Advertisement

THE RELEVANCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF PISA SCIENCE IN A DANISH CONTEXT

  • Jens DolinEmail author
  • Lars Brian Krogh
Article

Abstract

This article reports a case study that described and analyzed the changes in the Danish school culture induced and encouraged by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results. The educational policy and reforms that were temporally connected with the publication of the PISA 2000 results are outlined and the related socioeconomic and sociopolitical influences are explicated. Furthermore, we investigated to what degree the PISA science assessment framework and test system were in accordance with the Danish educational goals in science in order to discuss the relevance of PISA as a catalyst for the educational actions taken. The results of our inquiry revealed areas of good correspondence and fundamental differences related to values underlying the Danish school system and PISA, respectively (e.g., Bildung orientation versus cognitive skills/competency orientation, different learning/assessment paradigms). We argue that such differences are crucial when considering curricular relevance, validity, and the use of PISA as an agent of change on the national level.

Key words

assessment Bildung Danish context PISA test validity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aarsland, L., Danielsen, A. B., & Winther, A. (2004a, December 7). PISA-rapporten: Ny nedtur for folkeskolen [PISA report says: Folkeskolen fails, once again]. Politiken, p. 2.Google Scholar
  2. Aarsland, L., Danielsen, A. B., & Winther, A. (2004b, December 7). PISA-rapporten: Test skal give resultater [PISA report: Test will improve results]. Politiken, p. 3.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, A. M., Egelund, N., Jensen, T. P., Krone, M., Lindenskov, L., & Mejding, J. (2001). Forventninger og færdigheder—danske unge i en international sammenligning [The Danish PISA 2000 report]. Copenhagen, Denmark: AKF, DPU og SFI-Survey.Google Scholar
  4. Andersen, N. O., Busch, H., Horst, S., Andersen, A. M., Dalgaard, I., Dragsted, S., et al. (2006). Fremtidens Naturfag i Folkeskole—rapport fra udvalget til forberedelse af en handlingsplan for naturfagene i folkeskolen [Future science education of the Folkeskole—Report from the committee preparing an action plan for science in the Folkeskole]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  5. Arbejdsgruppen til forberedelse af en national strategi for Natur, Teknik og Sundhed [Working group to prepare a national strategy for nature, technology, and health education] (2008). Et fælles løft [Raising standards by joint action]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  6. ArbejdsMarkedsPolitisk Agenda [Agenda for labour market policy] (2005). Vol. 5. Retrieved from http://arkivwww.da.dk/nyhed/agenda/frontpageagenda/2005/2005-5/index.htm.
  7. Baxter, G. P., Shavelson, R. J., Goldman, S. R., & Pine, J. (1992). Evaluation of procedure-based scoring for hands-on science assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. Bindslev, M. W. (2004, December 7). Danske elever er middelmådige [The mediocre performance of Danish students]. Kristeligt Dagblad, p. 1.Google Scholar
  10. Brøndum, L. (2004, December 16). Lærere tester allerede på livet løs [Teachers are already testing a lot]. Vejle Amts Folkeblad, p. 1.Google Scholar
  11. Brøndum, L., & Fliess, M. K. (2007). Analyse af skolestrukturen I Vestbyen [Analysis of school structure in city west]. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus Kommune.Google Scholar
  12. Commission of the European Communities (2009). Key competencies for a changing world—Draft 2010 joint progress report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the “Education & Training 2010 work programme”. COM(2009)640 final. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  13. DevoTeam Consulting (2007). De nationale it-baserede test i folkeskolen—rapport fra review-panelet [The national ICT-based tests in the Folkeskole—Report from the review-panel]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Skolestyrelsen.Google Scholar
  14. Dolin, J. (2006). Dannelse, kompetence og kernefaglighed [Bildung, competence, and subject matter knowledge]. In E. Damberg, J. Dolin, & G. H. Ingerslev (Eds.), Gymnasiepædagogik (pp. 58–78). Copenhagen, Denmark: Hans Reitzel.Google Scholar
  15. Dolin, J., Busch, H., & Krogh, L. B. (2006). En sammenlignende analyse af PISA2006 science testens grundlag og de danske målkategorier i naturfagene [A comparative analysis of PISA 2006 science and the Danish Common Goals]. Første delrapport fra VAP-projektet. Odense, Denmark: IFPR/Syddansk Universitet (In Danish with English summary).Google Scholar
  16. Dolin, J., & Krogh, L. B. (2008). Den naturfaglige evalueringskultur i folkeskolen—Anden delrapport fra VAP-projektet (Validering af PISA) [Culture of evaluation in the Folkeskole—2nd report from validation of PISA-project]. (Rep. No. 2008-17, ISSN: 1602-2149). Copenhagen, Denmark: Institut for Naturfagenes Didaktik, IND, KU.Google Scholar
  17. Dolin, J., Krogh, L. B., & Troelsen, R. (2003). En kompetencebeskrivelse af naturfagene [A competence based description of the science subjects]. In H. Busch, S. Horst, & R. Troelsen (Eds.), Inspiration til fremtidens naturfaglige uddannelser (pp. 59–140). Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  18. Dragsted, S. (2003). Naturfagene i folkeskolen [The science subjects in the Folkeskole]. I: Arbejdsgruppen bag Fremtidens Naturfaglige Uddannelser: Notater til Fremtidens Naturfaglige Uddannelser [The working-group for future science education: Notes for future science education]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Egelund, N. (2002a). Fysik/kemilæreres syn på deres undervisningssituation i danske skoler [The view of physics/chemistry teachers on their teaching conditions in the Folkeskole]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitet.Google Scholar
  20. Egelund, N. (2002b). Naturfag og den sociale arv [School science and the social heritage]. Aktuel Naturvidenskab, 3, 38–39.Google Scholar
  21. Egelund, N. (2005). Educational assessment in Danish schools. Assessment in Education, 12(2), 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Egelund, N. (2007). PISA 2006—danske unge i en international sammenligning [The Danish PISA 2006 report]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  23. Finansministeriet [Ministry of Finance] (1998). Kvalitet i Uddannelsessystemet [Quality in the educational system]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.Google Scholar
  24. Folkeskoleloven [The Act on the Folkeskole] (2000). LBK nr. 730 af 21/07/2000.Google Scholar
  25. Folkeskoleloven [The Act on the Folkeskole] (2006). LBK nr. 572 af 09/06/2006.Google Scholar
  26. Folkeskoleloven [The Act on the Folkeskole] (2009). LBK nr. 593 af 24/06/2009.Google Scholar
  27. Gipps, C. (1999). Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24, 355–392.Google Scholar
  28. Haue, H. (2007). The Danish tradition of Dannelse. Didactics of history. Five lectures, 65, 37–56. Odense, Denmark: IFPR/Syddansk Universitet.Google Scholar
  29. Helgøy, I., Homme, A., & Gewirtz, S. (Eds.). (2007). Local autonomy or state control? Exploring the effects of new forms of regulation in education [Special Issue]. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3).Google Scholar
  30. Hermann, S. (2003). Et diagnostisk landkort over kompetenceudvikling og læring [A diagnostic map of competence development and learning]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Learning Lab Denmark.Google Scholar
  31. Hvid, J., & Johansen, M. (2007, March 13). Tænketank—små skoler er bedst [Think tank: Smaller schools are better]. Jyllandsposten Aarhus, p. 4.Google Scholar
  32. Lau, K. (2009). A critical examination of PISA’s assessment on scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1061–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mejding, J. (2004). PISA 2003—Danske unge i en international sammenligning [The Danish PISA 2003 report]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitets Forlag.Google Scholar
  34. Monday Morning (2009). The Danish secret: How Denmark became one of the most competitive nations in the world. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.Google Scholar
  35. Olsen, J. V. (2004, June 18). Smid ikke barnet ud [Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water]. Folkeskolen. Retrieved from http://www.folkeskolen.dk/ObjectShow.aspx?ObjectId=30609.
  36. Olsen, L. R. (2002a, August 4). Folkeskolen: huller i uvidenheden [The Folkeskole: Holes in the ignorance]. Jyllandsposten, p. 3.Google Scholar
  37. Olsen, L. R. (2002b, August 21). Folkeskolen: Dansk Industri kræver reform af naturfag [The Folkeskole: Confederation of Danish industry demands reform of science education]. Jyllandsposten, part 1, p. 10.Google Scholar
  38. Olsen, R. V., Kjærnsli, M., & Lie, S. (2007, August). A comparison of the measures of science achievement in PISA and TIMSS. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the European Science Education Research Association, Malmø, Sweden.Google Scholar
  39. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world—First results from PISA 2003. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  40. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  41. Phillips, D., & Schweisfurth, M. (2008). Comparative and international education. An introduction to theory, method, and practice. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  42. Sjøberg, S. (2007). PISA and “real life challenges”: Mission impossible? In S. T. Hopmann, G. Brinek, & M. Retzl (Eds.), PISA zufolge PISA—PISA according to PISA (pp. 203–224). Vienna: Lit. Verlag.Google Scholar
  43. Statsministeriet [Prime Minister’s Office] (2001). Regeringsgrundlag 2001: Vækst, Velfærd—fornyelse [Government basis 2001: Growth, Welfare—Renewal]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.Google Scholar
  44. Tamir, P. (1998). Assessment and evaluation in science education: Opportunities to learn and outcomes. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 761–789). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  45. Thorup, M.-L. (2005). I want the whole world to be Danish. Information, March 20, p. 6.Google Scholar
  46. Tørnæs, U. (2001, December 4). Danske elever er for dårlige [Danish students are too bad] (Press release). Copenhagen: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.uvm.dk.
  47. Tørnæs, U. (2004). Danske PISA-resultater skaber behov for øget indsats [Danish PISA results call for intensified action] (Press release). Copenhagen: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.uvm.dk.
  48. Undervisningsministeriet [Ministry of Education] (2004). Fælles Mål. Faghæfte 15 Biologi [Common goals. Subject booklet 15. Biology]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.Google Scholar
  49. Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Salganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies. Bern, Switzerland: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  50. Weng, P., & Hoff, A. (1999). Evaluering i matematik og naturvidenskabelige fag i folkeskolen—på grundlag af praktiske opgaver [Assessment in mathematics and science in the Folkeskole—Based on practical performance]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut.Google Scholar
  51. Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: What might Didaktik teach curriculum? In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 15–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Winther-Jensen, T. (2004). Komparativ pædagogik—faglig tradition og global udfordring [Comparative pedagogy—Disciplinary tradition and global challenge]. Copenhagen, Denmark: Akademisk.Google Scholar
  53. World Economic Forum (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009). The global competitiveness report 2009–2010, 2008–2009, 2007–2008, 2006–2007, 2005–2006. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  54. World Education Forum (2000). The Dakar framework for action. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science EducationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Center for Science EducationUniversity of AarhusAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations