Bildung: alive and allowed? A critical study of work plan practices in Norwegian schools

ABSTRACT

This article addresses how elementary school teachers approach Bildung when planning and monitoring the in-school- and at-home work of 6- and 9-year-old pupils. By examining a national sample of 204 weekly work plans designed by teachers in Norwegian schools, we investigate whether and how curriculum practices acknowledge principles of Bildung by opening up multiple futures through encouraging pupils to engage in meaning-making processes. To identify how work plans structure pupils’ schoolwork, we adopt a system-theoretical framework that distinguishes between conditional and purposive programme forms. The most interesting finding is that a substantial number of the investigated teachers use a purposive programme form. Through specifying objectives and assessment criteria, the teachers expect that pupils will develop and master a set of competencies. Some teachers apply a conditional form by devising work plans that emphasize subject matter content, but most of the work plans combine the two programme forms. By developing a typology of the various combinations, we find that, in addition to the pure conditional approach, a combined approach that provides objectives alongside broad descriptions of teaching content best reflects the principles of Bildung by promoting creative, dialogic interaction between teachers, pupils and parents.

KEYWORDS:

• Work plans
• bildung
• system theory
• lesson planning
• curriculum practice

Introduction

Public Bildung may be understood as a type of education that supports pupils’ efforts to understand more of the world (Hopmann, 1999). In practice, the arrangement asks pupils to work on something specific as long as opportunities remain for them to learn more or learn something other than what was originally planned (Sivesind et al., 2021). Today, however, states tend to control curriculum practices by assessing learning outcomes, an effort that implies an increased interest in shaping pupils’ mindsets to achieve those outcomes (Hilt et al., 2019). The current study demonstrates how such outcome control challenges the principle of public Bildung by limiting meaning-making processes.

Empirically, the article examines how elementary school teachers in Norway formulate so-called work plans to prepare and monitor the learning activities of 6- and 9-year-old pupils. A group of 204 plans for the first and fourth grades (ages 6–7 and 9–10, respectively) were downloaded in late 2015 from the websites of the schools in nine regions in Norway. At this stage in the Norwegian school system, there are no formal grades. Traditionally, work plans inform pupils of their workload for a week or longer. Teachers use these plans to set the agenda of what pupils will do either individually or with their peers and sometimes with their parents at home. Thus, the assignments are monitored by the plan and enacted with feedback from other pupils or their parents. In most cases, teachers used word processing programs to produce the plans, which include text and illustrations intended to attract pupils’ attention.

Our research interest lies primarily in investigating how these work plans nest curriculum components, such as objectives, content descriptions and assessment criteria, to structure pupils’ school- and homework. Of course, work plans alone cannot provide empirical evidence of how teachers present these plans in face-to-face communication in the classroom or how pupils and their parents react to the various formats the teachers employed. However, the workplans indicate how teachers specify expectations about pupils’ learning and show where the curriculum design, in principle, either facilitate or, conversely, impede what we define in this article as Bildung.

Previously, researchers have examined how work plans are designed and used to make pupils self-regulated learners (Bergem & Dalland, 2010; Dalland & Klette, 2016; Olaussen, 2009; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). Scholars have also demonstrated that the language used in these plans can influence how pupils are discursively governed (Oldervik, 2014; Rambø & Tønnessen, 2018). Attentive to Foucault’s theory of how teachers positively exercise power in schools and classrooms, Oldervik (2014) shows how work plan practices target pupils’ mindsets through planning styles oriented towards individual learning processes and outcomes. Moreover, Rambø and Tønnessen (2018) look at how work plans configure social contracts that steer both pupils’ and parents’ involvement in schools. While the former studies deploy analytical strategies inspired by Foucault and Fairclough, ours examines work plans through a system-theoretical lens as articulations of curriculum practice and of how teachers plan pupils’ activities in schools. We identify how work plans provide decision schemes in curriculum practices that structure communication between teachers, pupils, and parents.

From the very start of our study, we used a typology for analysis that distinguishes between two decision schemes: a purposive planning style that in educational terms limits Bildung by specifying learning outcomes and a conditional planning style that give directions for what to do while providing an open future and a spectrum of learning possibilities. According to Luhmann (2000), these forms represent decision schemes related to how communication evolves in organizations. Our system-theoretical lens serves as a heuristic device to examine alternative curriculum designs that can be either Bildung and input oriented or outcome and instrumentally oriented. Importantly, some designs combine the two programme forms and oscillate between the different input/output schemes available in the organization.

We take Bildung into consideration by addressing these decision programmes. On the one side, a conditional programme form makes curriculum practices mainly Bildung oriented, as it provides professional freedom and ‘room to move’. On the other, a purposive programme form inspires outcome-oriented teaching that is instrumental, as it implies a means-end reasoning. The conditional programme form is comparable to what Hopmann (2007) conceptualizes as a restrained approach to teaching. In a restrained approach, pupils need to experience openness in terms of expected learning outcomes. Simultaneously, they need structure and support from their teachers. The pupils’ degree of autonomy and freedom therefore depends on both how teachers practice their teaching and on how they mediate expectations about learning outcomes.

By classifying and systematizing how teachers formulate work plans, we examine how the plans structure expectations of what pupils are going to study, do and achieve during a period of a week or more. We posed the following research questions:

• Do teachers outline broad aims and content in work plans with a conditional programme that implies restrained teaching, and/or do they use objectives and assessment criteria to specify content and outcomes that make teaching an instrumental pursuit?

• How do work plans combine curriculum components that potentially nest programme forms by detailing what pupils are going to study, do and accomplish?

• How do such nested programme forms imply openness and a reflective practice along with educational principles of Bildung?

The article comprises four sections. The first section positions this study in the context of curriculum studies that outline ideas and principles for facilitating public Bildung. The next part introduces our analytical framework and the conditional and purposive programme forms with reference to Luhmann (1995). As this theory elucidates how a rather detailed plan and a restrained approach to teaching enable an open future, we describe these two programme forms in depth. Next, we present the data, material, and analytical strategies. This empirical section presents the combined forms that teachers use in practice. We have developed three additional types that indicate the degree to which work plan designs encourage or constrict meaning-making processes: undefined, structured and interrelated. In the final section, we discuss how and when the combined approaches take Bildung as a point of departure, thus answering the question of whether and how curriculum practices in Norwegian schools expand or constrain pupils’ educational experiences and create or limit opportunities to engage in dialogue with their peers, parents, and teachers.

Addressing decision programmes through a normative-analytical bildung lens

While the sociological research literature examines education from an external, societal perspective, curriculum studies and didactics as a research field anchor their research questions in educational theories and practices (see, e.g. Aasebø et al., 2017; Deng, 2020; Friesen, 2017; Mølstad & Karseth, 2016; Nordin, 2018; Uljens, 2018). In Northern and Central Europe, these didactical theories have traditionally been Bildung oriented (Swedish: bildning; Norwegian: danning; Danish: dannelse) (Gundem, 1995; Sivesind, 2008; Sivesind & Luimes, 2017). In this context, state authorities formulate national curricula that inform teachers of essential objectives and content at various ages. Teachers have had the professional responsibility to choose educational methods and procedures without being accountable for the outcomes. In curriculum studies, this principle is termed licencing (Haft & Hopmann, 1989; Hopmann, 1988). The didactic triangle illustrates the relationship between the teacher, the pupil, the taught content and the environment in which teacher and pupil interact (Hopmann, 2007; Künzli, 1998). Granting the crucial difference between matter and meaning, the content has the potential simply to allow pupils to develop various understandings or meanings of that content. Moreover, expectations of what the pupils will learn as a result of the teaching are more open-ended than when planning comprises a set of measurable learning goals.

This view is legitimized not only by a practical philosophy of how to empower children but also by a theory of schooling that sees teaching as a communicative process (Bachmann, 2005). According to this theory, teachers’ decisions in this communicative process do not necessarily ensure a particular understanding of the content on the part of pupils. Knowledge is simply not transferrable without reception and interpretation or without being developed through a pupil’s own understanding (Hörmann, 2015). Teaching cannot establish causal relations that ensure learning, so a teacher can never fully ensure that pupils understand the substantial aspects of a problem in specific ways or determine the experiences and perspectives that pupils develop (Bachmann, 2005). A teacher can, however, prepare for fruitful encounters in which students engage in dialogue about subject matter content.

The Bildung perspective sees pupils as relatively autonomous from an early age (meaning that, to learn, they depend both on a teacher’s care and knowledge and on their own will and drive) (Künzli, 1998). School authorities aim to acknowledge this relative autonomy by ‘restrained teaching’ (Hopmann, 2007), in which professionals serve as a buffer between the inner life of schooling and demands outside the school context. Only the relative autonomy and responsibility facilitated by restrained teaching enables learning through reflection and understanding (Weniger, 1999). Thus, a school can be considered a place for teaching and learning insofar as educational goals are emphasized through upbringing in general and teaching practices that focus on a selection of content. From this perspective, teaching is not dictated by external demands about what should be accomplished or achieved in the future. Moreover, the teaching output is not predictable, as pupils construct meaning autonomously in response to their teachers’ presentation of the content (see Hillen & Aprea, 2015; Midtsundstad, 2015; Willbergh, 2015). Instead, teaching processes make it possible to project alternative futures by rethinking the past, which addresses the needs of both pupils and society at large.

Framework, data and methods

In this section, we present the two programme forms that Luhmann (2000) outlines in his organizational theory. The analytical distinction between the forms facilitates exploring how curriculum practices reveal teachers’ handling of paradoxical dimensions related to public Bildung and how those paradoxes change character in what sociologists today describe as a knowledge society.

Conditional and purposive programmes

Today, public administrations develop risk management strategies as a means of ordering reality, that is, to create order in an unordered, chaotic world (Gottweis, 2005). In a so-called knowledge society, these strategies imply that both national and local governments aim to exert direct control through accountability systems. Against this background, the evaluative state becomes more powerful by using calculations and test-based measurements to monitor public institutions. An underlying assumption of the evaluative state is the expectation that future decisions can be causally controlled through present and future calculations (Gottweis, 2005, 2016). This risk-minimizing system of accountability implies conceptions of new forms of self-governance in which individuals are expected to manage their learning using new technology. As mentioned, researchers have taken a Foucaultian approach to study the use of work plans in curriculum practices. For Foucault (1988), semantics (i.e. the way knowledge is constructed through language) predominantly explains how a ‘sociology of techniques of government’ (Bevir, 1999, p. 352) exercises power over individuals. Thereby, the semantics subjectively determine the responsibilities of, for example, teachers (Oldervik, 2014). This approach implies a conception of new forms of self-governance. The Foucaultian perspective can clarify how a knowledge-based society and its policies target individuals and their subjectivities by the ways in which the modern states intervene to discipline and regulate citizens (Bevir, 1999p. 354). A related but different perspective that elucidates the evolution and consequences of a knowledge-based society draws on Luhmann’s distinction between conditional and purposive programmes, the latter associated with accountability strategies and learning outcomes. While both Foucault and Luhmann provide analytical lenses to examine the semantics of politics and education, only Luhmann develops a theory about systems (Borch, 2005). We argue that conceptions of systems aid in identifying how curriculum practices manifest programme structures that resonate more or less with the principles of public Bildung.

Luhmann (2000) attributes changes in accountability systems to programme forms that reflect various semantical schemes and considers the interplay between societal systems as equally relevant. This conceptual approach helps to identify the negative impact of purposive and rational planning on processes and simultaneously reveals how coordination mechanisms make Bildung possible through organizational decision-making. According to Luhmann, decision processes oscillate between different input/output schemes that either relate conditions to outcomes or consider means towards specific ends. This oscillation results in programmatic patterns. Moreover, according to Luhmann and Barrett (2013), the choice of programme forms determines the communication that characterizes organizations. In our case this choice relates to how teaching practices in Norwegian schools are either purposively oriented, by ignoring the boundaries of schooling and increasing various risks, or conditionally oriented, by restraining teaching that delimits dialogues and meaning-making processes.

Luhmann (2000, p. 261) describes conditional programmes (Konditionalprogramme) as process oriented due to a past/present decision form. Therefore, they are also referred to as input oriented. Decision sequences resulting from this programme form look backwards to past decisions that predict what comes first and what comes next through procedural expectations. This application of the conditional programme form has structural consequences in terms of regulating the relationship between conditions and possible outcomes. This programme form aims to observe social conditions through the ‘if–then’ distinction (Luhmann, 2000, p. 263), which has been the basis of the welfare state’s decision-making processes throughout modern history. This observational form establishes certain limits for ongoing communication by the principle of detailing what can and what cannot be done in terms of coordinating actions. This principle which characterizes law documents prescribes future actions to a certain degree, yet expands future possibilities, as conditions determine both what can and what cannot be done in terms of coordinating actions. If the authority limits itself, there will be leeway for others to decide. In so doing, the authority steers action through a negative-coordination mechanism. This also means that a conditional programme form cannot be straightforwardly applied along linear paths or lines. Moreover, the authority cannot possibly control the concrete decisions of organizations or individuals. What a conditional programme can do is create boundaries for decision-making by establishing limits around what to address in terms of topics of communication. Thus, in the case of a bureaucracy, which is highly regulated by law, professionals’ decisions can be regulated but not causally controlled by the conditional programme form.

Luhmann (2000, p. 263) describes the idea as paradoxical, as persons need to rethink their decisions by including the ‘only if–then’ distinction. If, for example, as in our case, curriculum documents are formulated and applied in terms of a conditional programme form, these plans will, for paradoxical reasons, not serve as detailed regulations but operate through a negative-coordination mechanism that enables several choices at the local level. Given the existence of this mechanism, a robust and detailed curriculum based on past decisions about what to teach in the classroom may facilitate both teacher and pupil autonomy relative to regulations ‘from above’, such as the law. Moreover, according to this type of programme, curriculum planning will identify specific content to be taught in schools. This means that the curriculum limits what is expected to be taught; that is, what is not described in the curriculum, is not part of the schools’ responsibility, and is not formally expected to be included as a topic in the classroom. This does not mean, however, that teaching content is regulated in detail by the formal curriculum. The curriculum thus lays the foundation for what pupils should work with in the school and at the same time restrain what the school should be responsible for in their communication with pupils and parents.

Rather, the curriculum describes subject matter content that, through teaching, will be represented and subject to interpretations to the degree that teachers represent the content in their teaching. In this way, a conditional-oriented curriculum, observing the school through a ‘only if-then’ distinction, suggests which content teachers focus on in their daily practice and, at the same time, allows them to ignore other content that could be taught. Consequently, a curriculum based on a conditional decision programme provides schools and teachers with the flexibility to decide upon content matter within certain limits, which Hopmann (2007) describes as a restrained teaching approach. Unlike conditional programmes, purposive programmes (Zweckprogramme) are future oriented, as they identify outcomes to be accomplished in the future. According to this programme form, teaching planning starts with establishing learning goals and/or assessment standards that aim to identify competence and expected performance. Luhmann (2000, p. 263) characterizes the decisional form in purposive programmes as being based on the ‘if not–then’ distinction. For example, standards can be used in assessing pupils’ competencies, and if measurements indicate that the pupils have not achieved the goals of the standards, then teachers or others must act appropriately to solve the problem. However, neither a conditional nor a purposive programme form implies decisions and actions that can be causally controlled in a straightforward way. Rather, decisions must be made manageable by applying a negative distinction. For example, when pupils do not accomplish a task or perform as expected, achieving the programme’s purposes must be pursued by reactions based on an underlying negative assumption: ‘only if not–then’. This is a risk oriented decisional form, that makes the school accountable for what pupils achieve in terms of learning outcomes. Therefore, the school is obliged to monitor how the pupils make progress according to a set of performance standards. In the purposive programme form, in contrast to a conditional programme form, observations about what to do are contingent, that is, they are open for discussion. Because conditional boundaries are not present, as when a formal curriculum presents a sequential series of goals and content, purposive decisions can include everything that is not specifically prohibited.

This contingency means that a purposive programme form allows for various projections and expectations about what one is allowed to do (e.g. what one can teach) in a particular context or situation. These new options arise when a state authority formulates legal standards without detailing rules or procedures on what to do and when a formal curriculum does not detail what should be taught in schools and classrooms but rather establishes competencies and performance standards. Luhmann (2000, p. 266) characterizes purposive programmes that focus mainly on learning goals and standards as reflecting a goal-oriented strategy that creates even more uncertainty than conditional programmes. Moreover, according to a purposive logic, evaluations and assessments become more prominent than before as governing tools, although not necessarily more influential in the daily practice of teachers. Finally, Luhmann (2000, p. 266) notes that calculations regarding the future will always be uncertain and accompanied by risks, which again are manifested in purposive-oriented teaching practice that is paradoxical by character (Hansen et al., 2021).

We argue that pupils’ work plans, as formulated by teachers, are based on a purposive programme form if they focus on competence and performance, but plans can also reflect practical styles of reasoning and a restrained approach as in a conditional programme form. To illustrate the alternative approaches and how the two programme forms can be combined through the choice of curriculum components, we apply a framework for analysing work plans. The left side of Table 1 reflects a Bildung approach that is mainly conditional, whereas the right side reflects goals and standards that follow from a purposive logic (Sivesind et al., 2016).

Table 1. A framework for curriculum analysis

Programme forms and functions	Conditional Mainly teaching oriented		Purposive Mainly learning oriented
	Past regulations formal	Present content substantial	Present activities* value based	Future performance instrumental
Topical structure in curricula	Why something is of value (rules)	What to teach (narratives)	How to learn (problem solving)	When to achieve (standards)
Pure conditional	X	X
Structured combination	X	X	X
Undefined combination		X	X
Interrelated combination		X	X	X
Pure purposive			X	X

* This concept replaces the ‘learning’ found in earlier versions of this apparatus.

The framework in Table 1 clarifies how curriculum planning may articulate conditional and purposive orientations as well as combined programme forms. The present study applies this theoretical framework to analyse curriculum planning in schools. Three combined types emerged from empirically classifying and comparing the work plan material, which we term the (1) undefined, (2) structured and (3) interrelated combinations. Using this framework, we demonstrate how work plans, as products of decisions in schools’ curriculum practices, reflect a washback effect of assessment practices. How assessment works out as a coordinating device in the forms of the three types will be further explored in the empirical part of this article.

Data and methods

The data comprised 204 work plans for first and fourth grades in primary schools in nine regions of Norway (Table 2). They date from weeks 47 to 50 in 2015. The nine regions are spread throughout the country and include both densely populated and more rural areas. As the format of the work plans considered in this study was consistent at the grade level within our text corpus, one case in our data serves as a representation of the work plan formats for that grade at that school.

Table 2. Distribution and number of schools, work plans and cases

Region	Number of schools	Number of work plans	Number of cases
Region 1	6	27	12
Region 2	8	35	16
Region 3	6	24	10
Region 4	4	12	8
Region 5	7	19	13
Region 6	7	23	12
Region 7	9	23	15
Region 8	5	16	9
Region 9	7	25	12
Total	59	204	107

Work plans describe curriculum components to inform pupils of what to do during a specific period. The plans provide a weekly overview of what will take place at school and in class and are addressed to both pupils and parents. Usually, work plans provide the following information (for a sample work plan, see the appendix):

• Lesson plan for the coming week

• Learning goals and/or learning content

• Practical information

• Homework requirements

• Some work plans have specific features, such as self-evaluation, ‘words of the week’, advice for learning and training or reports on learning progress in class.

We conducted a semantical analysis focused on those parts of the work plans that provide information on learning content and/or objectives (Andersen, 2003). Some work plans contain specific features that we also analysed, such as rubrics or other devices for self-evaluation, as the devices often comprise a list of learning objectives that indicate whether and how a plan reflects a purposive programme form. Some work plans included a timetable for a lesson plan with detailed content for the coming week. In those cases, we considered the lesson plan as listing subject matter content in a straightforward way. The presentation of the content and learning objectives served as our units of analysis, which we examined with reference to the analytical framework in Table 1. Thus, we categorized each case according to the various programme forms: Are content matter and learning goals directed towards future proficiency, or do they present a narrative description of what pupils are required to learn at school? Are they learning-oriented, and what kind of phrases are used to articulate expectations regarding pupils’ competencies (e.g. ‘the pupil is able to’, ‘I can’, ‘the pupil should’)? After classifying them as reflecting a purposive or conditional programme form, we examined the variety of these approaches, focusing especially on combined programme forms.

As shown in table 3, the most common way of presenting subject matter content combines purposive and conditional elements. In 44 cases, teachers presented their aims and objectives in a traditional way by indicating the basic topics and themes of instruction and mentioning specific competence goals that pupils were expected to achieve. A comparable number of cases represented genuinely purposive programme forms, which focus on learning goals formulated as competencies and/or skills that must be mastered. Traditional conditional forms constituted a minority of 16 cases, and nine cases featured alternative approaches (i.e. work plans that contained no information on what was to be taught in the coming week).

Table 3. Quantitative distribution of the work plan cases

Programme forms	Frequency of cases
Combination of purposive and conditional forms	44
Purposive	38
Conditional	16
Others	9
Total	107

In general, the programme forms articulated in the work plans were consistent within one class at one school, meaning the work plans adhered to a given format and did not change their form over time. The programme forms were also largely consistent within schools, meaning that, in most cases, both grades (first and fourth) used the same form. In cases in which the two grades followed different programme forms, the work plans for the first grade leaned towards a combined programme form, whereas those for the fourth grade tended to follow a purposive form (with some exceptions). The following section briefly presents and describes work plans in the tradition of genuine purposive or conditional programme forms. Thereafter, we present various configurations of combined programme forms and analyse them more extensively. The programme forms presented in the next section are outlined below:

• Purposive programme forms

• Conditional programme forms

• Combined programme forms:

  • Undefined combination of conditional and purposive forms

  • Structured combination of conditional and purposive forms

  • Interrelated combination of conditional and purposive forms

Analysis

Purposive programme forms

Work plans representing this programme form relied on a list of learning goals that were formulated in diverse ways (e.g. ‘I can’, ‘I should be able to’, ‘you are able to’, ‘to be able to’, like in (Table Example 1). The only exception was information concerning social behaviour at school and in class. Goals of this kind were in certain cases set in a conditional way, and, in one case, a work plan provided additional exercises for advanced pupils.

Work plans representing this programme form addressed pupils directly and concretely identified the competencies that the pupils should acquire. The list of competencies can be regarded as a guideline that pupils use when preparing for tests or doing homework. Some of the work plans also contained template-based self-evaluation tools that allowed pupils to assess the extent to which they had mastered a particular achievement. The goals listed in these work plans pointed to a future mastery of the content and were therefore clearly future oriented, like the one in Table Example 2

Conditional programme forms

In work plans representing conditional programme forms, no learning goals are mentioned. Work plans in this category usually present the main topics on which a class will focus. Like in Table Example 3, the subject matter content is described in a few words or brief sentences.

Compared to other programme forms, it is interesting that the learning content in this example is described using ‘we’. This implies that the teacher experiences the learning situation together with the pupils in class as a common ‘we’, with both being responsible for progress. The learning content gives no information on how pupils can determine whether they have mastered the content.

Combined programme forms

Undefined combination of conditional and purposive Forms

The work plans provide an overview of the weekly learning objectives, including both descriptions of subject matter content (conditional form, present content) and competence-oriented descriptions of what pupils should be able to do (purposive form, present and future learning). The logic determining whether goals are presented in a traditional way or as competence goals is unclear. The overview of goals and content is an arbitrary mixture of what will be learned, like illustrated in Table Example 4. The learning goals are formulated in diverse ways (‘you are able to’, ‘to know’, ‘you shall recognize’ etc.), whereas the conditional form mentions only the topic of a lesson (‘Christianity’). There is a slight tendency to use purposive forms in the case of subjects such as mathematics, Norwegian, English, social studies and science and to use conditional forms in the case of religion, music, and social behaviour in class.

By identifying various objectives and topics, the work plans inform the pupils and their parents of what the pupils are expected to learn and achieve. Compared to other work plans, the lists representing this programme form are merely informative and nonbinding, as they are relatively unclear on some aspects of the content (e.g. ‘know the New Testament’; pupils should ‘play, improvise and experiment’). However, some goals refer to present abilities and proficiency and are presented in a clearly purposive style. They are formulated in diverse ways, ranging from a very impersonal approach to directly addressed goals, such as ‘you should be able to’. Overall, work plans of this kind represent an undefined distribution of responsibility and leave space for individual pupils to define the extent of their efforts and the degree of responsibility that they will assume for their learning.

Structured combination of conditional and purposive forms

This programme form identifies learning goals in a purposive way (‘I can’, ‘I know’) and, in addition, lists the content to be addressed in the coming week. The work plans in this category clearly distinguish between goals and topics, which are sometimes presented in the timetable of a work plan, like shown in Table Example5.

The overview of topics and themes to be studied is merely informative. Pupils and their parents are not held directly accountable; rather, the lists of learning goals in these plans can be used to evaluate a pupil’s progress. As in the case of undefined combinations of conditional and purposive forms, learning goals are displayed for subjects such as maths, Norwegian and English but not for religious education and swimming. One reason may be that it is easier and more meaningful to formulate learning goals for the abovementioned subjects, which are often regarded as carrying higher status than subjects such as religious education, sports and arts.

Some of the work plans of this kind contained a box in which the pupils and/or their parents had to evaluate whether the pupils were mastering, were not mastering, or had not yet satisfactorily mastered a particular goal. The parents had to provide a signature beneath the evaluation. In one case, the teacher could give personal feedback to the pupil on the work plan itself (School 6.2).

In Table Example 6, pupils and their parents are explicitly held accountable for the former’s progress. The purposive aspect of this programme form is not limited to presenting learning goals, as the self-evaluation checkbox also indicates the future mastering of the learning goals. By providing their signatures, parents confirm that they feel responsible for and are monitoring their children’s learning progress.

Interrelated combination of conditional and purposive forms

This programme form features a threefold approach to presenting learning content and goals. In relation to an overview of content matter and a list of learning goals, this type of work plan features a column labelled vurdering (assessment, evaluation), which provides information on how pupils, parents and teachers can determine whether pupils have mastered a particular goal.

The three points of the list in Table Example 7, ‘goal’, ‘evaluation’ and ‘at school’, present an interrelated, self-contained preparation of content that reflects what teachers are supposed to do in their preparation for class. The evaluation is not addressed to anyone in particular, and the description of learning content and goals is non-directive.

Beyond the forms presented above, there are also work plans that provide no information on learning goals or learning content. Such work plans contain only homework, practical information, and a timetable (which occasionally identifies topics for some lessons).

Discussion

We have analysed how teachers used various work plan formats to coordinate the school- and homework of pupils. A work plan guides pupils’ activities in schools and at the same time informs parents, who are expected to help their children with their homework. Thus, the plan is designed to serve as a social contract between the school and the pupils’ homes. We collected plans that teachers gave to pupils in the first and fourth grades in various regions of Norway. For analytical purposes, we used a typology that distinguishes between two decision schemes that characterize the formats of the work plans: a purposive planning style, which in educational terms limits Bildung by specifying learning outcomes, and a conditional planning style, which gives directions for what to do while providing an open future and a spectrum of learning possibilities. According to Luhmann (2000), these schemes represent two programme forms that structure communication within an organization, such as a school.

Three research questions guided our inquiry: (1) Do teachers outline broad aims and content in work plans with a conditional programme that implies restrained teaching, and/or do they apply objectives and assessment criteria to specify content and outcomes that make teaching an instrumental pursuit? (2) How do work plans combine curriculum components that potentially nest programme forms by detailing what pupils are going to study, do and accomplish? (3) How do such nested programme forms imply openness and a reflective practice along with educational principles of Bildung?

The first research question addresses how teachers’ work-plan designs reflect various programme forms. As our study demonstrates, a substantial proportion of work plans are purposively oriented. The discursive studies of Oldervik (2014) and Rambø and Tønnessen (2018) found similar results. Rambø and Tønnessen (2018, p. 31) conclude that the work plans reflect a ‘neoliberal ideology of governance’. Discourse analyses can provide insight into how ideologies shape curriculum practices, but such analyses cannot identify how systems and combinations of programme forms may structure the ongoing communication between teachers, pupils and parents. Neither does this perspective provide insights into the conditions that are essential to developing curriculum practices that correspond to a Bildung-oriented approach to teaching. By using our analytical framework for curriculum analysis (see Table 1), we demonstrated that some work plans were highly purposively oriented, while others focused on conditions only, such as content. Of 107 cases, we found that 38 represented genuinely purposive programme forms in terms of the competencies and/or skills that pupils were expected to master. Traditional conditional forms constituted a minority of 16 cases, and eight cases employed alternative forms (e.g. work plans that contained no information on what was to be taught in the coming week). These results indicate that purposive programme forms have become an important part of Norwegian teachers’ curriculum planning practises.

Our second research question aimed to identify how work plans combine curriculum components that potentially nest programme forms by detailing what pupils are going to study, do and accomplish. The most common approach to presenting subject matter content was combining purposive and conditional programme forms. In 44 cases, teachers presented their aims and objectives both conditionally (by indicating the basic topics and themes of instruction) and purposively (by mentioning some competence goals that pupils were expected to achieve). Our analysis identified three distinct types of combined form: undefined, structured and interrelated.

In the undefined combinations of conditional and purposive planning forms, precise goals were blended with traditional descriptions of content matter without following any apparent logic. We found a slight tendency to use purposive forms in subjects such as maths, Norwegian, English, social studies and science and to use conditional forms for religion, music and social behaviour in class.

Structured combinations, however, clearly distinguish between goals and topics by identifying learning goals and providing lists of the content matter to be addressed in the coming week. Some teachers formulated content matter in a purposive way only in maths, Norwegian and English, whereas they presented content matter in a conditional form in subjects such as religion or physical education. Some even used different approaches within individual subjects by presenting content matter that could easily be formulated as precise goals alongside general topics to be discussed in class at school.

Interrelated combinations offer a self-contained preparation of the content by explicating learning goals, how those goals are to be evaluated and the content matter to be discussed in class. The three parts are interrelated and thus reflect a consistent preparation for class. These interrelated combinations included self-evaluation tools, placing responsibility for learning progress on the pupils and their parents, who become accountable for the former’s learning progress. The predominant use of combined forms indicates that the full variety of school subjects cannot be covered only by identifying objectives. Diverse combinations of conditional and purposive programme forms allow various amounts of space for describing the subject content matter; teachers seem to believe it necessary to complement precise cognitive learning goals with descriptions of content.

Our third research question aimed to identify and discuss the limiting and delimiting implications of combining various programme forms. We considered how nested programme forms imply openness and a reflective practice along with principles of Bildung. Employing sociological system theory, we argue that several challenges arise due to the emphasis on cognitive learning outcomes and the associated combinations of programme forms in curriculum planning practices. According to Luhmann (1995, 2000), a purposive programme form is typical for decision-making processes that become highly instrumentalised. In today’s globalized, advanced society, Luhmann (2000) argues that this programme form creates more uncertainty than a conditional programme form and therefore a greater degree of risk. For example, calculations of the risk of not achieving the expected outcomes in the future are at the centre of decision-making processes that follow a purposive logic or style of reasoning. In this case, a work plan will present decision schemes that aim to minimize risks and manage pupils’ expected performance. Through the calculation of risk (for example, with the help of tests and screenings), teachers in the present attempt to determine the future by specifying goals and assessment criteria. Thereby, they try to minimize the chance that their pupils will not meet the external expectations in the future. A purposively oriented work plan may thus be described as a communication form intended to minimize the risks of not accomplishing the expected learning outcome. Moreover, pupils’ not achieving the identified goals may be seen as a problem demanding action, the remedy for which might be individual differentiation based on pupils’ capabilities. The conditional oriented work plan is intended to create a variety of opportunities for learning outcomes within a framework based on the negative ‘only if not–then’ coordinating principle (Luhmann, 2000, p. 263).

Interestingly, a substantial number of cases are purposively oriented in our material, for example, by including self-evaluation schemes. Teachers design this kind of work plan to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning processes among pupils. Most often, these purposively oriented work plans specified expected individual achievements at distinct levels after a given period (normally one week). Thus, teachers, pupils and their parents were all exposed to risk calculation and management, or what Knapp and Hopmann (2017) call gap management strategies. These strategies result from the increasing tendency of public welfare providers to be more concerned about the quality of their systems than about the responsibilities they provide by means of their mandates. Moreover, measurements and calculations are considered helpful instruments and important tools in quality assurance systems used to improve services to achieve particular goals or outcomes in the future. In accordance with Luhmann’s (2000) description of the purposive oriented programme form, a general assumption of gap management strategies is the expectation that future decisions may be causally controlled through measurements and calculations, which can also imply radical shifts in terms of both the semantics used and the curriculum programme forms that are applied based on didactic rationales. One adaption based on the logic of purposive programme forms is the use of assessments as a key element in teaching practices and the analysis of policies and practices. In this tradition, assessment-oriented teaching means steadily learning to learn and adopting best practices (Knight et al., 2014). For teachers, this means fostering self-governed pupils who can be their own teachers from an early age. In this context, ‘good teaching’ is learner centred in that all parties focus on pupils’ active learning and teachers respond to and account for diversity among pupils based on an outcome-oriented understanding of learning (Paine et al., 2016, pp. 736–746).

An important question is whether gap management, which does not limit a school’s areas of responsibility, offers teachers the freedom to select and organize subject matter content and prepare for learning activities in line with a Bildung approach. Another important question is whether a risk orientation will standardize teaching procedures and reduce teachers’ professional latitude in making decisions and limit their options in terms of promoting pupils’ autonomy and engagement in meaning-making processes in the classroom. Such gap management strategies and the subsequent risk orientation increasingly draw attention to individual rights and achievements, such as individually adapted education and the right to special education (Bachmann et al., 2010). One paradoxical consequence of the revealed gap management strategies and the associated risk calculations may be that schools will consider a growing number of pupils as being at risk of not meeting the given standards and thus will perceive them as a problem, not in accordance with the expected norms (Hörmann, 2007). The risk calculations are based on technical rationales in which learning is measured in terms of individual achievements based on a set of predefined standards; the next step may be the construction of what Hörmann (2011, 2015) calls a ‘paradigm of individualization’. Because educational achievement in this regime takes individual pupils and their performance as the point of departure, the main task of teaching is to improve each pupil’s performance in accordance with a set of defined objectives. Within such a framework, teaching becomes an activity in which the exercise of skills is the key to success; when pupils’ performance falls below the defined benchmark, teaching and support are regarded as compensating instruments for remediating pupils’ deficiencies (Hörmann, 2011). This approach may result in the standardization of teaching methods, which would eschew the licencing principle and the restrained approach, both of which enable future possibilities by promoting meaning-making processes in the classroom.

Not surprisingly, however, due to the long tradition of a conditionally oriented national curriculum in Norway, a large proportion of cases in our material included detailed presentations of teaching content, either in lists of learning objectives or described more broadly in lists of content matter to be taught in the coming week. Researchers such as Kelly (2004) characterize this tradition as instrumental, as it mediates past decisions that predict current practices. Thus, they advocate more learning-oriented practices, in which competencies become the focus of attention. We argue, however, that conditionally oriented work plans encourage pupil participation in meaning-making processes while being restrained only by the content. A curriculum practice that follows from a conditionally oriented programme form facilitates open-ended expectations regarding the accomplishment of learning goals despite a predefinition of content. From this point of view, the curriculum justifies a broad orientation to content and learning activities with ‘a multitude of interpretations of content and opportunities for pupils to contribute to the various interpretations’ through teaching communication (Aasebø et al., 2017, p. 286). Thus, an approach to teaching that is constrained through the imposition of conditions that frame teaching does not necessarily prescribe learning in the end. Rather, when teachers and pupils engage in dialogue restrained by conditional programmes, pupils have opportunities to prepare for the future by becoming more autonomous.

In our analysis, we discovered that teachers preferred to combine purposive and conditional forms, perhaps because it is difficult to plan teaching and learning activities without describing content. Conditions are important in guiding and supporting pupils by providing them with information that describes what to learn and do, which contributes to meaning-making communication and managing expectations. However, an interesting finding is that, in cases in which purposive and conditional programme forms were combined, content was more limited in scope than in conditionally oriented cases. Such combined forms identify expectations that hold pupils accountable for their learning through self-evaluation and through parents’ or teachers’ coordination of assessment activities (e.g. through parents’ providing signatures to verify that pupils have done the required work) and the learning progress (e.g. through the employment of assessment measures by teachers). In the case of combined forms, Bildung is constrained to a lesser or greater extent. Both undefined and structured combinations allow for Bildung for those parts in which teachers describe traditional content matter in specific subjects. Our empirical analysis found that the teachers’ manner of presenting content in subjects such as religion, physical education, arts and social science resonated best with the ideas of Bildung. In the core subjects, such as maths, Norwegian and English, teachers more often focused on simple assessment-oriented descriptions of basic skills. This was expected, as such subjects are associated with literacy and numeracy, which are subject to both national and local testing.

The limitations of meaning-making processes and pupils’ autonomy in their learning processes are of greatest concern in the context of risk orientation and teaching within the frames of a purposively oriented programme form. When teaching planning is purposively oriented, it begins with learning goals and outcomes as the core parameters. Communication is constrained by formulations of learning outcomes and calculations of whether certain outcomes may not be achieved. Pupils should perform in accordance with a set of defined objectives, a precondition that gives teachers fewer opportunities to adapt content and adjust expectations about learning results to contextual conditions and through communication with pupils regarding the latter’s experiences, progress and interests. The purposive approach to curriculum practices assumes teaching and learning situations with more disciplined pupils who can adapt their work to goals and content that are irrelevant to their scope of interest. We claim that purposively oriented forms of planning, including when they are combined with conditional forms, reduce opportunities for Bildung and consequently the opportunities to enhance pupil’s autonomy through teaching. Furthermore, and paradoxically in the context of risk orientation, this could lead to constrained teaching processes with far more limited opportunities for teachers to adapt teaching to the pupils’ needs and sense of mastery. Within a conditional programme form, communication is restrained contextually by a focus on progression in terms of school content. Communication within these frames or delimitations provides possibilities for developing teachers’ and pupils’ autonomy in creating meaning-making processes through which mature, self-disciplined and self-governed pupils develop as an indirect consequence of public Bildung.

Example 1. School 3.5, week 48, first grade (extracts from the list of learning goals)

Goals for this period Norwegian: I should be able to write and recognize the sound of the letter Ø/ø. I should be able to pronounce the sounds of the letters and combine them to form a word. I should be able to recognize words such as de, vi and som (they, we and as). (…) Science and social studies: I should know why waste separation is important. I should recognize the various symbols at landfill sites and know what to dispose where. (…) ‘This is my choice’/religious education: I should know examples of children’s rights. I should be able to discuss Cain and Abel and talk about jealousy, sin and violence. I shall be a good friend and say nice things to my peers.

Example 2. School 2.7, week 47, fourth grade

Learning goal Dialogue between the child and parents	Cannot	Can a bit	Can
Norwegian: I can write a story with an introduction, main section and ending.
English: I can name eight different professions in English.
Social: I enter the classroom quietly (door frame rule).

Example 3.: SChool 6.3, week 48, first grade

Learning goal Maths: Chapter 7. Measuring. We compare sizes and measure with nonstandardised measurement units. We learn the days of the week and review the numbers 1–10 (p. 23–27). English: ‘Creepy crawlies’. We learn words for some insects: ant–maur, bee–bie, centipede–tusenben, grasshopper–gresshoppe, ladybug–marihøne, snail–snegle. Norwegian: We learn the letter D/d. We work with letters and sounds (p. 85–92 in the workbook).

Example 4. School 2.1, week 48, first grade

Some of this week’s learning goals To be able to read, write and form the letter F/f, find it in texts and hear the letter in words that contain the letter F/f. Pupils should play, improvise and experiment with rhyme and rhythm. To be able to write and recognize sets of the figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. To know the New Testament and about Jesus’ life from his birth onward. To participate in simple, practiced dialogues in English, know the names of the days of the week and learn the terms today, yesterday, tomorrow, week and day.

Example 5. School 3.1, week 48, fourth grade.Week plan (timetable)—Tuesday.

Gathering
Norwegian: exercise with words
Reading
Maths: kilometres
Break: outside
English: nouns
Break: eat outside
Swimming: jumping into deep water, distance swimming
Break
Religion: Judaism

Learning goals

Maths: To know that 1 km = 1,000 metres and to be able to convert the two.

Norwegian: To master normal words with the kj sound; to learn what various words mean; to practice writing words correctly. Master better: reading, handwriting, reading comprehension.

English: To be able to write short descriptive sentences about a picture; to know what ‘a’ and ‘an’ mean; to know how to say nouns in both the singular and plural

Example 6. School 2.3, week 48, first grade

Learning goal	Is able to	Is a little bit able to	Cannot
Norwegian: Can write and read the letters ‘h’ and ‘k’
Maths: Can count forward and backward from 0–10
English: Can say ‘I want a … ’, ‘I like … ’ and ‘I don’t like … ’
Self-evaluation should be done at home with parents every Friday. Parents provide their signature here to confirm that the self-evaluation has been done. Signature:

Example 7.: School 3.3, week 49, first grade

NORWEGIAN
Goal	Repetition of the pronunciation of the letters N, J, F, Å, Y and M. Can pronounce the sounds and say words featuring these sounds. Can write the letters and words. Knows the difference between consonants and vowels. Can clap and say syllables.
Evaluation	Through reading/writing/orally. Hentediktat (pictures with words). Bokstavbrikker (parts of letters).
At school	Letter and wordplay. Games. Language games. Form letters in the handwriting book. Zeppelin workbook—finish with all letters. Zeppelin reading book—read together. Zeppelin digital pupil resources.
MATHS
Goal	Terms: addition, subtraction, even and odd numbers
Evaluation	Observation and delivered exercises/tasks
At school	Work with books and notebooks

Subjects: Norwegian and maths

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kari Bachmann

Dr.polit. Kari Bachmann is the dean at the faculty of Business Administration and Social Sciences at Molde University College, and Researcher II at Møreforskning (Møre Research). Her research interests are education and health reform and governance, didactics, school development, adaptive and inclusive education and psychosocial learning environment. Contact: [email protected]

Bernadette Hörmann

Bernadette Hörmann is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oslo. Her postdoctoral research project is a comparative study about externalization in curriculum-making processes. Her research interests are school reforms in an international and comparative perspective, school and curriculum theory, didactics, and students’ lived experience of schooling. Contact: [email protected]

Kirsten Sivesind

Dr. Kirsten Sivesind, is an associate professor in the Department of Education, University of Oslo. Her main fields of academic interest are curriculum and didactics, knowledge history, and comparative policy studies in education. Her publications include ‘Mixed Images and Merging Semantics in European Curricula’ (Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2013). She currently serves as the principle investigator in a five-country study titled ‘Policy Knowledge and Lesson Drawing in Nordic School Reform in an Era of International Comparison’. Contact: [email protected]