Journal of Curriculum Studies

ISSN: 0022-0272 (Print) 1366-5839 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcus20

Teacher-chameleons: the glue in the alignment of

teacher practices and learning in policy

Christina Elde Mølstad & Tine S. Prøitz

To cite this article: Christina Elde Mølstad & Tine S. Prøitz (2019) Teacher-chameleons: the glue
in the alignment of teacher practices and learning in policy, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51:3,
403-419, DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2018.1504120

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1504120

Published online: 20 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 297

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcus20
JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES
2019, VOL. 51, NO. 3, 403–419
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1504120

Teacher-chameleons: the glue in the alignment of teacher

practices and learning in policy
a b
Christina Elde Mølstad and Tine S. Prøitz
a
Department of Social and Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education and Natural Sciences, Inland Norway
University of Applied Sciences – INN University, Hamar, Norway; bDepartment of Education Science, Faculty of
Humanities, Sports and Educational Science, University of Southeast, Borre, Norway

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article investigates how learning outcomes, a concept inspired Learning outcomes;
by an Anglo-Saxon curriculum approach, are expressed in policy curriculum; teacher;
documents, with an emphasis on expectations articulated to tea- teaching; education policy
chers. Developments in education policy for the last two decades
reflect a widespread expansion of learning outcome orientation in
curricula and assessment in most of the modern world. These devel-
opments have led to changes in how education is governed and
practised, and this makes it necessary to form critical concepts to
understand how curricula are formed and functioned today. The
research questions of the study are: How is learning outcome-
oriented policy defined in key policy documents and what are the
implications of these policies for the teaching profession? The topic
is investigated through a document content analysis of key policy
documents. A complex picture of teachers emerges in which they are
to be both controlled and autonomous. The study also identifies a
strong belief in ‘alignment between teachers’ competences and
practices and students’ life opportunities. The findings indicate that
the policies move back and forth between different parameters for
describing teachers and teaching, and as such, teachers must be able
to adapt as chameleons in the context of each policy.

Introduction
Developments in education policy for the last two decades reflect a widespread expansion of
learning outcome orientation in curricula and assessment in most of the modern world (Kellaghan
& Greaney, 2001a; Prøitz, 2014; Shepard, 2000, 2007). Parallel to and in consequence of these
developments, there have been substantial discussions on policy, research and practice concerning
the logic of learning outcomes and their roles in education and curricula as well as their implica-
tions for teaching and learning. As Stoller (2015, p. 317) highlights, ‘Over the last 20 years, the use
of definable and measurable learning outcomes has increasingly become a requirement for
justifying curriculum and pedagogical practices’. Learning outcomes are considered as a key
concept in a changing education policy landscape (Aasen et al., 2012; Fuller, 2009; Hargreaves &
Moore, 2000; Hopmann, 2008; Lassnigg, 2012; Lawn, 2011; Ozga, 2009; Shepard, 2000, 2007).
Researchers argue that developments focusing on outcomes have brought about a change in
perceptions of quality in education (Adam, 2004; Kellaghan & Greaney, 2001) as well as switching
the focus from input indicators to outcome indicators (Fuller, 2009). These developments have also

CONTACT Christina Elde Mølstad christina.molstad@inn.no Department of Social and Educational Sciences, Faculty of
Education and Natural Sciences, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences – INN University, Norway
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
404 C. E. MØLSTAD AND T. S. PRØITZ

led to changes in how education is governed and practised, and notably, this makes it necessary to
form critical concepts for understanding how curricula are formed and functioned today
(Lundgren, 2006).
Different approaches in state-based curriculum-making provide various policy conditions for
schools (Westbury, 2008). In Europe, a curriculum has traditionally been an input-based ideological
document. This approach implies governance and curriculum control through descriptions of the
content of the school subjects. Other forms of control involve the distribution of information, for
example guidance material from the government, for quality control (Hudson, 2007) and output
descriptions, with a high level of prescription in curriculum policies (Biesta, 2013; Priestley & Biesta,
2013). Within this framing, education policy and curriculum policy are presumed to carry with them
ways to conceptualize education that influence what teachers do and how they perceive themselves
(Ball, 2003). Due to recent developments in policy, curriculum and assessment, it is argued that the
scope of interpretation, action and evaluation of the teaching profession has thus been reformulated
and constricted by narrowing the autonomy of action for teachers through policy (Forsberg &
Pettersson, 2014; Young, 2009). More specifically, the curriculum through its aims, content and
evaluation is, as a policy document, used to structure the course education that takes and take into
account pedagogical interests to ensure an environment of high-quality learning for children (Karseth
& Sivesind, 2009; Lundgren, 2006). Gerrard and Farrell (2013) argued that when the national curriculum
is renegotiated, it is important to understand that teachers’ work is repositioned because the teachers’
professional autonomy is constrained and defined through the written curriculum documentation. This
repositioning of teachers’ work within the written curriculum affects how teachers understand their
work and their autonomy, as new curriculum reforms require new professional practices (Gerrard &
Farrell, 2013). Taking this argument even further, Au (2011) portrayed teachers’ autonomy as increas-
ingly reduced through policy and curriculum structures.
Over the years and within an international context, the concept of learning outcomes in
education has been studied and discussed from a wide range of perspectives (Allan, 1996; Burke,
1995; Eisner, 1979, 2005; Hargreaves & Moore, 2000; James & Brown, 2005; Lassnigg, 2012; Spady,
1988; Prøitz, 2014, 2015;). Even so, MacBeath and Moos (2009, p. 2) asserted that the intrinsic values
and purposes of outcomes have been insufficiently questioned and analysed. Hargreaves and
Moore (2000) called for the accumulation of more evidence on outcomes across different contexts
and within different policy orientations, with the goal of identifying degrees of central control over
the specification of outcomes. Furthermore, few studies have empirically investigated how learning
outcome-oriented policy is described in a broader selection of key policy documents with a specific
focus on teachers (Thomas, 2005).
This article focuses on the education policy development of Norway as an example. The
Norwegian case is of particular interest, as the Norwegian Government introduced learning out-
come-oriented education policies in the mid-2000s through the implementation of a loosely
defined national qualification framework in tertiary education and a national competency-based
curriculum in lower education. In both cases, the responsibility for transforming the chosen policy
into practice is given to the local school owners (municipalities/districts), school leaders and
teachers within a decentralized education system. As such, the Norwegian context is an interesting
example of the implementation of a new education policy inspired by an Anglo-Saxon approach,
which places considerable weight on the shoulders of the practitioners within a long tradition of
process-oriented learning (Prøitz, 2010). Today we see how teachers are often promoted in the
international policy arena (Mølstad, Pettersson, & Prøitz, in press) as the one essential factor in
student learning outcomes in general and how they are often also emphasized as crucial for equity
in education (OECD 20171).
The aim of this study is to present an analysis of what constitutes learning outcomes, observed in
policy developments directed at teachers and the teaching profession. Thus, this study emphasizes the
importance of language as the way we talk to shape the order of things. By giving attention to policy-
making, we can make claims of how teachers are conceptualized and portrayed. To guide the focus and
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 405

analysis of the study, the following research question has been posed: What constitutes learning
outcome-oriented policy in relation to teachers and teaching as defined in key policy documents, and
what are the implications of these policies for the teaching profession? Particularly, the study aims to
illuminate ‘. . .which policy problems and goals. . .are brought to the fore’ (Saarinen, 2008, p. 719) within
the setting of a rather recently introduced and developed learning outcome-oriented policy in education.

Theoretical framework
Conceptually, a national learning outcome-oriented policy expressed in the form of key policy
documents, curriculum documents and accompanying regulations and guidelines can be con-
sidered to have two functions. The first is as a set of policy instruments for the governance of
education, and the second is as a pedagogical platform for professional practice (Aasen et al.,
2015; Aasen, 2007). Learning outcome-oriented education systems have predominantly been
associated with anglophone countries with strong curriculum and assessment traditions. Today,
the learning outcome logic has spread to Nordic countries and Continental Europe, thus challen-
ging long-standing traditions there of stronger didactic and licensing approaches to education
(Hopmann, 2015; Sivesind, 2008). At an overall level, the development is a response to a
globalized world and an economy where production has changed, with both new technologies
and a society marked by heterogeneity in cultures and beliefs. These lead to changes in power
structures, which in turn influence how education is governed (Lundgren, 2006). A growing
demand for evidence in decision-making and a subsequent continuous need for assessment
and data are other factors driving the development of the knowledge society (Lundahl &
Waldow, 2009; Ozga, Dahler-Larsen, Segerholm, & Simola, 2011). In international as well as in
Norwegian education policy research, the recent developments form the basis for arguing that a
major shift is happening in education—going from a traditional and predominantly input
orientation towards a stronger results and outcomes orientation (Aasen et al., 2012; Shepard,
2000).
Embedded in the learning outcomes orientation is a strong belief in the alignment between
learning outcomes defined at higher system levels and locally developed learning outcomes as well
as the actual teaching, learning, assessment and results at system levels below (Spady, 1994). This
can also be seen reflected in how current international and national policy is highly oriented
towards governing education by defining learning outcomes in curriculum documents, accompa-
nied by various regulations and guidelines for classroom assessment and the use of large-scale
assessment and result controls to compare student learning outcomes (Martens, Nagel, Windzio, &
Weymann, 2010; Ozga et al., 2011). Several countries have introduced a relatively new set of public
management approaches in education emphasizing the combined power of performance mea-
surement, goal setting and accountability as a way of mobilizing teachers’ efforts and raising
student achievement (Fuller, 2008; Mintrop, 2012).
Curriculum reform is implemented in specific national contexts, and teachers are often con-
sidered highly important agents of curriculum reform as they realize and frame education policies
in the classrooms (Coburn, 2006). Locally, teachers’ work with the curriculum can be constructed
with space for various degrees of autonomy, based on how the national curriculum is designed.
Curriculum work can comprise activities for the further development of the national curriculum
(Dale, Engelsen, & Karseth, 2011), which presupposes that the local actors possess professional and
adequate curriculum language and models. The teachers’ local curriculum work can also concern
finding the ‘correct’ understanding of the prescribed curriculum (Dale et al., 2011), which provides
focus in delivering the national curriculum. Hence, the curriculum provides opportunities to
constrain and define teachers’ work (Gerrard & Farrell, 2013), and consequently, teachers them-
selves and their activities can be framed in different ways.
Within this framing, the analytical concept of teacher autonomy becomes highly relevant.
Teacher autonomy can be defined as the freedom and responsibility given to the teaching
406 C. E. MØLSTAD AND T. S. PRØITZ

Teachers as developers
Teachers as being
enlightened

Teachers’ Teachers’
work as work as
restricted extended

Teachers in need
of enlightenment
Teachers as deliverers

Figure 1. A constructed analytical map of teachers’ roles’.

profession to plan teaching based on professional decisions and justifications (Gerrard & Farrell,
2013; Scholl, 2012). As such, our analytical framework concerns teachers’ work and autonomy
based on three dimensions: (a) teachers as either deliverers or developers (Priestley, Robertson, &
Biesta, 2012); (b) teachers’ work being either restricted or extended (Mølstad, 2015); and (c)
teachers as being in need of enlightenment or as being enlightened (Mølstad et al., in press).
The three dimensions seen together form an analytical map illuminating the different dimensions
of how teachers can be portrayed conceptually, for example in policy documents, as in this study.
The map is constructed with three different lines for the placement of varied interpretations on
what ‘teachers’ are and thus how they should behave (Mølstad et al., in press) (Figure 1).
The analytical framework of this study is based on the understanding of the difference between
the Nordic and Continental European and the anglophone approaches to curriculum and assess-
ment within a learning outcome-oriented education policy and, for our discussion, the under-
standing of how the curriculum may form and constrain teachers’ work. This is combined with
analytical perspectives on how the teacher’s role can be perceived.

Method
This study draws on a comprehensive content analysis (Bowen, 2009; Cohen et al., 2011) of key
policy documents inspired by an education policy study of learning outcomes orientation in the
Norwegian national budget (Prøitz, 2014). Further, this current study builds directly on the findings
of a recent content analysis of key Norwegian policy documents (Prøitz & Mølstad, 2017) con-
ducted as part of the larger research project Tracing Learning outcomes across policy and practice
LOaPP (Prøitz, Hontvedt, Mølstad, & Silseth, 2016). In the following, details of their content analysis
relevant for this study are presented (for a full method description, see Prøitz & Mølstad, 2017).
The initial content analysis was a simple word count of a priori and theory-based categories and
concepts derived from research on the latest education reform period in Norway. This approach
enabled the development of an overview of a substantial number of documents in a systematic
fashion (Weber, 1990) and the identification of trends and patterns in the documents, allowing
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 407

inferences to be made that could then be corroborated using other methods of data collection as
well as further in-depth content analysis (Stemler & Bebell, 1998). This paper presents a further
corroboration of patterns identified in the overview content analysis based on the simple word
counts of Prøitz and Mølstad (2017).
The selected search concepts were derived from a substantial knowledge base of recent
research on Norwegian education policy developments (see for example Aasen et al. 2012;
Aasen, Prøitz & Rye, 2015; Mausethagen, 2013; Mausethagen & Smedby, 2015; Mausethagen &
Mølstad, 2015; Mølstad, 2015a; Mølstad & Karseth, 2016, 2015b; Prøitz, 2014; Tveit, 2014). Central
features of this knowledge base were its broad and extensive investigation into a range of aspects
and dimensions related to the latest Norwegian Knowledge Promotion reform introduced in 2006,
but also more recent developments of the reform period after 2010. The main characteristics of the
compulsory education reform were a move from a long tradition of content and process orienta-
tion towards a stronger result- and learning outcomes orientation (Prøitz, 2015). Concepts were
selected partly for being well-known thematic signifiers of recent education reforms, partly as
thematic signifiers of previous traditions and the old education system (opposites), and partly for
methodological reasons—for example to avoid the over- or underestimation of synonyms used for
stylistic reasons (Prøitz, 2015; Stemler & Bebell, 1998). Central concepts that were considered
characteristic for the shift in Norway were, for example: learning outcomes, competence, knowl-
edge, learning, result, goal, curriculum, assessment, evaluation, decentralization, locally and
accountability, and on the other hand, relevant concepts as opposites or competing concepts
were process, didactics, freedom, autonomy, bildung, critical reflection, centralization and govern-
ment, guidelines, regulation and inspection (for a full list of search concepts see Appendix 3).2
Following this line of thinking, the study took as its point of departure a range of concepts related
to an emergent leaning towards a stronger learning outcomes orientation in Norwegian education
policy over the last 15 years. The word count resulted in an overview of frequencies of concepts
used in the key policy documents (for frequencies of key concepts in the key policy documents see
Appendix 2). It also allowed for the identification of clusters of high-frequency words (more than
600 incidents), medium-frequency words (200–600 incidents), low-frequency words (less than 200
incidents) and the last category of words with no incidents. Another observation that could be
made from the word count were how the high-frequency words were so clearly separated from the
lower-frequency groups by having substantially higher frequencies (most were above 1000 inci-
dents and more), and as such how they stood out as definitional concepts and are thereby here
interpreted as policy-defining concepts. Among the highest-frequency words, with more than 600
incidents, six key concepts were identified: goal (1785), competency (1668), knowledge (1594),
learning (1250), development (1645) and support (989). Another central observation of high rele-
vance and the reason for this paper was how the topics of teachers, teaching and teachers’ work
were addressed with considerable frequency in relation to the identified policy-defining words.
This finding led to the choice to focus this paper on expressed policy expectations directed
towards teachers and teaching for further corroboration and analysis. It also forms the basis for
the primary focus of this paper on how learning outcome-oriented policies are defined in key
documents and the implications of this for the teaching profession.
In total, 14 of the most central governing documents for education in Norway, initiated or
produced by governments in office, were studied. These included national budgets, reports to
parliament, the education act, and regulations and selected documents from the national curricu-
lum. The study was conducted by undertaking the systematic word count of these key policy
documents. In total, the material covered about 2600 pages published from 2010 to 2016. The
choice of period for the focus of the study is defined by the characteristics of the national
knowledge base on the comprehensive national education reform starting in 2006 (the
Knowledge Promotion Reform). From 2005 until 2012, the implementation of the reform was
408 C. E. MØLSTAD AND T. S. PRØITZ

extensively documented by a national research-based evaluation programme. Overlapping this

period, on-going PhD and research projects investigating various aspects of the reform (learning
outcomes, education reform, teacher accountability and autonomy, assessment, school leadership)
have contributed to the development of a substantive knowledge base about the reform. As this
study leans on this prior research, a choice has been made to investigate the further developments
of the reform, taking 2010 as a point of departure; this period partly overlaps the time frame of the
national evaluation study and continues into 2016.
The in-depth content analysis presented in this article is thus based on a selection of six
documents from the total document corpus of Prøitz and Mølstad (2017) (two national budgets,
three reports to parliament and one Official Norwegian Report, see Appendix 1 for the list of
documents analysed). The selected documents can be considered representative of the types of
documents they are. For example, the word counts of the annual national budget reports show a
striking similarity in these documents’ use of words throughout the period studied.
Interpreting text using content analysis can be described as searching out underlying themes in
the material being analysed (Bryman, 2012). This analysis was conducted to investigate which
themes were covered most often and the way the words were used to illuminate these topics. We
systematically included extracts of texts related to the research question of the study connected to
compulsory schooling, focusing on teachers’ work for students’ learning, assessment and overall
perspectives on what education was expressly defined to be.
Criteria were developed to establish the relevance of sections of the policy documents, and
some extracts were, as a result, excluded: higher education, kindergarten, special education, adult
education, headlines, content lists, figure lists, references, research politics, minority topics, high
school and projects with specific geographical limitations. All extracts included in this article are
translated by the authors. The theoretical framework is established by Mølstad et al. (in press),
based on research conducted on both national curriculum and international policy documents. This
framework is selected based on the relevance for analysing curriculum, however there are also
limitations, that is the framework is not based on teachers’ perspectives of theme selves.

In-depth qualitative content analysis

The definitional policy concepts of the total document corpus (goal, knowledge, competence,
learning, development and support) guided the process of identifying extracts with a certain
emphasis on teachers and teachers’ work. The following presentation of the results of the quali-
tative in-depth content analysis, illustrated by examples of extracts, is structured by these concepts
and highlighted in relation to the analytical framework.

Goal: the national initiatives

On an overall level, goals are used to govern education, and the basic idea of learning outcome-
oriented education can be seen highlighted by the emphasis put on the importance of explicating
goals and expectations as in the Official National Report (2015): ‘Clear goals and expectations and
support from the national level are important to realizing school politics on a local level (p. 13)’. The
concept of a goal is in the national budget, mainly used to describe objectives for national
initiatives. This is seen in the following quote:
The overall goals for the national initiative Assessment for Learning (2010–2014) have been to develop an assessment
culture and a self-assessment practice with learning as the goal. (Report no. 1 to Parliament 2015–2016, p. 69)

As seen here, the word ‘goal’ is used to describe how national initiatives are established to enhance
students’ learning. In the government reports to parliament, goals primarily concern methods of
teaching for the purpose of ensuring that students reach defined learning outcomes, as seen in the
following quotes:
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 409

What was new was that the curriculum plans for the subject are constructed around goals concerning what
students should be able to achieve and master in certain grade levels, and that the district/local level has the
responsibility to decide which content, methods and assessment should best be used to enable the students
and trainees to reach those goals. (Government Report to the Parliament no. 28 (2015–2016), p. 69)

The Knowledge Promotion Reform builds on five basic principles for national governance of
compulsory education: clear national goals for education, knowledge concerning students’ learning
results, substantial local freedom, and good support and guidelines. The governing principles more
clearly emphasize governing by goals and results, and this should give school owners, schools and
teachers enhanced local leeway. (Government Report to the Parliament no. 20 (2012.2013), p. 20)
As seen here, the word ‘goals’ is applied first to indicate the governing of education but also to
imply that this provides enhanced leeway at the local level. At the same time, the word ‘goals’ is
also used to describe students’ learning outcomes, as seen here: ‘the school competences concern
the goals for students’ learning and development’ (Official National Report, 2015, p. 16). Further
documents describe how the students are to develop a certain level of self-assessment to reach
their goals. As such, the word ‘goal’ is used to describe how school owners and schools are to
develop an assessment culture that has learning outcomes as the object. At the same time, the
local level is stated to have responsibility for making decisions concerning content, methods and
assessment to ensure that the students reach their goals. One observation concerning the use of
‘goals’ is that the word is mostly used to describe governing, distribution of responsibility in the
education system and student learning while the goals in relation to the teacher are mostly
implicit, indicating that the teacher does not need goals, that is they are enlightened.

Knowledge: from society

On the overall level, the concept of knowledge is seen as important for the individual: ‘Knowledge
is the foundation of possibilities for the individual. . .’ (Report no. 1 to the Parliament 2014/15, p.
13). However, within the education system, the word ‘knowledge’ is first and foremost connected
to teachers’ knowledge concerning methods and to information regarding students’ learning to be
used by teachers to enhance students’ competences. In connection to this, we find that the role of
assessment is to provide knowledge for students’ learning and competences. This is evident in the
following quotes:
. . .It is the teachers’ responsibly to assess pupils’ progress in school subjects and whether their social wellbeing
is of a character that requires extra help and support. Although the individual teacher has an independent role
in education (opplæringen), education (opplæring) is also teamwork. (Government Report to the Parliament no.
20 (2012.2013), p. 158)

Here, we can see that the teachers have a collective responsibility and that assessment is to be
used in such a way that it ensures the students’ progress. Further, the concept of knowledge is
connected to an education with a focus on individuals’ prospects in participating in society with
the goal of becoming a part of the workforce:
It is the labour market which holds the most important means and which must provide
possibilities such as career, salary, self-realization and growth both for women and men.
Knowledge concerning education and professional possibilities are essential for young pupils to
make good decisions concerning education and profession, independent of gender. Counselling in
school and other career facilitations plays an important role. (Report no. 1 to the Parliament 2015/
16, p. 260)
The Ministry of Education and Research works according to three overall aims for the knowledge
sector: education and learning for development and participation in society for the individual,
competences which are needed today and in the future, knowledge for new enlightenment
(erkjenning), and the development of society and competitiveness. (Report no. 1 to the
Parliament 2015/16, p. 13)
410 C. E. MØLSTAD AND T. S. PRØITZ

Here, knowledge is something that is considered as a part of, coming from and defined by
society, something necessary for ensuring participation in society and the workforce. Overall, these
quotes indicate that the concept of knowledge is not seen as an integral part of the subjects of the
curriculum and of polices but is seen as an external concept dealing with the competence of
teachers and with assessment to enhance student learning. This indicates that the teachers need to
be enlightened.

Competence: for teachers

The word ‘competence’ is primarily used to describe the teachers’ competences which, in a way, are a
prerequisite for ensuring students’ learning. This is seen here: ‘The ministry wants to initiate targeted
development of competences of teachers in primary education’ (Government Report to the
Parliament no. 20 (2012.2013), p. 68). The use of the word ‘competence’ also implies an under-
standing of a causal relation between teachers’ competences and students’ competences and, hence,
learning. At the same time, the policies also elaborate on the teachers’ pedagogical competences:
The introduction of a curriculum containing competence aims and basic skills in all subjects is of
substantial importance to pupils’ learning and development in these subjects. Planning, organizing
and implementation of education are steered by the teacher’s pedagogical competence and
discretion. (Government Report to the Parliament no. 20 (2012.2013), p. 158)
Results from international assessment show that many Norwegian pupils have low competence
in central topics. A key to enhancing the level of pupils’ knowledge is to focus on the competences
of the teachers. (Report no. 1 to the Parliament 2015/16, p. 15)
Here, pedagogical competence is indicated as important for student learning and development
in the subjects. The document also indicates that different types of professional competences are
important, as demonstrated in the following quote:
The goals for schools’ activities will not be reached if the schools do not mobilize the combined (samlede)
competence of their employees. This requires professional cooperation. In a collegiate community, the
different professional competences and specializations of the teachers is a strength. Good teachers are
active contributors in a professional community that develops the school as a learning organization.
(Government Report to the Parliament no. 20 (2012.2013), p. 158)

This quote indicates both that various professional competences are important and that they
indicate the ideal, which are active teachers who participate in professional cooperation. This is
followed by an indication that the ministry wants to map teachers’ competences. This desire is
specifically highlighted as a set of important recommendations from the ministry to Parliament:
The ministry wants: to continue the long-term commitment (satsning) to the competence and
development initiative, to establish a system for mapping of teachers’ competences to ensure that
resources are used adequately. (Government Report to the Parliament no. 20 (2012.2013), p. 163)
Here, a new aspect is added in terms of the ministry’s ambition to ensure that resources are
used adequately, indicating a wish for a stronger degree of control over, or overview of, the
development and uses of teachers’ competences.

Learning: by assessment and teachers

On an overall level, learning is described as the following: ‘. . .learning for development and
participation in society for the individual’ (Report no. 1 to the Parliament 2014/15, p. 13). More
specifically, the policies state that one intention of the 2006 Knowledge Promotion Reform is to
ensure student learning. In the government reports, the continuation of the main principles of the
reform are expressed in parallel with elements of reform renewal: ‘The renewal of the “Knowledge
Promotion” improves coherence between the different parts of the curriculum framework, so that
both the school’s broader purpose and student learning in school subjects are secured’
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 411

(Government Report to the Parliament no. 28 (2015–2016), p. 6). Further assessment is again
underscored as vital but with a more explicit focus on the importance of formative assessment
for student learning: ‘Research concerning formative assessment has provided enhanced knowl-
edge concerning how assessment during the learning process can contribute to pupils’ learning
and competences’ (Government Report to the Parliament no. 28 (2015–2016) p. 15). This quote
points out the importance of formative assessment in student learning and that these arguments
are based on research to strengthen the logic, indicating that teachers should focus on formative
assessment.
However, other types of assessment are also indicated as important, as in the following: ‘The
student survey and other types of tests provide an important knowledge base for development of
schools’ learning environment and student learning, but these must be supplemented with the
experiences of students and teachers’ (Government Report to the Parliament no. 20 (2012–2013), p.
147). Here, a more quantitative and external approach to ensuring students’ learning is indicated,
and at the same time, as teachers’ experiences (as well as those of the students) that are high-
lighted as important. As such, this indicates that teachers are enlightened to ensure student
learning.

Development: of teachers
In the government reports to Parliament, the word development is used to describe the need to
develop teachers’ competences in teaching in a practical and motivational way in target areas, to
ensure student learning outcomes in specified and named subareas. The concept of development
is also used to describe the expectancy of a long-term effect on student learning outcomes as a
consequence of this measure:
Development of competences will specifically be targets for teachers of grades 5 to 7 to improve
practical and more motivational teaching in the subareas where results are poor, for example in
arithmetic, physics and chemistry. In the long term, this will also provide positive effects on results at
higher grade levels. (Government Report to the Parliament no. 20 (2012.2013), p. 68)
As such, pupils’ development is connected to assessment for learning, and teachers’ compe-
tences are connected to assessment and thereby to pupils’ development. This indicates that
teachers are deliverers of students’ learning.

Support: for control

In general, the concept of support is connected to enhancing teachers’ competences, as seen here:
School owners, school leaders and teachers need access to updated research on learning and teaching. As
such, research-based summaries on good teaching and assessment practices in the subjects should be
developed to support teachers’ professional development. (Official National Report, 2015, p. 86)

The ministry wants to contribute so that local development work continues and wants to evaluate
how the curriculum and national guidance resources can provide better support. The goal is to
contribute to more equal assessment practices. (Government Report to the Parliament no. 28
(2015–2016), p. 57)
Further, Report no. 28 specifically focuses on local quality enhancement; it considers quality
assurance systems through data and information as well as the use of specialized teachers
(lærerspesialister) and science centres (vintensentere) to provide tools for teachers to use in teach-
ing. The responsibility for such support is placed on the ‘school owner’, the municipality/district,
while the usage of the results from national tests is both meant to be supportive and to be a
requirement and responsibility of all actors at all levels of the system:
School owners have the main responsibility for the development of the quality of education in their
own schools and in apprenticeships. To contribute to high quality in primary education in the whole
412 C. E. MØLSTAD AND T. S. PRØITZ

country, the government emphasizes the support and guidance of schools and school owners through
competence and development initiatives. (Report no. 1 to the Parliament 2015/16, s. 66)
The national assessment and evaluation system comprises national tests, mapping tests, learn-
ing-supportive tests and grade-supportive tests. The national tests provide steering information to
national educational government, schools and school owners, and this information is used as a
pedagogical tool for teachers. Mapping tests, learning-supportive tests and grade-supportive tests
reveal the need for follow-up and facilitation at the pupil and the school level and are a support for
teachers in their work with assessment. (Report no. 1 to the Parliament 1 2015/16, s. 71)
In these quotes, the word ‘support’ is used in the same setting as the governing mechanisms of
education, which are also indicated in the first quote from the Official National Report (2015) under
the topic of goals. At the same time, in the reports to Parliament, the concept of support is used
more to describe and connect to the curriculum and guidance material. Support is also related to
the equality of assessment of students, assessment systems and quality assurance systems to help
the teachers focus on deeper learning and to work systematically to ensure student progress.
In sum, the qualitative in-depth reading indicates a learning outcome-oriented policy with high
expectancies and visions of a linear, causal relationship between teachers’ knowledge and compe-
tences, their work, their use of assessment and results and student learning outcomes, and thereby
to students’ life opportunities as participants in society and in working life. This is seen, for
example, as concerning competences that are used to describe a connection between teachers’
competences and students’ learning outcomes and a connection between students’ competences
and possibilities in life. The policies express a clear vision of alignment between students’ life
opportunities and teachers’ pedagogical, methodological and didactical competences.

Discussion
In this article, we aimed to present an analysis of what constitutes a learning outcome-oriented
policy as expressed in expectations directed towards teachers and the teaching profession in key
policy documents in Norway. As already described in the theoretical framework, the learning
outcomes orientation has embedded in it as a strong belief in the alignment between learning
outcomes defined at higher system levels and locally developed learning outcomes as well as an
alignment between these outcomes and the actual teaching, learning assessment and results at
the school level (Spady, 1994). It becomes evident that the Norwegian policies as described in key
policy documents can be considered highly attuned to ideas about the alignment between teacher
competence in teaching to motivate students and assessment to secure student learning. In
general, there is a strong belief in alignment within the learning outcomes orientation; most
often this is alignment between learning outcomes at different levels of education systems or
between learning outcomes, teaching, assessment and results. In this study, we have identified the
belief in yet another type of alignment—between teacher competences and student learning
outcomes. But the policies do not necessarily go into what subject competences are needed
except for those that are in target areas due to poor test results.
The idea of alignment between teacher competences and student learning outcomes is seldom
defined with more than a reference to what students are required to know so they can participate in
society and become working citizens. What has become clear is that the description of teachers’ roles
varies somewhat, depending on the words used. This becomes evident when the use of the words is
discussed with reference to the analytical framework and the three dimensions of (a) teachers as
either deliverers or developers; (b) teacher’s work being either restricted or extended; and (c)
teachers as being in need of enlightenment or as being enlightened (Mølstad et al., in press).
The word ‘goal’ is used to describe the substantial leeway and freedom at the local level and for
teachers’ work; however, this is combined with accountability and the logic of delivering good
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 413

student results. As such, the freedom and leeway concern teachers deciding upon the content,
methods and assessment appropriate for delivering results, providing a perspective on teachers’
work as extended. The local/district level is also perceived as being enlightened, as they have the
knowledge to handle the freedom and leeway of teachers.
Regarding the concept of knowledge, teachers are perceived as being in need of enlightenment. To
put it briefly, teachers need knowledge to enhance students’ competences. As such, teachers are
deliverers of students’ competences. Further, the word ‘development’ is used to describe how teachers
need to develop competences, and the word ‘support’ is used to describe what the government can do
to ensure this development. In this way, it seems that teachers are seen as being in need of enlight-
enment so they can conduct their professional work with extended autonomy and hence become
deliverers of life opportunities. Similarly, the words ‘competences’ and ‘learning’ are used to describe
teachers’ competences as a prerequisite for ensuring student learning. Here, the pedagogical compe-
tence of the teachers is highlighted, presenting teachers as being enlightened (with the possibility of
conducting professional work with extended autonomy) and as being deliverers of learning indicated
by the placement of competences and learning in a centre position of Figure 2.
Taken together, the policies indicate that teachers need to develop their competences and
knowledge. The state needs to support this so that teachers become deliverers of life opportunities
here indicated by the placement of ‘development’ on the red horizontal line in Figure 2. Hence,
teachers’ local curriculum work can also concern finding the ‘correct’ understanding of the
prescribed curriculum (Dale et al., 2011; Mølstad, 2015), which provides a focus for delivering the
national curriculum. The curriculum provides opportunities to constrain and define teachers’ work
(Gerrard & Farrell, 2013).
As seen in Figure 2, goals are placed on the map where the teachers are developers, combined
with extended autonomy for professional work. Teachers are placed as deliverers of learning and
competence rather than as deliverers of the national curriculum which resonates well with the
learning outcome-oriented approach. However, there is a hope in the policies that the teachers will
become enlightened so they can conduct professional work with extended autonomy and be
deliverers of life opportunities. A reason for the variability in the descriptions of teachers in the
policy documents can be explained in terms of Eisner (1996), saying ‘[T]he school changes the

Teachers as developers
Teachers as being
enlightened

Goals
Support

Teachers’ Competence Teachers’

work as work as
restricted Development Learning extended

Knowledge

Teachers in need
of enlightenment
Teachers as deliverers

Figure 2. Teacher according to the policies.

414 C. E. MØLSTAD AND T. S. PRØITZ

incoming message more than the incoming message changes the school.’ (p. 8). This saying
highlights the fact that teachers, as members of a profession, are perceived as important inter-
preters and translators of the missions of schools. As such, one can argue that the policies are
aware of both the gap between the intended and realized learning outcomes and the role of
teachers as interpreters and translators of policy. This study indicates that policy moves between
the difficult positions of wanting to govern education (for a stronger alignment between the
elements of education to reach intended learning outcomes) and conceptualizing the role of
teachers as more than technicians and valuable interpreters but still in need of the right compe-
tences and support to succeed. This indicates that the logic of the policies is to try to balance the
relation of defined learning outcomes and of teachers as important for reaching those outcomes.
Summing up the discussion, the findings indicate that the traditional way of perceiving the
curriculum as either input or output control does not seem adequate with respect to the
expectations for teachers and for teachers’ work. In the policies, a relatively explicit, tight
connection provides the anticipation of a linear relation and causality between teachers’
competences and students’ life opportunities. We argue that there is a complex picture
drawn of teachers, but the strongest policy image is the vision of the linear alignment of
teacher competences, practices and student learning, drawing a line between them. As such,
the teachers become the glue in the alignment of teacher practices and learning. Implying that
the teachers’ practises are essential and a prerequisite for students learning, however also
accountable for students learning.
At the same time, there is also a vision of the teaching profession being or becoming enligh-
tened so teachers can conduct their work more effectively. This indicates that teachers are
intended both to adapt and to be controlled and at the same time to fill the substantial leeway
with which they are provided. Teachers must be chameleons, adapting both to control and
responsivity, required to go back and forth between the different parameters describing them
and teaching, for example by both being enlighten and become enlightened.
This study highlights education policy as a carrier of conceptualizations of education as well as
the importance of studying how policy frames what teachers do and how they perceive themselves
(Ball, 2003). It also highlights the importance of policy as definitional both for the societal under-
standing of teaching and teachers and for the self-understanding of teachers as professionals as
well as in teacher education itself. This study covers a limited sample of key Norwegian policy
documents and, as such, it calls for further investigations into the implications of these policies for
practice in various contexts to enable stronger claims to be made about how teaching and
teachers are framed in policy.

Notes
1. PISA in Focus 2017/76 (September) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/a77ee9d5-en.pdf?expires=
1506686816&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=34923C63F0EA82DA7616EC1132CA68E0 retrieved 29.09.17.
2. For this study of trends and patterns of usage of selected concepts, searches were conducted manually by the use
of the search function of the Adobe Acrobat Reader program. This provided the involved researchers with first-
hand knowledge of where in the documents the key concepts were identified and the contextual settings that they
were used in. This approach cannot be compared with extensive semantic studies of, for example, phrases and
binomials, such as the interesting work of Corbel (2016), but still the importance of how and in what settings key
words are used in documents have been covered in this study, in particular by the in-depth document analysis.
3. Most of the Norwegian concepts can be translated into English; however, there are nuances and meanings
between the two languages that can be lost in the translation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 415

Funding
This work was supported by The Research Council of Norway [Project Number: 254978/H20].

Notes on contributors
Christina Elde Mølstad is head of department and associate professor at the Inland Norway University of Applied
Sciences (Inn University). Mølstad especially specializes in the, dissemination and use of international large-scale
assessments, governing both direct and indirect and in general in policy and comparative education. She is currently
working as Head of department of Social and Educational Sciences, at the Faculty of Education, Inn University and is
leader of the research group Studies in Professional Development, Learning and Policy (SPLP).
Tine S. Prøitz is professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway where she is a lecturer at the teacher education.
Her research interests lies within the fields of education policy, education reform and comparative education. Prøitz is
currently the project manager of the ongoing research project Tracing Learning outcomes in Policy and Practice
(LOaPP). Prøitz is also the executive editor of the Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy.

ORCID
Christina Elde Mølstad http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8885-2985
Tine S. Prøitz http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7500-3132

References
Aasen, P. (2007). Equity in Educational Policy. A Norwegian Perspective. In Teese, R. Lamb, S. & Duru-Bellat, M. (red.).
International Studies in Educational Inequality, Theory and Policy. Dordrecht: Springer.
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 reform. The role of levels of government and institutions in reform implementation]. Report no. 20,
Oslo, NIFU.
Aasen, P, Prøitz, T, & Rye, E. (2015). Nasjonal læreplan som utdanningspolitisk dokument. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift,
99(06), 417-433.
Adam, S. (2004). Using learning outcomes. A consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for
European education of employing ‘learning outcomes’ at the local, national and international levels. UK Bologna
seminar. 1–2 July. Scotland: Heriott-Wyatt University, Edinburgh.
Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21(1), 93–108.
Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardisation of the 21st century
curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45.
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.
Biesta, G. (2013). Knowledge, judgment and the curriculum: On the past, present and future of the idea of the
Practical. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 684–696.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burke, J. (1995). Outcomes, Learning and the curriculum. Implications for NVQs, GNVQs and otherqualifications.
London: The Falmer.
Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses
of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–349.
Cohen, L, Manion, L, Morrison, K, & Bell, R. C. (2011). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Corbel, C. P. (2016). Keywords and key phrases in vocational education policy in Australia: A lexical semantic analysis of
knowledge and skills (Doctoral dissertation).
Dale, E. L., Engelsen, B. U., & Karseth, B. (2011). Kunnskapsløftets intensjoner, forutsetninger og operasjonaliseringer: En
analyse av en læreplanform. Oslo: Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt, Universitetet i Oslo.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). The education imagination. On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York and
London: Macmillan Publishing.
Eisner, E. W. (1996). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. London: Routledge.
Forsberg, E., & Pettersson, D. (2014). Educational transfer and curriculum displacement: The Swedish case. In A. Nordin
& D. Sundberg (Eds.), Transnational policy flows in European education: The making and governing of knowledge in
the education policy field. Oxford: Symposium Books.
416 C. E. MØLSTAD AND T. S. PRØITZ

Fuller, B. (2008). Liberal learning in centralising states. In B. Fuller, M. K. Henne, & E. Hannum (Eds.), Strong states, weak
schools: The benefits and dilemmas of centralised accountability (Vol. 16). Bingley: Emerald Group.
Fuller, B. (2009). Policy and place – Learning from decentralised reforms. In G. Sykes, G. Schneider, D. N. Plank, & T. G.
Ford (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 855–875). New York: Routledge.
Gerrard, J., & Farrell, L. (2013). Remaking the professional teacher: Authority and curriculum reform. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 46(5), 634–655.
Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. (2000). Educational outcomes, modern and postmodern interpretations: Response to
Smyth and Dow. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(1), 27–42.
Hopmann, S. (2015). ‘Didaktik meets Curriculum’ revisited: Historical encounters, systematic experience, empirical
limits. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(1), 27007.
Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456.
Hudson, C. (2007). Governing the governance of education: The state strikes back? European Educational Research
Journal, 6(3), 266–282.
James, B., & Brown, S. (2005). Grasping the TLRP nettle: Preliminary analysis and some enduring issues surrounding the
improvement of learning outcomes. Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 7–30.
Karseth, B., & Sivesind, K. (2009). Læreplanstudier - perspektiver og posisjoner. In E. L. Dale (Ed.), Læreplan i et
forskningsperspektiv (pp. 23–61). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Kellaghan, T., & Greaney, V. (2001). Using assessment to improve the quality of education. Paris: UNESCO, International
Institute for Educational Planning.
Lassnigg, L. (2012). ‘Lost in translation’: Learning outcomes and the governance of education. Journal of Education and
Work, 25(3), 299–330.
Lawn, M. (2011). Governing through data in English education. Education Inquiry, 2 277–288.
Lundahl, C., & Waldow, F. (2009). Standardisation and ‘quick languages’: The shapeshifting of standardised measure-
ment of pupil achievement in Sweden and Germany. Comparative Education, 45(3), 365–385.
Lundgren, U. P. (2006). Political governing and curriculum change–From active to reactive curriculum reforms: The
need for a reorientation of curriculum theory. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, (2006, 1.
MacBeath, J., & Moos, L. (2009). First editorial. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 1–4.
Martens, K., Nagel, A., Windzio, M., & Weymann, A. (Eds.). (2010). Transformation of education policy. London: Springer.
Mausethagen, S. (2013). Reshaping teacher professionalism. An analysis of how teachers construct and negotiate
professionalism under increasing accountability. (PhD), Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences.
Mausethagen, S, & Mølstad, C. E. (2015). Shifts in curriculum control: contesting ideas of teacher autonomy. Nordic
Journal Of Studies in Educational Policy (Nordstep), 1 1 2015, 2. doi:10.3402/nstep.v1.28520
Mausethagen, S, & Smeby, J.-C. (2015). Contemporary education policy and teacher professionalism. In (Eds.),
Routledge companion on professions. London: Routledge.
Mintrop, H. (2012). Bridging accountability obligations, professional values and (perceived) student needs with
integrity. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 695–726.
Mølstad, C. E. (2015). State-based curriculum-making: Approaches to local curriculum work in Norway and Finland.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(4), 441–461.
Mølstad, C. E., Pettersson, D., & Prøitz, T. S. (in press). Soft infusion: Constructing ‘teachers’ within the PISA sphere. In L.
M. Carvalho, M. I. N. Liu, R. Normand, & D. A. Oliveira (Eds.), Education policies and the restructuring of the
educational profession. London: Springer.
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. doi: 10.1177/1474904116639311
Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education
Policy, 24(2), 149–162.
Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (2011). Fabricating quality in education: Data and governance in
Europe. New York: Routledge.
Priestley, M., Robertson, S., & Biesta, G. (2012). Teacher agency, performativity and curriculum change: Reinventing the
teacher in the Scottish curriculum for excellence. In B. Jeffrey & G. Troman (Eds.), Performativity across UK education:
Ethnographic cases of its effects, agency and reconstructions (pp. 87–108). Painswick: E&E Publisher.
Priestley, M., & Biesta, G. (2013). Introduction: The new curriculum. In M. Priestley & G. Biesta (Eds.), Reinventing the
curriculum: New trends in curriculum policy and practice (pp. 1–12). London: Bloomsbury Pub.
Prøitz, T. S. (2010). Learning outcomes: what are they? who defines them? when and where are they defined?.
Educational assessment, evaluation and accountability, 22(2), 119–137. London: The Falmer.
Prøitz, T. S. (2014). Conceptualisations of learning outcomes - An explorative study of policymakers, teachers and scholars.
Series of dissertations Faculty of Educational Sciences, No. 194. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Prøitz, T. S. (2015). Uploading, downloading and uploading again-concepts for policy integration in education
research. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1, 1.
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.
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 417

Prøitz, T. S., & Mølstad, C. (2017). The vision of alignment of teacher practices and student learning in policy
documents. Paper presented at the NERA Congress 23–25 March 2017, Copenhagen.
Official National Report. (2015). 'NOU 2015: 8Fremtidens skole Fornyelse av fag og kompetanser' [The School of the
Future. Renewal of subjects and competences]. National report.
Saarinen, T. (2008). Position of text and discourse analysis in higher education policy research. Studies in Higher
Education, 33(6), 719–728.
Scholl, D. (2012). Are the traditional curricula dispensable? A feature pattern to compare different types of curriculum
and a critical view of educational standards and essential curricula in Germany. European Educational Research
Journal, 11(3), 328–341. doi:10.2304/eerj.2012.11.3.328
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in A learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.
Shepard, L. A. (2007). Classroom assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 623–646).
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Sivesind, K. (2008). Reformulating reform: Curriculum history revisited. Oslo: (Dr.philos.), Unipub forl.
Spady, W. G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basis of authentic restructuring and reform. Educational Leadership,
46(2), 4–8.
Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education. Critical issues and answers. Arlington: American Association of School
Administrators.
Stemler, S., & Bebell, D. (1998). An empirical approach to understanding and analyzing the mission statements of
selected educational institutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the New England Educational Research
Organization. Portsmouth, New Hampshire. ERIC Doc No. ED 442 202.
Stoller, A. (2015). Taylorism and the logic of learning outcomes. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(3), 317–333.
Thomas, S. (2005). Taking teachers out of the equation: Constructions of teachers in education policy documents over
a ten-year period. The Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 45–62.
Tveit, S. (2014). Educational assessment in norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 221–237.
doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2013.830079
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Westbury, I. (2008). Making curricula: Why do states make curricula and how? In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 45–65). USA: Sage Publications.
Young, M. (2009). Education, globalisation and the ‘voice of knowledge’. Journal of Education and Work, 22(3),
193–204.

Appendix 1: List of documents subject to the word count in Prøitz and Mølstad
(2017)
The first six documents were selected for the in-depth analysis of this study. The titles of documents 1, 2, 11 and 12
are official English translations; the other titles have been translated by the authors.

Document Type of document

(1) NOU 2015:8 Fremtidens skole Fornyelse av fag og kompetanser [The Official National Report
School of the Future. Renewal of subjects and competences]
(2) Meld. St. 18 Lange linjer [Long-term perspectives—knowledge Report to the Parliament
provides opportunity] (2012–2013)
(3) Meld. St. 20 På rett vei [On the right way] (2012–13) Report to the Parliament
(4) Meld. St. 28 Fag fordypning fornyelse [School subject specialization Report to the Parliament
and renewal] (2015–16)
(5) Prp 1. s. 2015–2016 National budget (report to the parliament)
(6) Prp 1. s 2014–2015 National budget
(7) Prp 1. s 2013–2014 National budget
(8) Prp 1. s 2012–2013 National budget
(9) Prp. 1. s 2011–2012 National budget
(10) Prp. 1. s 2010–2011 National budget
(11) Generell del [Core curriculum] (LK06) National curriculum
(12) Prinsipper for opplæringen [The quality framework] (LK06) National curriculum
(13) Læreplanen i naturfag (LK06) National curriculum science
(14) Læreplan i norsk (LK06) National curriculum Norwegian language
 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
418

KEY CONCEPTS
LEARNING OUTCOMES

132
DECENTRALISED

33
RESPONSIBILITY

470
CURRICULUM

83
ASSESSMENT

554
ASSIGNMENT

90
TEST

5
CURRICULUM GUIDANCE

91
Mølstad, 2017)

LEARNING

1250
COMPETENCY
1668
CRITERIA
GRADE

43 53
ACHIEVEMENT

81
GOAL
1785

KNOWLEDGE
1549

DIDAKTIK

4
PRODUCT
SKILLS

36 20
OUTCOMES

104
C. E. MØLSTAD AND T. S. PRØITZ

SYNONYMS
RESULT OF LEARNING
STUDENT RESULT

0 0 4 4
DELEGATED

56
DISTRIBUTED

98
LOCAL

212
MUNICIPAL

77
COMMITMENT

5
TASK

70
NATIONAL CURRICULUM

0
EVALUATION
255

GUIDELINES
49

SUPPORT
989

MATERIAL FOR SUPPORT

17

DEVELOPMENT
1645

LEARNING PROCESS
8

PROCESS
57

GROWTH
171

BILDUNG
40

ABILITY
187

CHARACTERISTIC
SUMMATIV ASSESSMENT
51 53
goal,

KNOWLEDGE
19

RESULT
316
Learning,

OPPOSITE CONCEPTS
knowledge,

SENTRALISED
0 0 0
competency,

GOVERNMENTAL
FREEDOM
(600 or above):

AUTONOMY
29 18 16

LEARNING SUPPORT
0

LAW
77

REGULATION
Appendix 2: Frequencies of key concepts in key policy documents (Prøitz &

154

INSPECTION
236

STUDENTREFLECTION
High frequency concepts

CRITICALTHINKING
support and development

IMPLEMENTATION
OPERATIONALISATION
54 61 57 27
 JOURNAL OF CURRICULUM STUDIES 419

Appendix 3: Key concepts, synonyms and opposite concepts, Overview of key

concepts, synonyms and related concepts (Prøitz & Mølstad, 2017)3

Key concepts Synonyms Competing/opposite concepts

Læringsutbytte/learning Læringsresultat/learning result, elevresultat/student result
outcomes
Desentralisert/decentralized Delegert/delegated fordelt/distributed lokalt/locally Sentralisert/centralized statlig/
kommunalt/municipal state governed
Ansvar/responsibility Forpliktelse/commitment oppgave/task Frihet/freedom autonomi/
autonomy
Læreplan/national curriculum Læreplandokument/curriculum
Vurdering/assessment Evaluering/evaluation sluttvurdering/assessment Læringsstøtte/support for
(summative) learning
Prøve/assignment
Test/test
Veiledning/guideline Retningslinje/guideline støtte/support støttemateriell/ Regelverk/regulation forskrift/
material for support regulation tilsyn/inspection
Læring/learning Læringsprosess/learning process utvikling/development
danning/bildung prosess/process vekst/growth
Kompetanse/competence Evne/ability Refleksjon/critical reflection
tenkning/critical thinking
Kriterier/criteria Kjennetegn/characteristic Implementering/
implementation
Karakter/grade Resultat/result Operasjonalisering/
operationalization
Måloppnåelse/achievement Resultat/result
Mål/goal
Kunnskap/knowledge Viten/knowledge
Didaktikk/didactics
Produkt/product Resultat/result
Ferdighet/skill
Utbytte/outcome Resultat/result