Social and emotional skills in curriculum reform: a red line for measurability?

Abstract

This article applies a current example of curriculum reform to investigate mechanisms driving the push for international comparative assessment of social and emotional skills in contemporary education. Using a combination of bibliometric and content analysis the article identifies key sources in the recent Norwegian curriculum reform. The article considers how understanding and measurability of social and emotional skills is negotiated in policy documents and the cited knowledge base. Nine international sources are identified in the policy documents underlying the reform. Arguments from these sources are compared with arguments in policy documents to demonstrate overlap and potential misalignment. The final curriculum is found to be in non-alignment with the knowledge base that supports of a broad understanding of social and emotional skills and the measurement of such skills in schools. Drawing on critical realism the authors argue that Norwegian policymakers have rejected the global push for comparative assessment. They have drawn a red line to prevent social and emotional skills from becoming part of students' subject competence and to protect students from standardized assessment of such skills in schools. This position represents a strong case against measurability that may influence ongoing debates on quantification and comparisons in education.

Using vignettes to understand the social-emotional experiences of three-year-olds in diverse language contexts

“…In addition, the need to understand the interactions between social-emotional learning, learning, and school effectiveness has also been presented (Fitzgerald, 2020;Fricke et al, 2021). Although some researchers (Restad & Mølstad, 2021) have cautioned against formalised assessment of social-emotional learning, the importance of the acknowledgment of social-emotional learning nevertheless enjoys wide recognition (Fitzgerald, 2020;Fricke et al, 2021).…”

Sammenheng: Om et diskursivt knutepunkt i Læreplanverket for Kunnskapsløftet 2020

“…) tillempes til en norsk skolekontekst, har blitt undersøkt med utgangspunkt i konsepter som kompetanse/danning (Mausethagen, 2013) og selvregulering (Riese et al, 2020), men også med en bredere orientering, for eksempel mot elevsyn (Hilt et al, 2019) og laererroller (Mølstad & Prøitz, 2019). Disse prosessene er også et sentralt interessefelt i tekstanalytisk anlagte studier med en mer allmenn innretning, for eksempel mot innflytelsen som New Public Management utøver i norsk utdanningspolitikk (Helgøy & Homme, 2016), mot implementeringen av OECDs målsetting om å vektlegge emosjonelle og sosiale ferdigheter (Restad & Mølstad, 2020), eller mot kunnskapsbasen som har blitt valgt som utgangspunkt for de siste tiårenes skolereformer (Baek et al, 2018). Holdningene som inntas overfor innflytelsen utenfra, er ofte kritiske og ikke sjelden avvisende, for eksempel i diskusjonen av uttrykk som kompetanse (Willbergh, 2015) og dybdelaering (Melby-Lervåg, 2019).…”

Exploring the perceived learning of ‘students as researchers’ through two theoretical lenses

“…The government thus concluded that this dilemma could be solved only by excluding these aspects of learning and development from the definition of 'competence'. Restad and Mølstad (2020) describe this decision as 'drawing a red line for measurability' and point to the result that '[t]he Norwegian curriculum does not align with the broad position of an international knowledge base that sees social and emotional skills as an equally important and integrated part of academic learning in schools' (p. 10). Leaving aside the conceptual debate on the limitations of competence as an educational concept (Willbergh, 2015), the failed attempt at introducing a broad definition of competence into the Norwegian curriculum shows how important traits of the Didaktik tradition-the autonomy of the student and the idea that Bildung is to some extent irreducible and impossible to break down and measure-are retained, at the same time as an output-based curriculum that challenges important principles in the same tradition, such as the distinction between matter and meaning and the autonomy of teachers and students, has been introduced.…”