In this paper we survey different approaches to teaching in Swedish Science Education. This means the purpose is to map and investigate patterns in teachers’ views of what constitutes “good” Science Education in the middle years of compulsory school in Sweden, in a context where these views are potentially at stake. The background for our interest in studying approaches to teaching is that a new curriculum has been established and applies in Sweden from 2011. New to this curriculum is that standardized control of student achievements are introduced in more subjects and at lower ages than before. National tests in Physics, Chemistry and Biology became mandatory in Y6 in 2013 along with marking of pupils from and including Y6. Notably for teachers in Y6 is that they could be educated and working either in a Y4-6-classteacher system, or in a Y6-9-subject specialist teacher system. Standardized testing has been proven in many cases to create norms about what types of teaching and what types of teacher are considered to be accurate (e.g. Au 2009, Stobart 2008). Some researchers argue that standardized testing tends to narrow teachers instructional practice, both concerning content and methods, while others mean that, depending for instance on how the tests are designed, tests could also increase teachers teaching repertoires in different ways (Au 2009).

What the main contents of teaching in different subjects should be is a question that is and ought to be problematized. Different policies for what contents teaching should include and how it should be conducted shapes different presuppositions for teaching and for what the pupils have opportunity learn (cf. Fensham, 2009). Analysing Science syllabuses and Science textbooks, Roberts (1994) (in North America) and Östman (1995) (in Sweden) found different patterns concerning ‘curriculum emphases’ in Science Education: correct explanation, structure of science, solid foundation, scientific skill development, self as explainer, everyday coping and science, technology and decisions. The curriculum emphases can be connected to Roberts’ (2007) two main visions (I & II) in western societies of how science education should be conducted in order to make the pupils scientific literate. Vision I is described as science reproducing its own products of concepts, laws, theories and methods. In Vision II it is accentuated that education must include facts of the subject but it must also include knowledge and skills that make the pupils able to use scientific knowledge in practical, existential, moral and political contexts.  Even though teachers are working to meet the same goals in the Science curriculum, emphasis in teaching can be made differently.

There is reason to believe that the introduction of grades and national tests can change these teachers’ perceptions of what counts as good science instruction, and effective teaching and assessment practice. However, it is not certain that all teachers’ instruction is affected in the same way.

If teachers aligning with different visions of teaching understand a reform in different ways, this will have consequences for how policy makers need to work to effectively implement reforms. Through knowledge of different approaches to teaching, we have the possibility to better understand teachers' reactions to new elements in teaching.

Au, W (2009). Unequal by design. High-Stakes Testing and the Standardization of Inequality. New York and London: Routledge. Fensham P.J. (2009). The link between policy and practice in science education: the role of research, Science Education, 93, 1076-1095. Roberts, D. A. (1994). Developing the concept of "curriculum emphases" in science education. Nordisk Pedagogik, 14, 10-25. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. I S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.). Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sjöqvist, E., Almqvist, L., Åsenlöf, P., Lampa, J., Opava, C H., and The Para Study Group (2010). Physical-activity coaching and health status in rheumatoid arthritis: A person-oriented approach. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(10), p. 816-825. Stobart, G. (2008) Testing Times. Abingdon: Routledge. Östman, L. (1995). Socialisation och mening: No-utbildning som politiskt och miljömoraliska problem Uppsala Studies in Education, 61. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.