certain spaces. By studying a specific reform, it is possible to examine the types of expressions the reform content contains for different arenas as well as the affinity involved in relation to other contemporary educational policy movements.

For more than sixty years, curriculum theory has been a central part of pedagogy, Didaktik and educators’ professional work, providing concepts and perspectives that elucidate and connect theory, practice and teachers’ proven experiences in teaching and schooling in the Nordic countries. Pressing challenges raised by issues of world health, climate and environmental sustainability, democracy and welfare, cultural and individual diversity, digitalisation, and new circuits of information flow in academia and society address foundational curriculum questions, such as what to teach, how and why, and call for new research approaches. 

The potential of powerful curriculum theorising to inform and improve education policy and practice – between hope and happening – is still, to a large extent, remains underexploited. Aiming to explore these issues and challenges in greater depth the presentation examine what might constitute ‘powerful’ curriculum theorising, that is, not only commenting on but critically and constructively engaging in and exploring forms of inquiry that can contribute to the advancement of Nordic education in times when pressing challenges are faced.