This
is an original comparative study of curriculum reform policy in upper secondary
education in Ireland and Norway, in the subject areas of physics, chemistry,
biology and mathematics, in one academic programme. The study explores macro
policy as presented in official documentation over a forty five year period,
from 1960 to 2005, and offers an illuminative evaluation of this rhetoric of reform as it
undergoes adaptation in ten case study schools, five in each country, in the
academic year 2003-2004. The study viewed the Republic of Ireland as the main domain and the Kingdom of Norway
as the minor domain. It explores reform policy in each subject area and
compares, contrasts, analyses and evaluates policy enactment inside the
schoool, from the persepctive of school leaders and teachers.
The
research is premised on the interconnectivity between curriculum reform,
teacher development and school development (Per Dalin et al, 1993; Nieveen et
al, 2005; Callan, 2006). It is scaffolded throughout by O'Buachalla's(1988)
framework of access, process and structure including sociological frameworks provided by Bowe, Ball and Gold (1992), Broadhead (2002) and Mc Loughlin (2004) to analyse the findings. Research methods included both quantitative and
qualitative methods and involved a triangulation of data and perspective using document
searches, field-notes, questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and the reflexive writings of the author. Findings from the study show the political nature of the education policy process and refute the claim that policy making is linear, objective, rational and empirical.
The
findings at national level indicated that both countries were recommending that
science subjects be taught experimentally. In Ireland reforms had moved science
from abstract de-contextualised subjects to an emphasis on mandatory student
experiments, science, technology and society, the use of datalogging to assist the
interpretation of experimental results and a range of teaching methodologies.
Support for inservice science teachers in Ireland waxed and waned from an
intensive four-year support network to a much diminished service thereafter.
The cornerstone of reforms in Norway involved the development of the teacher
and student as planning partners, the need to develop capacities for
self-directed learning and differentiated teaching. Mathematics in Norway, in
the early years of this century, was presented using a constructivist
perspective with ICT enhanced learning. However mathematics in Ireland, at
higher and ordinary levels in senior cycle, did not change in the period from
1992 to 2005 and there was no state-mandated support service for teachers. Both
countries offered two versions of their science and mathematics programmes, one
more theoretical than the other. In Norway these were offered as one year
certifiable programmes while in Ireland they were offered alongside one another
as two year programmes. Both countries differed considerably in their approach
to school-based assessment, teacher collaboration, structures to support
curriculum reforms and their policy approach to halting the decline in interest
in the physical sciences and mathematics.
There
was evidence of mutual adaptation of reforms in both countries. While both sets
of teachers claimed to be traditional there was evidence of collaborative
teacher planning, a wide range of teaching methods and school-based assessment
in Norway. Only a small number of teachers were using data logging with the
majority not convinced of it’s pedagogical value. Access to science and
mathematics programmes varied with guidance counsellors, in Ireland, not
supportive of specialisation. In Ireland ordinary level in the science subjects
was only considered as a fall-back position rather than a course of study in its own right. Structures, resources and facilities, differed enormously
between both countries with teachers in Norway having far superior facilities
and access to ongoing budgets for teaching science and mathematics. Teacher
qualifications differed between countries with fewer teachers in Ireland
having higher degrees. The school was perceived as the site of educational
change in both countries and teachers were expected to critically evaluate
their work. While there was some evidence of evaluation in pilot projects in
mathematics in Norway there was little or no evidence, in either country, of a process of
systematic evaluation, either by an individual teacher or department.
This
policy research expands the conceptual understanding of the policy process and
adds to the existing knowledge base in this regard. Six recommendations were made including the suggestion that Ireland needed two
national research and development centres, one for science and one for
mathematics, to increase the MST and digital competence of the in-career science and mathematics teaching force. Similar to Norway, Ireland
needs to seriously engage with researching and developing a variety of ways of
eliciting learning and critical thinking from students in preference to filling students with
disconnected pieces of information.