Narrow identity resources for future students: the 21st century skills movement encounters the Norwegian education policy context

ABSTRACT

21st century skills is a global network of corporate and governmental influences that promotes competences suited to fit the future knowledge economy. Through a discourse analysis of an influential Official Norwegian Report, ‘The School of the Future. Renewal of Subjects and Competences’ (NOU 2015:8), this paper explores how ideas of 21st century skills are translated into the Norwegian education policy context. Firstly, the paper analyses the context-specific reasons for receptiveness by investigating discursive warrants. Secondly, the paper identifies how the policy document constructs a set of preferred subject positions that constitute an image of an ideal student. Thirdly, the paper investigates the discursive framing of these subject positions. We find that the policy document constructs an image of an ideal student who is creative, responsible, cooperative, engaged, self-regulated and in complete control of herself, her learning and her future. This image draws on more pronounced neo-liberal discourses, but also well-established discourses in the Norwegian context, such as social democratic progressivism. This intertwining of discourses shows how traits of homogeneity related to global ideas, as well as heterogeneity related to the Norwegian policy context, are both visible in the Norwegian translation of 21st century skills.

KEYWORDS:

• Education policy
• 21st century skills
• discourse analysis
• student identity
• vernacular globalization

Introduction

‘Skills have become the global currency of the 21st century’, states the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development  (OECD, 2012, p. 3), and the concept ‘21^st century skills’ represents an operationalization of the expectedly most important skills needed in future society. These skills include critical thinking, decision-making, problem solving, communication, cooperation, responsibility and creativity, and are considered appropriate to produce effective learners, workers and citizens that can participate in the knowledge economy in future society. Williams, Gannon, and Sawyer (2013), as well as Morgan (2016), have shown how the travelling of ideas related to 21st century skills constitutes a global network of corporate and governmental influences.¹ Nonetheless, research addressing the impact on different national education policy contexts is limited (Morgan, 2016; Williams et al., 2013). We are therefore in need of research that explores how global networks of ideas evolve in the encounter with national education policy contexts (Dale, 1999). To address this limitation, this paper investigates the context-specific reasons for receptiveness of 21st century skills in the Norwegian policy context.

In 2015, an Official Norwegian Report called ‘The School of the Future. Renewal of Subjects and Competences. NOU 2015:8’ (MER, 2015 (MER 15))² introduced and advocated ideas related to 21st century skills in the Norwegian policy context. Norwegian educational policy is traditionally regarded as part of the welfare policy. Even if neo-liberal policies in the past 30 years have had an impact on Norwegian educational policy, accountability is characterized as low stakes, and ideas about social-inclusive policies stand strong (Arnesen, 2011; Blossing, Imsen, & Moos, 2014; Hopfenbeck, Tolo, Florez, & El Masri, 2013). In this perspective, the paper explores the following research question: ‘How are the ideas of 21st century skills translated into the Norwegian education policy context?’ which is addressed through a discourse analysis of MER15. The analysis applies Cochran-Smith and Fries’ (2001) analytical framework of discursive warrants, investigates how MER15 constructs a set of preferred subject positions (Søreide, 2007, 2016; Weedon, 1997) for students and how the descriptions of these subject positions draw on different discourses (Hyatt, 2013; Taylor, 1997).

In agreement with previous criticism of 21st century skills (Morgan, 2016; Vassallo, 2013, 2014; Williams et al., 2013) our analysis identifies neo-liberal discourses about what constitutes an ideal student. However, these neo-liberal discourses intertwine with more familiar discourses in the document, such as social democratic progressivism and Bildung,³ understood as cultivation of abilities related to humanistic values. Hence, our analysis shows that the introduction of 21st century skills seems to be done in a particularly sensitive way in the Norwegian context.

‘Vernacular globalization’: policy ideas in the nexus between the global and the local

Educational ideas, such as 21st century skills, appear and materialize somewhat simultaneously around the globe, and transnational policy borrowing is now ‘the rule and not the exception’ (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 153). Consequently, many scholars are concerned with how and why global educational policies cross national boundaries—and what happens to them in processes of ‘borrowing’ or ‘translation’ (Waldow, 2009).

Contemporary theories often view globalization as a teleological, homogenizing, all-inclusive and economic force (Stäheli, 2003). Although education policy travels across national contexts and converges in global networks of ideas, global networks are not outside, above or opposed to the local in a straightforward sense (Ball, 2016). Policy borrowing is always selective and reflects context-specific reasons for receptiveness (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014). Local policy actors activate the discourses of globalization at particular times under particular circumstances, mediating global influences and orienting education policy in subtle, contingent and complex ways.

To explore these processes in a Norwegian context we use the concept ‘vernacular globalization’ (Lingard, 2000), which indicates that education policymaking in a globalized world is discursively constructed. Originally, the notion was developed by Appadurai (1996) to highlight tensions between ‘context-productive’ (top-down and policy-driven) and ‘context-generative’ (localized) practices. Global ideas are often interpreted and recontextualized in contradictory manners, and this interplay of global and local forces often seems to create hybrid educational policies (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). The explanatory power of the concept of ‘vernacular globalization’ is that it makes it possible to account for how processes of homogenization and heterogenization reciprocally constitute educational change (Winter, 2012).

The Norwegian educational policy context

Compared to the UK, for example, Norwegian educational policy has been characterized as less prone to instrumentality and as having a broad vision of education (Payne, 2002). Inclusion, mastery, social skills and welfare have been important values and students report comparatively high school satisfaction and well-being (Bradshaw, Keung, Rees, & Goswami, 2011). Significant national hallmarks are the statutory objective for education in the Education Act (1998, §3.1) and the overarching core curriculum (MCER, 1994),⁴ both valid across primary to upper secondary education. These documents state the responsibility of education to promote democratic and environmentally sensitive attitudes, in addition to serving national needs for knowledge and competence. They also underscore the importance of Bildung to complement the qualifying dimension in education.

However, the Norwegian school system has undergone a number of changes in recent decades, many of which can be seen as adjustments to the impact of global organizations, in particular the OECD (Hovdenak & Stray, 2015, p. 55). Norwegian education is, for instance, moving towards stronger accountability requirements. The latest major reform, the Knowledge Promotion reform (MER, 2006), introduced management by objectives at individual, as well as system level, the implementation of a national framework for quality control and a curriculum stating measurable competence goals, rather than content specifications (Dale, Engelsen, & Karseth, 2011). This suggests that neo-liberal ideas are gaining hold, even if the accountability system sets a low bar (Hopfenbeck et al., 2013).

From the 1980s and onwards, Norwegian education policy has been introduced to globalization and neo-liberalism, emphasizing technical and instrumental objectives at the expense of traditional social democratic values (Telhaug, Mediås, & Aasen, 2006). Crucially, all the latest governments of Norway have aimed to base knowledge policy on international trends to enable the country to compete in the global knowledge economy (Helgøy & Homme, 2016). Nevertheless, it may still be justified to speak of a Nordic education model—both when it comes to viewing education as an element of welfare policies as well as the significance attributed to social‐inclusive aspects of education (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006: Blossing et al., 2014). This makes it interesting to study the reception of a global network of policy ideas, such as 21st century skills, in a national context with a strong social democratic heritage.

Analytical framework, material and analysis

The main research question for this paper is: ‘How are the ideas of 21st century skills translated into the Norwegian national context?’. To identify the context-specific reasons for receptiveness of 21st century skills, as well as how these global ideas are translated into the Norwegian education policy context, the analysis of MER15 draws on discourse theory.

Discourse theory as analytical framework in education policy analysis implies a focus on language and meaning making (Taylor, 1997), as well as how power is invested in the production of truth and knowledge about education (Ball, 1990). Official texts describing the aims, content, organization and governance of the educational sector are valuable sources to understand educational policy ideas. The focus of this paper will accordingly be on the selected policy document as text.

Discourse theory can be applied to explore particular policies in their historical and cultural context (Winter, 2012). As policymaking can be viewed as a struggle over meaning, this perspective enables researchers to trace how policy problems are constructed in the encounter between the national policy agenda and global discourses—and how specific themes get to dominate the policy agenda (Taylor, 1997). We therefore consider discourse theory especially suitable for critical analysis of how ideas related to 21st century skills are framed by language in MER15—reflecting economic, political and cultural concerns in the Norwegian education policy context, allowing us to trace coexisting discourses in the text. In the following, we will present the selected document, MER15.

Official Norwegian report 20015:8, pupils’ learning in the school for the future

In 2013, during Prime Minister Stoltenberg’s second cabinet⁵ a White Paper named ‘On the right way’ (MER, 2013) was published, with the purpose of making Norwegian comprehensive school better equipped at facing diversity in pupil’s needs and abilities, and future demands in society and work life. This White Paper provided an impetus for MER15 by suggesting the appointment of a committee to assess competences, skills and qualifications that are important for participation in education, work and society in the future (p. 13).

In June 2013 the Norwegian government followed up on this suggestion and appointed a committee, consisting of a broad range of social actors. In line with common procedures the committee was conditioned by a political mandate and task, namely to assess and report on what pupils will need to learn in school in a perspective of 20–30 years (MER 15, p. 8).

The committee firstly published an interim report (NOU 2014:7) that analysed historical and comparative developments, as well as recommendations for future competences, with an emphasis on 21st century skills (Chapter 8). The main report (NOU 2015: 10, here: MER15)⁶ presented the competencies and skills needed for future society, based on analyses and assessments in the interim report, and suggested necessary curricular changes (MER15, p. 8). Due to the policy-initiating nature of MER15, we perceive this document as especially interesting when it comes to analysing how global ideas are recontextualized in the Norwegian educational policy context.

Analytical questions, concepts and procedures

The paper’s main research question is explicated in three subquestions:

1. How are policy recommendations in MER15 contextualized and legitimated?

2. What characterizes subject positions and the student identity that are constructed through the competency framework in MER15?

3. Which discourses frame these subject positions?

These questions structure the analysis and give direction to the selection of analytical concepts and procedures presented in the following.

To answer the question of how the policy problems at stake are contextualized and legitimated, the analysis firstly identified ‘discursive warrants’, operationalized as (a) political warrants; legitimation in relation to important political values; (b) accountability warrants; the given reasons for action based on outcomes and results; and (c) evidentiary warrants; justifications based on evidence and facts (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001). In addition, we consulted contextual information to investigate why the policy ideas gained prominence at this specific time in the Norwegian context.

Thereafter, we deconstructed the policy text by identifying how the document describes the educational reality through selected concepts (Hyatt, 2013). The primary analytical lens in this inductive process was the discursive production of subject positions. An important feature of discourse theory is the conception of the subject as an effect of power—and not as a given entity. Subject positions are identity resources that are culturally, historically and socially constructed and situated (Søreide, 2007, 2016; Weedon, 1997). Accordingly, different discourses may produce different subject positions that eventually conditions the students’ self-understanding in certain ways. In this second phase of the analysis, we identified descriptions of student capabilities, competencies and expectations of what students should do, learn, know and perform. We then identified important concepts and their usage, as well as blind spots, hence answering the third subquestion about discursive framing. As our analyses are confined to MER15, we consulted previous research about educational discourses in Norway pre-MER15 in order to provide grounds for comparison.

The analytical focus of separate readings by all three authors has thus been (a) contextualization and legitimation, (b) subject positions and (c) discursive framings. In-depth reading according to research questions was supported by concept-driven coding (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009) in the qualitative analysis program QSR International Nvivo. Codes were refined through several readings (Appendix 1) and categorized, before these categories were organized thematically and condensed (Appendix 2), constituting the identified subject positions. The analysis and coding of subject positions illuminated that subject positions cluster, support each other, and form an overarching student identity.

Contextualization and legitimation: discursive warrants in MER15

In this section, we will show how reasonable grounds for policy recommendations are established through discursive warrants.

The political warrant

Inclusion is an essential value of the Norwegian comprehensive school system, and as political warrant it provides strong grounds for policy recommendations. Inclusion has traditionally been an important normative notion in Norwegian educational policy, committing to attend to the needs and diversity of all pupils, within the framework of the comprehensive school. Given the fact that the mandate for MER15 was formulated in White paper 20 (MER, 2013) in which inclusion was the main theme, one would expect many references to this notion in MER15. The committee (pp. 12 and 16) itself provides grounds for such expectation, proclaiming to ensure coherence between the breadth of the school’s vision, in which inclusion is key, and the renewal of the subjects.

Contrary to expectations, the concept inclusion is not mentioned in the report. A different, but similar, concept can, however, be discerned: MER15 is especially concerned with enabling participation in work life and society, as well as making the life prospect for future citizens better by improving the quality of schooling (e.g. p. 8). By comparison, the words ‘participate’ and ‘participation’ are mentioned in all 88 times in the report, which is a quite high frequency in a report of about 110 pages.

Given the importance and frequency of the concept participation in MER15, we find it to be the most prominent political warrant. In our reading, participation relates to inclusion, but has a more narrow meaning than the traditional, normative concept. The need for ensuring participation is stated aptly in the opening of the report: ‘Primary and secondary education and training shall contribute to developing the knowledge and competences of pupils so they may become active participants in an increasingly knowledge-intensive society’ (p. 7). Here, the aim of enabling (active) participation in the knowledge-intensive society is directed at pupils in general, and the measures to reach this goal is to foster proper knowledge and competences for the future.

This emphasis on participation is in continuity with discourses in the latest curriculum. The Knowledge Promotion reform (2006) suggested measures to help all pupils develop basic skills that would enable them to participate in the knowledge society. Evaluations of this reform, however, identified that social inequalities were not reduced,⁷ and that the concept of basic skills had been understood too narrowly (MER15, pp. 34–35). In this context, it makes sense when MER15 (p. 9) states the need for a ‘broad’ concept of competence that involves cognitive skills, practical skills, as well as social and emotional learning and development. This broad definition of competence and the report’s further recommendations are explicitly built on the 21st century skills initiative⁸ (MER, 2014). Arguably, the critique of the previous reform functions as a context-specific reason for the application of 21st century skills. As the measures implemented by the Knowledge Promotion reform had not succeeded in realizing the goal of participation, the committee turns to the global network of the 21st century skills initiative to consider different approaches to competency-based learning.

The accountability warrant

The accountability warrant, which is legitimation based on outcomes and results, carries substantial weight in the report. MER15 (e.g. p. 8) is embedded in a conception of the competitive state economy, where better educational outcomes are considered necessary to ensure the state’s competiveness in the global knowledge economy. The report (pp. 106–107) thus emphasizes that ‘the education system is the most important measure the authorities have to influence the knowledge capital’.

OECD (2014, p. 14) has previously pointed out that Norway invests heavily in education,⁹ and should therefore expect better educational outcomes to boost Norway’s competitiveness and help maintain its high standards of living in the future. This relation between high educational investments and the importance of improving quality and outcomes in Norway is emphasized in MER15 (p. 107) as well. The actualization of 21st century skills at this particular moment in the Norwegian policy context may thus be understood in the context of the ‘accountability warrant’, and the need for policymakers to produce a better-performing skills system. In this quote, we identify an inherent promise that the new competency framework will lead to better results and economic savings:

The Committee finds that several of the measures proposed in the report will promote pupils’ learning of competences for the future in such a way that they will lead to economic savings as the aim of the Committee’s proposals is to give pupils better learning. (MER15, p. 107)

As we see, the committee legitimates its suggestions by creating a discursive relation between suggested measures—better learning—and economic savings. The committee acknowledges that their suggested measures will have costs in the short run, but claims that long-term savings ‘in the form of increased welfare for each citizen and for the society’ (MER15, p. 107) will make the investments worthwhile. MER15’s recommendations are thus justified by ensuring that we are ‘creating a productive society that can contribute in a globalised world’ (MER15, p. 8). Conclusively, there are specific circumstances in the Norwegian context that actualize the implementation of 21st century skills, and these context-specific reasons, i.e. the need for a better performing skills system, work as reasonable grounds for educational measures.

The evidentiary warrant

In this section, we will focus on ‘the evidentiary warrant’, justifications of policy recommendations based on (proposed) evidence and facts. In our reading, the most prominent evidentiary warrant in MER15 is the epistemological preconception of the reality of the future society. Given the stated mandate of the committee, the interpretations and projections of the future society become essential for the proposals made in MER15. The following statement illustrates this premise:

Changes in society include rapidly changing communication and media technologies, challenges related to sustainable development, demographic changes, both locally and globally, with ethnic, cultural and religious diversity, urbanisation, growth in consumption and a knowledge based and internationalised working life. These trends are not new, but developments in all these areas are changing society at a rapid pace, influencing societal life locally, regionally and globally to a much higher degree than ever before. (MER15, p. 8)

In this quote, we see how the projections of future society set the new competency framework on the policy agenda. MER15 essentially describes the society of the future as a similar but accentuated version of the present society: a knowledge society with a knowledge-intensive working life.

The projections of the future thus both rest on continuity and a premise of increased social, cultural and technological changes. Implicitly, MER15 legitimizes policy recommendations by a binary distinction between old and new, where only the new competency framework is appropriate for the reality of the 21st century. Contrarily, old or previous educational reforms are associated with ‘crowded curriculum’,¹⁰ which is unsuitable to meet the demands of the 21st century. This is completely in agreement with the rhetoric of the OECDs (e.g. 2012) 21st century skills initiative. Based on this binary, MER15 recommends that the educational system should be more concerned with so-called long-lasting competences. These are competences we can be sure will be relevant in future society, as opposed to content-based knowledge, which is associated with greater risk of being irrelevant.¹¹

Applying the exact same narrative as proponents of the 21st century skills initiative (e.g. OECD, 2012), MER15 predicts the future as an accelerated version of the knowledge economy. This narrative thus works as a mythopoiesis (Hyatt, 2013) that legitimizes the competency framework. The narrative that social, cultural and technological changes and knowledge development are accelerating and that the competences promoted by the educational system must be changed in order to be more in line with this projection is uncontested—no alternative scenarios are described. The fact that previous educational reforms are characterized by a crowded curriculum is also presupposed to be an undisputable fact. Discursively, descriptions of past and future in MER15 function as evidentiary warrants that creates reasonable grounds for the competency framework of MER15.

Taken together, the evidentiary, political and accountability warrants construct policy problems of a particular kind as well as reasonable grounds for action.

Subject positions and discursive framing

In the following, we will describe the most prominent subject positions identified in MER15, as illustrated in Figure 1, and the educational discourses they draw on. For a more detailed description of subject positions, see Appendix 2.

Figure 1. An overview of the cluster of subject positions identified in MK15.

At first glance, all identified subject positions draw on well-established and familiar discourses in the Norwegian educational context, namely social democratic progressivism. As Aasen (2003) has pointed out, these educational discourses emphasize both a moral, identity-oriented, and cultural dimension expressed by the German term Bildung, as well as an instrumental, technological and utility-oriented dimension of education. Although both dimensions are acknowledged, however, the cultural arguments were predominantly stronger than economic ones, especially in post-war educational reforms (Aasen, 2003). This policy represented a continuance of Christian and humanitarian traditions, and rejected the idea that the value of individuals could be measured in terms of their potential for learning or income-earning capacity (p. 135).¹² Education was viewed as a cultivating agency fostering values such as tolerance, collaboration, responsibility, solidarity and community spirit (Telhaug, et al., 2006; Blossing et al., 2014).

In this sense, we find that MER15, with its strong emphasis on social and emotional competencies, draws on familiar discourses. ‘The democratic, collaborative, and socially responsible student’, in which democratic participation, recognition, tolerance and collaboration (pp. 9–10) is valued, initially resonates well with social democratic progressivism. However, also the fostering of creativity and critical thinking (e.g. pp. 9, 21 and 31–34), as implicit in ‘the critical and problem solving student’ and ‘the creative and innovative student’, has been strongly encouraged in social democratic progressivism (e.g. Aasen, 2007). Furthermore, the subject position ‘the self-regulated student’, who has the ability to reflect upon learning and plan ahead (pp. 10 and 47), associates with conceptions of ‘pupil-centred’ learning’ and ‘pupils’ responsibility for their own learning processes’, which has deep roots in social democratic progressivism (Meland, 2011; Skarpenes, 2007).

The cultural dimension of education, as expressed by Bildung, has been underscored in the core curriculum in Norway for decades and can also be identified in ‘the student as skilled communicator’. MER15 (pp. 29–31) emphasizes literacy and states several times that communication skills are important for personal development and participation in society. At first glance, MER15 thus seems to relate education to cultivation and inclusion, in agreement with a social democratic discourses and Bildung.

As previously mentioned, however, MER15 seems to give a more narrow meaning to the concept of inclusion, delimited it to enabling participation in society and the knowledge economy. If we look closer at descriptions and concepts that constitute the subject positions, a similar image emerges. For instance, the concept of ‘collaboration’, emphasized in ‘the democratic, collaborative, and socially responsible student’, is described in the following manner: ‘Being able to carry out activities and perform tasks with others is important in working life, and many will need to cooperate on solving complex problems, often across vocations or disciplines’ (p. 31).

In this quote, we see how words such as ‘carry out’, ‘solving’ and ‘perform’ actively relate collaboration to performativity, which entails a different usage of the concept than in social democratic progressivism. In the social democratic era, concepts such as collaboration were seen as values promoted through active participation in communities (Aasen, 2007, pp. 29–30), and not primarily as individual skills. MER15, however, emphasizes the ability to manage, handle and solve conflicts as well as the notion that one has to develop techniques for collaboration (MER15, 31), which indicates a different meaning of the concept of collaboration.

The description of ‘the student as skilled communicator’ also conveys different aspects than traditional discourses. MER15 emphasizes literacy as competencies that are crucial to be able to participate in the future knowledge society and work life. The descriptions of literacy are predominantly related to what students should do, deal with, master and perform. It is, for instance, considered necessary to deal ‘with a complex diversity of information and texts’ (p. 29) and master ‘many forms of communication’ as well as ‘different writing actions.’ (pp. 30–31). Arguably, there seems to be a shift towards an individual, performative notion of these competencies, while the cultural dimension of literacy is downplayed. Although the abilities associated with ‘the student as skilled communicator’ initially resonates well with aspects of Bildung, MER15 hardly mentions this concept.¹³ While Bildung refers to the lifelong cultivation and maturation of human beings in a more substantial sense than training of particular skills and competences (e.g. Hellesnes 1992), ‘the student as skilled communicator’ conveys a student who can tick off the competences of reading, writing and verbal competence one by one.

If we look closer at descriptions of competencies related to ‘the creative and innovative student’ in MER15, this subject position consistently relates to productivity. MER15 (e.g. p. 33) states explicitly that there is a need to combine a capacity for curious and creative thinking with innovation. MER15 explains that the committee has ‘(…) chosen to use the concept of innovation in addition to creativity, to point out that pupils will need to learn to take initiatives and transform ideas into action’ (p. 35). Productivity is also underscored by highlighting that innovative competency overlaps with abilities associated with entrepreneurship (p. 35). As we can see in the following quote ‘the creative and innovative student’ is designed to fit the knowledge economy of the future: ‘(…) The Norwegian and international societies depend on creative individuals who can contribute to working life and society, create new enterprises and find solutions to demanding social challenges’ (p. 33).

A similar image emerges when investigating the subject position of ‘the critical and problem solving student’. In MER15, critical thinking and problem solving are predominantly considered together, and only briefly described as separate abilities. MER15 (p. 35) states: ‘Critical thinking and problem solving are often considered together and refer to being able to reason and analyse, identify relevant issues and being capable of using relevant strategies for complex problem-solving.’ Consequently, the kind of critical thinking that is considered constructive and solution oriented is valued.

Critical thinking thus seems to be reduced to a set of techniques that may orient a student towards a rational mindset and lifestyle (e.g. p. 36). MER15 underscores the importance of being ‘scientifically minded’ in learning, as well as in different aspects of life, by, for instance, critically assessing health advice and information (e.g. pp. 33 and 53). Strikingly, the concept ‘political’ is hardly mentioned in the report, and never in relation to critical thinking. Although the importance of critical thinking from a democratic perspective is mentioned (p. 36), the competence is predominantly related to being ‘scientifically minded’ in learning. This entails that a student who is able to exercise critical thinking without challenging the status quo is valued. This is different from the critical thinking progressive education, drawing on for instance Dewey and Freire, promotes.

Predominantly, all the aforementioned subject positions relate to the most prominent subject position in the document, namely the self-regulated student.¹⁴ The Committee (p. 50) considers self-regulation as a precondition for learning, and as essential in all of the subjects. The importance of this subject position is highlighted in the following quote:

The Committee argues that pupils in the future school will need to learn and develop own competence, in school and in other arenas later in life. The Committee finds pupils development of metacognition and self-regulated learning as essential for further learning …. (p. 28)

As we see, MER15 underscores the development of metacognition and self-regulated learning as prerequisites for learning, as well as the students’ personal responsibility to learn and develop competencies. The students should exercise autonomy and responsibility within the framework of the school, and are held responsible for cooperation, social climate and school environment (pp. 29 and 32).

According to MER15 (p. 32), a student who is able to take social responsibility is also a student who ‘…. learn to consider those around them by regulating their thoughts, emotions and actions’. The self-regulated student is thus not only superior in terms of learning, but also morally in terms of being more considerate. ‘The self-regulated student’ is therefore emphasized in all aspects of life: to manage life as a successful learner and future employee, but also when it comes to mental and physical health, lifestyle, finances and consumption (e.g. p. 27). The committee accordingly suggests a new interdisciplinary topic, ‘Public health and well-being’, in the curriculum, whereby students should learn how to be self-regulated in different aspects of life (pp. 52 and 55).

As mentioned, the subject position of ‘the self-regulated student’ initially draws on familiar notions from social democratic progressivism, namely ‘pupil-centred learning’ and ‘pupils’ responsibility for their own learning’. Still, while the two familiar notions relate to learning and learning strategies in a community of learners, ‘self-regulation’ and ‘meta-cognition’ are predominantly psychological abilities. This indicates that we are witnessing a discursive shift from progressivism to an individualized, cognitivist understanding of these identity resources.

By comparison, the terms ‘self-regulation’, ‘self-management’, ‘meta-cognition’ or ‘self-monitoring’ are not mentioned at all in documents associated with ‘The Knowledge Promotion reform’.¹⁵ Learning strategies are emphasized, however, but defined as procedures students use to organize learning and acquire knowledge—such as planning, conducting and evaluating their own work. Different from MER15’s emphasis on developing abilities such as self-regulation and meta-cognition in itself, learning strategies in these previous documents are understood as tools, methods, ways and procedures that are valued in order to acquire knowledge and cultural content.¹⁶

The ideal student of MER15

Taken together, the cluster of five subject positions outline a portrait of an ideal student with abilities that have been valued in established Norwegian educational discourses, such as creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, tolerance of diversity and social responsibility. This indicates that 21st century skills make a good match with familiar discourses in Norway, especially social democratic progressivism.

At the same time, the ideal student of MER15 is framed by instrumental, neo-liberal discourses of performativity, where the student him/herself is held accountable for the outcome of schooling.¹⁷ Following Walkerdine (2003) and Bradbury (2013), a ‘neo-liberal subject’ is characterized with the following traits: industrious, diligent, responsible, self-regulating, introspective, flexible and transforming, reflective and caring. Although with somewhat different labels, all of these abilities can be identified in MER15. The ideal student of MER15 draws heavily on discourses of compliance, adjustment and obedience to the educational system, and orientation towards future societal and economic needs. This may suggest that social democratic progressivism and neo-liberalism appear as two sides of the same coin in MER15, rather than opposing discourses. The findings of trans-discursive concepts such as collaboration, critical thinking and social responsibility support this impression.

As mentioned, social and emotional qualities were previously acknowledged as aspects of Bildung; the moral and identity-oriented dimensions of education, also underscored in the statutory objective of the Education act (§3.1) and the core curriculum. These presumptively non-instrumental dimensions of education were understood as supplementary to the qualifying dimension. In MER15, under the influence of 21st century skills, however, the social motives of education do not represent an alternative to instrumental concerns, but has actually become an essential part of the utility-oriented discourse.

To put the argument to the edge: while social and emotional abilities previously was promoted in order to ensure human cultivation and personal development in a lifelong perspective, the same skills are now promoted to ensure the production of human capital for economic prosperity. The ideal student of MER15 is thus first and foremost designed to fit the knowledge economy of the future, and to ensure productivity and stability through individual self-management and coping. This indicates a shift in the way social and emotional competencies are understood in the Norwegian context, and that neo-liberal discourses actually dominate the policy agenda.

The Norwegian reception of 21st century skills as a case of vernacular globalization

As previously stated, education policy changes now converge across nations. 21st century skills as a global network of corporate and governmental influences promote specific educational policy ideas with the intention of affecting state policies around the globe. Initiatives promoting 21st century skills are characterized by the broad engagement of parties from both the public and private sectors, from within and outside education.¹⁸ In this sense, 21st century skills travel across nations, and work as ‘context-productive’ (top-down) practices (Appadurai, 1996), which justify educational policy priorities within national educational systems.

Morgan (2016) has, for instance, shown how Cisco, Intel and Microsoft endorsed and co-founded the project Assessment and teaching of twenty-first century skills (ATC21S TM). These corporations mobilize educational networks to promote the implementations of 21st skills in school systems around the world. Such educational changes would require, to the benefit of these corporations, new and advanced technology to transform the way students are educated and tested. Critically, Morgan (2016, p. 805) points to the fact that these developments have contributed to the reproduction of the knowledge economy through the school system.

Other studies support these claims as well. Greenlaw (2015, p. 895), for instance, suggests that the 21st century skills movement can be deconstructed as a metanarrative of ‘salvation through technology’. The narrative of 21st century skills is portrayed as dichotomizing traditional and digital pedagogies, creating an ideology that serves the economy, masks complexity and undervalues knowledge. Further, Williams et al. (2013) show a strong corporate dominance of the discourses of 21st century skills, which portrays ‘an atomised self-managing neoliberal subject par excellence’. As Choo (2017) points out, 21st century education frameworks are predominantly informed by Human Capital Theory, and steer education towards preparing students to compete successfully in the global economy. Our analyses support these previous findings of corporate, homogenizing practices. Furthermore, it discerns neo-liberal discourses and student identity in the translation of 21st century skills in the MER15 framework.

At the same time, the discursive warrants identified in this paper reflect the context-specific reasons or receptiveness in the Norwegian context. As mentioned, policy borrowing is always selective. Globalization interferes with local practices in contingent, diverging and sometimes surprising ways. In our analysis, we have, for instance, described how the student positions of MER15 reflect both traditional discourses in the Norwegian policy context, related to social democratic progressivism, as well as more accentuated neo-liberal discourses. Thus, MER15 produces a student identity that is attractive and enabling, and simultaneously prone to performativity and uniformity. In this sense, the MER15 framework also encompasses ‘context-generative’ (localized) narratives (Appadurai, 1996), in which traits of heterogeneity associated with context-specific characteristics in the Norwegian education policy context are discernible.

As mentioned, there has traditionally been a strong sentiment regarding the importance of a broader goal of education in the Norwegian context. The low-stakes accountability system can be described addressing both ‘answerability’ and ‘responsibility’ (Hatch, 2013), and even in its present form the system has met resistance. There has also been resistance towards introducing the qualifying dimension and instrumental measures of schooling, at least in elementary school. The characteristics of the Norwegian school system thus suggest the importance of introducing means for assessing education in a particularly sensitive way. As neo-liberal discourses intertwine with well-established discourses in MER15, the accentuation of the utility-oriented dimension is not that easy to discern and criticize. The competency framework may therefore escape critique for its instrumental valorization of education.

In a Norwegian context, the coexistence of diverging discourses is not an entirely new phenomenon. Skarpenes (2007), for instance, claims that the developments preceding the previous educational reforms were facilitated by an intimate relationship between neo-liberal market economy, ideas about equality and solidarity, and individualistic authenticity. This seemingly productive companionship between what can be stated as progressive educational ideals and economic concerns is also noted elsewhere (Riese, 2010). The interrelatedness of different discourses in MER15 can thus be seen as being historically prepared by these developments, and the reception of 21st century skills as mediated by national history and politics.

Consequently, and in agreement with Winter (2012), our analyses of the MER15 framework show how processes of homogenization and heterogenization reciprocally constitute educational policies. MER15 as a specific manifestation of educational restructuring of the global ideas of 21st century skills ‘is and isn’t’ an effect of globalization (Lingard, 2000). The case of the Norwegian reception of 21st century skills can more precisely be seen as an effect of vernacular globalization, a notion that increases the awareness of the nuanced outcomes of confrontations between ‘context productive’ and ‘context generative’ practices.

Concluding remarks: discursive warrants and their consequences and paradoxes

To conclude this paper, we will revisit the discursive warrants and highlight paradoxes within and possible consequences of the MER15 framework. Firstly, MER15’s competence framework constitutes a paradox of epistemological character, regarding what we previously referred to as the evidentiary warrant. In line with the world view of recent international policy developments that evolve around 21st century skills (OECD, 2012), the rationale in MER15 goes as follows: as we do not know what educational content will be important in future society, the educational system must prepare students for an unknown future by developing their abilities to learn how to learn—to develop high-functioning, meta-cognitive skills and learning strategies.

Intrinsically, the MER15 framework rests on a binary between traditional, content-specific and modern (digitally updated) competence-based forms of education and assessment. This binary further creates a paradox of what we are respectively able and unable to know. Initially, we do not know what the future holds. This uncertainty makes it especially difficult to specify educational content for the future. Despite such an unknown future, however, we actually do know that a broad concept of competences will be valued, as well as which competences that will prove paramount.

As previously discussed, the MER15 framework is legitimized by a need for a broader concept of competence—a need that can be traced back to the critique of the latest educational reform in Norway. Despite MER15’s suggestion that a broader spectrum of competences is to be valued and evaluated, however, our analyses and discussion show that the identity resources made accessible through the descriptions of competences are rather narrow. The integration of the different identities through the weaving of self-regulation and meta-cognition across the distinct subject positions has an especially narrowing effect. Self-regulation and the ability to manage one’s own learning processes appear as the most important precondition for learning and become the solution to an unknown future. The MER15 framework thereby rests on policy recommendations that are both broad and narrowing at the same time.

We argue that such a paradox of broad and narrow is better understood if we see the MER15 framework as policy suggestions that evolve in the nexus between local needs for accountability measures and global corporate interests. The need for an improved skills system, as called for by the OECD, creates reasonable grounds for the implementation of 21st century skills in the Norwegian context, referred to as the accountability warrant. Although recommendations to emphasize students’ social and emotional competences partly resonate with existing discourses, it must be emphasized that MER15 suggests that such competences are to become objectives in the different subjects and thereby assessed. Despite the intention to ensure a broad concept of competence, the competences must be simplified and narrowed down if they are going to fit into an assessment framework (Morgan, 2016).

What may be the consequence of a possible implementation of the MER15 framework in Norway? Firstly, the suggestions will probably legitimize the need for new assessment technologies in the next round. This need for new technologies may lead to greater corporate influences in the Norwegian educational system and thus a quiet growth of digital governance. Secondly, when the available identity resources are narrowed down this way, there is less room for alternative identities in school. Taken together, the identified subject positions draw up an image of an ideal student who is creative, responsible, cooperative, engaged, self-motivated and in complete control of herself, her learning and her future. If we take the close relationship between knowledge, learning and identity seriously, this narrow student identity may create more problems than it solves.

It is pertinent to ask: Who will not be recognized as an ideal student based on the MER15 framework? What will become of the shy student who easily remembers and recalls subject content, but who scores low on social and emotional competences? What kind of educational possibilities will there be for a student who is particularly talented in one subject area, but who struggles with the social codes? Not to mention all the unrecognized obstacles at the structural level: as Ball (2010) and Vassallo (2013) has pointed out, it is middle-class pupils, whose parents, for instance, have invested in ‘edutainment’ activities, who become self-regulated, flexible and motivated about learning in multiple ways. As Hilt (2016) has shown, minority language students are also less likely to be perceived as self-managing learners who seize responsibility for their own learning. As our analyses illuminate, participation in the knowledge society works as a political warrant that legitimizes policy recommendations in MER15. Although inclusion, understood as participation, certainly seems to be the goal, a restrictive notion of the ideal student can paradoxically exclude students from positions of success.

MER15 as policy-initiating document is the first step in a proclaimed educational reform in Norway, and the results of these recommendations are not yet evident. Further research is needed to analyse how the government will follow up on these suggestions, and how schools will respond to the new reform. Attention should be given to how the breadth of the schools mandate is understood and acknowledged in the school of the future. In agreement with Winter (2011), we are concerned about the space provided for ethico-political dimensions of education, if students are to be mostly preoccupied with personal competence management. Additionally, research must pay attention to the consequences this reform may have for students that struggle to position themselves as self-regulated, responsible, diligent, productive, flexible and reflective individuals.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Line T. Hilt

Line T. Hilt is Associate Professor at the Department of Education, University of Bergen, Norway. Her research interest is the encounter between educational policy, inclusion and difference. These themes are approached through theory development, policy analyses and fieldwork with interviews and observations. She is also interested in political-philosophical questions regarding multiculturalism and integration of newcomers in education, and has published several articles drawing on Niklas Luhmann's systems theory.

Hanne Riese

Hanne Riese is Associate Professor at the Department of Education, University of Bergen, Norway. Her research covers thematic fields such as competence based education, entrepreneurship, and race and racialization in education, approached through participant observation, qualitative interviews, as well as analysis of policy documents. Initially trained as a social anthropologist her analytical interest lies in the intersection between action theory and discursive approaches.

Gunn Elisabeth Søreide

Gunn Elisabeth Søreide is Associate Professor and leader of the research group ‘Knowledge, Education and Democracy’ at the Department of Education, University of Bergen, Norway. Her research is concerned with how educational policy and the identities of groups of professionals and learners are constructed, negotiated and legitimized.

Notes

1. Both supranational parties such as the European Union, organizational parties such as the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank and UNESCO, as well as private parties such as the US Partnership of 21st Century Skills, have all contributed to publications on the characteristics of 21st century skills (Morgan, 2016).

2. Hereinafter referred to as MER15. MER referring to ‘Ministry of Education and Research’. The document can be downloaded at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/nou-2015-8/id2417001/ .

3. Bildung is a concept that holds a strong position in Norwegian school and education—both as a core concept in educational philosophy, but also a political concept and ideal for the teacher profession in Norway. Philosophically, the concept has its roots in Greek philosophy (‘paideia’) but was revitalized in the period of German new humanism during 18th and 19th centuries. In this tradition, Bildung refers to the lifelong cultivation and maturation of human beings in a more substantial sense than training of particular skills and competences. In Norway, a common distinction used in educational thinking (originally Hellesnes 1992) is between danning (German: ‘Bildung’), and utdanning (German: ‘Erziehung’). While ‘danning’ is related to cultivating abilities such as understanding, self-knowledge, reflection and wisdom, ‘utdanning’ is related to acquiring subject knowledge and certifications—and thus the aspects of schooling that have instrumental value.

4. The overarching national core curriculum has been revised in accordance with the subject renewal as proposed by MER15. However, it is not in effect yet. The new document is available from this website: https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/fagfornyelsen/ny-generell-del-av-lareplanen/.

5. A coalition between Labour Party, the Socialist Left Party, and the Centre Party.

6. MER15 was published in 2015, during Solberg’s first cabinet, a centre-right coalition. However, the committee was appointed already in 2013, during Stoltenberg’s second cabinet, a left-centre coalition. The mandate of the committee was thus carried through in a period of both left-centre and conservative governance.

7. In some areas, changes in the direction of increased inequalities had been identified (Bakken & Elstad, 2012).

8. The concept of 21st century skills is translated into Norwegian as ‘kompetanser for det 21ende århundre’ (competences for the 21st century). This may be due to the emphasis on a broad concept of competence, however also to the fact that the concept competence (‘kompetanse’) in Norwegian is more widely used than skills (‘ferdigheter’). The OECD (2012) report on 21st century skills states that the two terms can be used interchangeably. We engage in the discussion of competence as an empirical phenomenon and will not pursue this issue further. However we do acknowledge the fact that ‘competence’ as an educational concept is widely discussed amongst others for the theoretical problems it entails (Westera, 2001; Willbergh, 2015).

9. At 7.6% of GDP. One of the highest investments across OECD countries (OECD, 2014).

10. By ‘crowded curriculum’, the committee refers to a tendency whereby increasingly more subject content is included in the curriculum, without equivalently excluding others (MER15, p. 42).

11. Se also Hilt (2016) for a similar discussion but in a somewhat different context. See also Sæle (2018) for a discussion of how stories of both the past and the future works to legitimate policy recommendations in MER15.

12. As an illustrating example, the social-democratic progressivism movement continually sought the opportunity to reduce external pressures for achievement on pupils to protect them against capitalism (Aasen, 2003).

13. The concept of Bildung is only mentioned once in relation to music (p. 58) and a couple of times in relation to the discussion of the core curriculum and the political mandate of schooling (p. 40).

14. For instance, in order to become ‘the creative and problem-solving student’, it is necessary to work in a disciplined manner and have abilities such as persistence, endurance, autonomy and motivation (p. 33). Further, ‘the communicative skilled student’ has the ability to develop and critically reflect on his or her learning and thinking, and to use various strategies to plan and accomplish communicative acts (p. 30). Many other examples could be mentioned. ‘The self-regulated student’ seems to work across the other subject positions, and is thus the position whose identity resources’ dominates how we perceive the ideal student of MER15.

15. This includes two preceding Norwegian Official reports and a White Paper, the K06 curriculum, including the most important official documents supporting the different subject curricula, and 11 subject curricula, including central subjects such as Norwegian, English, a third language, Maths, Science and Religion.

16. When searching three documents supporting a later strategy for improving lower secondary education (Ungdomstrinn i utvikling) spanning the years 2013–2017, the first occurrence of self-regulation as a concept appeared in a document on formative assessment.

17. Vassallo (2013, 2014) claimed that there are clear alignments between the discourses of self-regulated learning and the ideology of neo-liberalism. ‘The self-regulated learner’ identified in our analysis also resembles Foucault’s (2008) notion of homo economicus and Rose’s (1992) concept of the enterprising individual.

18. Several different initiatives have defined lists of skills, the labelling of which differ (e.g. Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; Voogt & Roblin, 2012). Considering the wide range of different parties with interests in 21st century skills, the emphasis given to the different aspects varies. One suggested grouping of skills is via economic and democratic domains, a division supported by empirical data illustrating how corporate actors give most weight to the first domain, whereas government-produced documents give equal weight to both sets (Williams et al., 2013).

Appendix 1.

Examples of codes generated

Abilities related to being socially and emotionally competent

Digital judgement

Completes and passes the education

Responsible for one’s own life

Makes good decisions in life

Takes care of health

Communicative skills

Skills in interaction

Shows respect for others

Tolerates criticism

Tolerant

Adjusts to others

Socially responsible

Interacts flexibly and efficiently with others

Orients him/herself in society

Listens to others

Literacy: competence in reading and writing

Willing to compromise

Can communicate with different target-groups with different purposes

Can solve conflicts

Can give and receive feedbacks

Can argue and debate

Enters positive relationships with others

Democratically competent

Active and participating

Self-regulated

Asks for help when needed

Engaged

Open

Curious

Invests time in school work

Confidence in one’s ability to understand

Makes an effort

Good work-habits

Desire to learn

Positive attitude towards learning

Self-efficacy

Competence in learning

Meta-cognition

Manage their own learning

Reflected

Plans and implements one’s own learning processes

Aware of one’s own developments

Works goal-oriented

Motivated

Regulates one’s feelings, actions and thoughts

Independent

Takes initiative

Endurance

Explorative

Creative (Norwegian: skapende)

Analytical

Handles complex tasks and challenges

Innovative

Translates ideas into action

Entrepreneurial

Creative (Norwegian: kreativ)

Collaborative

Imaginative

Works disciplined

Critical thinking

Problem solving

Resonates

Creates artistic and cultural expressions

Appendix 2.

Subject positions

Table

Subject position	Description of subject position	Examples of relevant codes (some codes are relevant for several subject positions)	Examples of relevant quotes from MK15
The critical and problem solving student	This subject position inhibits abilities to resonate and analyse, identify relevant questions and use relevant strategies to solve problems. This student is ‘scientifically minded’ in learning, as well as in different aspects of life: s/he is able to make rational choices, decisions and use scientific methods. This mindset entails being able to assess claims, arguments, information, advice and evidence from different sources and in different situations and to make ethical and sound judgements.	Creative (Norwegian: skapende) Analytical Handles complex tasks and challenges Innovative Translates ideas into action Entrepreneurial Digital judgement Critical thinking Problem solving	‘Critical thinking and problem-solving are often considered together and refer to being able to reason and analyse, identify relevant issues and being capable of using relevant strategies for complex problem-solving.’ (MER, p. 35)
The creative and innovative student	The subject position ‘the creative and innovate student’ is a student who can meet the future demands for development, innovation and creation by being curious, imaginative and cooperative. Additionally, this student work in a disciplined and cooperative manner, and inhibits abilities such as endurance, autonomy and motivation.	Creative (Norwegian: kreativ) Explorative Engaged Open Curious Reflected Collaborative Imaginative Resonates Creates artistic and cultural expressions	‘(…) chosen to use the concept of innovation in addition to creativity, to point out that pupils will need to learn to take initiatives and transform ideas into action.’ (MER, p. 35)
The democratic, collaborative and socially responsible student	This student is democratically experienced, socially active, engaged and responsible both in and out of school. This student is relationally competent and have the ability to work with and relate to other people in positive and constructive ways and can regulate his/her feelings, thoughts and actions to ensure good cooperation and interaction. The student is able to handle and solve conflicts, make compromises and negotiate agreement. This is thus a student who not only respect, understand, acknowledge and care about other people, but also the various differences between people, backgrounds, opinions, perspectives, cultures and religions.	Democratically competent Active and participating Shows respect for others Skills in interaction Tolerates criticism Interacts flexibly and efficiently with others Listens to others Socially responsible Orients him/herself in society Willing to compromise Can solve conflicts Can give and receive feedbacks Can argue and debate Enters positive relationships with others Engaged	‘Being able to carry out activities and perform tasks with others is important in working life, and many will need to cooperate on solving complex problems, often across vocations or disciplines.’ (MER, p. 31)
The student as skilled communicator	The skilled communicator can not only write and talk in a variety of genres to a variety of audiences and in a variety of situations, s/he can also observe and listen carefully, read well and interpret and understand a variety of genres, expressions and messages from others. This subject position includes the ability to find, process, understand, use and critically assess and reflect upon information, meanings, messages and content. This student is able to develop and critically reflect over his/her learning and thinking, as well as to use various strategies to plan and accomplish tasks alone or together with peers.	Communicative skills Tolerant Adjusts to others Literacy: competence in reading and writing Can communicate with different target groups with different purposes	‘The importance of communication in society and its working life is increasing, where society needs employees and citizens who can deal with a complex diversity of information and texts, and who can communicate and interact with others.’ (MER, p. 29)
The self-regulated student	The abilities related to this position are presenting the student as motivated, responsible, engaged, curious, open, autonomous, responsible, goal-oriented and reflected. The self-regulated student is not only responsible for and manages his/her life as a lifelong and successful learner in school and work life, but are also self-regulated and responsible in other aspects of his/her life such as mental and physical health, lifestyle, economy and consumption.	Completes and passes the education Responsible for one´s own life Makes good decisions in life Takes care of health Self-regulated Asks for help when needed Invests time in school work Confidence in one’s ability to understand Makes an effort Good work habits Desire to learn Positive attitude towards learning Self-efficacy Competence in learning Meta-cognition Manage their own learning Plans and implements one’s own learning processes Aware of one’s own developments Works goal-oriented Motivated Regulates one’s feelings, actions and thoughts Independent Takes initiative Endurance Works disciplined	‘The Committee argues that pupils in the future school will need to learn and develop own competence, in school and in other arenas later in life. The Committee finds pupils development of metacognition and self-regulated learning as essential for further learning.’ (MER, p. 28)