Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Return to Bildung in the Shape of Learning Outcomes

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Curriculum Theory and Research

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

Abstract

Education policy development internationally as well as in Norway has come to reflect a widespread expansion of learning outcome orientation in policy, curricula, and assessment. For instance, this can be seen in recent research showing that curriculum reforms worldwide seem to follow common general ideas emphasizing learning outcomes and assessment (Meyer, School knowledge in comparative and historical perspective: changing curricula in primary and secondary education. Springer, Dordrecht, 2007). However, institutional differences and distinctive national cultures result in varying frames of reference in the field of curriculum making. In this chapter, I will follow how contemporary Norwegian curriculum making takes place in between these two traditions – in between the Bildung tradition and the inflow of more outcome-oriented ideas on curriculum and assessment. It becomes evident that some of the language in the current curriculum reform is connected to a more output-oriented curriculum. This is evident in the description of competence aims for the different levels of compulsory education. Thus, the curriculum documents have explicit “language” from outcome-oriented education with these aims. In a way, these aims can be interpreted as important historically when it comes to how Didaktik and Bildung have been perceived within the Norwegian context. These are more broader scopes of the results of education than specific detailed skills that often are related to an outcome-oriented curriculum. Therefore, one might argue that the Norwegian curriculum has found a way to keep Bildung and Didaktik within an outcome-oriented reform.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aasen, P., Møller, J., Rye, E., Ottesen, E., Prøitz, T. S., & Hertzberg, F. (2012). Kunnskapsløftet som styringsreform – Et løft eller et løfte? Forvaltningsnivåenes og institusjonenes rolle i implementeringen av reformen [The knowledge promotion as governing reform – A boost or a promise? Administrative levels and the role of the institutions in the implementation of the reform]. Nordisk Institutt for Studier av Innovasjon, Forskning og Utdanning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrich, D. (2002). A framework relating outcomes based education and the taxonomy of educational objectives. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 28, 35–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åvik, T. (1988). Hva er lokalt læreplanarbeid, og hvorfor blir dette ansett som så viktig i vår tid? [What is local curriculum work, and why is it important in our time?]. In F. D. Raaen & T. Ålvik (Eds.), Håndbok i lokalt læreplanarbeid (pp. 9–26). Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630930130203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benavot, A. (2002). A critical analysis of comparative research. Prospects, 32(1), 51–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G., & Priestley, M. (2013). A curriculum for the twenty-first century? In M. Priestley & G. Biesta (Eds.), Reinventing the curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice (pp. 229–236). Bloomsbury Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., & Bell, R. C. (2011). Research methods in education. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E. L., Engelsen, B. U., & Karseth, B. (2011). Kunnskapsløftets intensjoner, forutsetninger og operasjonaliseringer: En analyse av en læreplanform [The knowledge promotions intentions, preconditions and operationalizations: An analysis of a curriculum reform]. Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt, Universitetet i Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Det kongelige kirke- utdsannings- og forskningsdepartement. (1996). Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen. Nasjonalt læremiddelsenter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelsen, B. U. (2008). Kunnskapsløftet sentrale styringssignaler og lokale strategidokumenter [The knowledge promotion’s central governing signals and local strategy documents]. Universitet i Oslo, Pedagogisk forskningsinsitutt. http://www.udir.no/Upload/Rapporter/EvaKL/5/Delrapport1_reformens_forutsetninger.pdf?epslanguage=no

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelsen, B. U., & Karseth, B. (2007). Læreplan for Kunnskapsløftet – Et endret kunnskapssyn? Norsk Pedagogisk Tidskrift, 91(5), 404–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerrard, J., & Farrell, L. (2013). Remaking the professional teacher: Authority and curriculum reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(5), 634–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.854410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granheim, M. (1990). Bakgrunnen for EMIL-prosjektet [Background for the EMIL-project]. In M. Granheim, U. P. Lundgren, & T. Tiller (Eds.), Utdanningskvalitet – Styrbar eller ustyrlig?: Om målstyring og kvalitetsvurdering av norsk skole (pp. 13–22). TANO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granheim, M., Lundgren, U. P., & Tiller, T. (1990). Utdanningskvalitet – Styrbar eller ustyrlig?: Om målstyring og kvalitetsvurdering av norsk skole. TANO. http://www.nb.no/utlevering/contentview.jsf?&urn=URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2010110808227

    Google Scholar 

  • Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802412669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grek, S. (2013). International organisations and the shared construction of policy ‘problems’: Problematisation and change in education governance in Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 9(3), 396–406. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2010.9.3.396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundem, B. B. (1993). Rise, development and changing conceptions of curriculum administration and curriculum guidelines in Norway: The national–local dilemma. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027930250304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gundem, B. B., & Hopmann, S. (Eds.). (1998a). Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue. P. Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundem, B. B., & Hopmann, S. (1998b). Introduction. Didaktick meets curriculum. In B. B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue (pp. 1–8). P. Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helgøy, I., & Homme, A. (2007). Towards a new professionalism in school? A comparative study of teacher autonomy in Norway and Sweden. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopmann, S. (1991). Retracing curriculum history: Curriculum administration as symbolic action. In B. B. Gundem, B. U. Engelsen, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Curriculum work and curriculum content: Theory and practice: Contemporary and historical perspectives: Conference papers: University of Oslo, Institute for Educational Research, 10–12 October 1990 (Vol. 5/91, pp. 49–98). Institute for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopmann, S. (2003). On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(4), 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270305520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopmann, S. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270801989818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (2000). Introduction. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice. The German didaktik tradition (pp. 3–11). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, C. (2010). Transforming the educative state in Noric countries? In A. P. Jakobi, K. Martens, & K. D. Wolf (Eds.), Education in political science. Discovering a neglected field (pp. 56–70). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutmacher, W. (2002). Some concluding remarks. Changing perspective. In M. Rosenmund, A.-V. Fries, & W. Heller (Eds.), Comparing curriculum-making processes (pp. 333–350). P. Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, D. (2005). Importance and impotence? Learning, outcomes and research in further education. The Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517042000336827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kansanen, P. (1995). The Deutsche didaktik. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(4), 347–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027950270401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karseth, B., & Sivesind, K. (2010). Conceptualizing curriculum knowledge within and beyond the national context. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellaghan, T., & Greaney, V. (2001). Using assessment to improve the quality of education. Unesco, International Institute for Educational Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Künzli, R. (1998). The common frame and the places of didaktik. In B. B. Gundem (Ed.), Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue (pp. 29–45). P. Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Künzli, R. (2000). German didaktik: Models of re-presentation, of intercourse, and experience. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German didaktik tradition (pp. 41–57). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Künzli, R. (2002). Curriculum policy in Switzerland. In M. Rosenmund, A.-V. Fries, & W. Heller (Eds.), Comparing curriculum-making processes (pp. 213–230). Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennert Da Silva, A. L., & Mølstad, C. E. (2020). Teacher autonomy and teacher agency: A comparative study in Brazilian and Norwegian lower secondary education. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.3

  • Lennert Da Silva, A. L., & Parish, K. (2020). National curriculum policy in Norway and Brazil: Translations of the global accountability logic. https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3

  • Lundgren, U. P. (1990). OECD-rapporten – En bakgrunn [The OECD report – A background]. In M. Granheim, U. P. Lundgren, & T. Tiller (Eds.), Utdanningskvalitet – Styrbar eller ustyrlig?: Om målstyring og kvalitetsvurdering av norsk skole (pp. 25–46). Tano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mausethagen, S. (2013a). Governance through concepts: The OECD and the construction of “competence” in Norwegian education policy. Berkeley Review of Education, 4(1). http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/8db1z97g

  • Mausethagen, S. (2013b). Reshaping teacher professionalism. An analysis of how teachers construct and negotiate professionalism under increasing accountability. Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. (2007). World models, national curricula, and the centrality of the individual. In A. Benavot & C. Braslavsky (Eds.), School knowledge in comparative and historical perspective: Changing curricula in primary and secondary education (pp. 259–271). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mølstad, C. E. (2015). State-based curriculum-making – A study of curriculum in Norway and Finland. University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mølstad, C. E. (2019). Teacher-chameleons: The glue in the alignment of teacher practices and learning in policy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1504120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mølstad, C. E., & Karseth, B. (2016). National curricula in Norway and Finland: The role of learning outcomes. European Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mølstad, C. E., Prøitz, T. S., & Dieudè, A. (2020). When assessment defines the content—Understanding goals in between teachers and policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.74

  • Pettersson, D. (2008). Internationell kunskapsbedömning som inslag i nationell styrning av skolan. Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum. An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prøitz, T. S. (2014). Learning outcomes as a key concept in policy documents throughout policy changes. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.904418

  • Prøitz, T. S., & Nordin, A. (2020). Learning outcomes in Scandinavian education through the lens of Elliot Eisner. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(5), 645–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prøitz, T. S., Hontvedt, M., Mølstad, C., & Silseth, K. (2016). Tracing learning outcomes across policy and practice. Poster presentation at the Norwegian research council annual conference 2016. Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language, action and interpretation (J. B. Thompson, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenmund, M., Fries, A.-V., & Heller, W. (2002). Comparing curriculum-making processes. P. Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, A. (2000). Curriculum: Construction and critique. Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029007004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (2007). Classroom assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurment. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivesind, K. (2008). Reformulating reform: Curriculum history revisited. Unipub forl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivesind, K. (2013). Mixed images and merging semantics in European curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.757807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skagen, K. (2006). Norsk allmenn-lærerutdannelse i forandring. In K. Skagen (Ed.), Læreruddannelsen i Norden (pp. 71–90). HøyskoleForlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Telhaug, A. O., Medias, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic model in education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830600743274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tveit, S. (2014). Educational assessment in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/069594X.2013.830079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2011). Publiserte rapporter fra evalueringen. http://www.udir.no/Tilstand/Evaluering-av-Kunnskapsloftet/Prosjektene-i-Evalueringen-av-Kunnskapsloftet/

  • Westbury, I. (1998). Didaktik and curriculum studies. In B. B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum: An international dialogue (pp. 47–77). Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: The German didaktik tradition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Hamar, Norway

    Christina Niemi Mølstad

Authors
  1. Christina Niemi Mølstad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Niemi Mølstad .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ontario Inst for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Peter Pericles Trifonas

  2. School of Early Childhood Studies, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Susan Jagger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Mølstad, C.N. (2023). The Return to Bildung in the Shape of Learning Outcomes. In: Trifonas, P.P., Jagger, S. (eds) Handbook of Curriculum Theory and Research. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82976-6_16-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82976-6_16-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-82976-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-82976-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation