This paper addresses specific findings from the author´s doctoral thesis which was defended in the University of Iceland in July 2013. The paper focuses on the idea of a transforming curriculum, where both the official curriculum (intended curriculum) and the implemented curriculum (curriculum-in-action) were considered as transforming constantly, appearing as kaleidoscopic phenomena reflecting a state of perpetual ‘flux’ rather than ‘fixity’. Science curricula in force from 1960 to 2010 in Iceland were examined with special focus on the national curriculum in force from 1999 to 2010.

Two concepts from language studies, ‘diachrony’ and ‘synchrony’, were borrowed for further elaboration. The diachronic dimension entails changes over time, while the synchronic dimension means status at a particular time. But as argued by Widdowson (1996) synchrony should not be confused with stability and the context will always be complex and multi-planed. Like language, curricula do not just change over time, they vary at any one time.

The diachronic dimension: Official curriculum guides for school science were analysed with respect to curriculum ideologies and theories about educational change, focusing on rationale, aims, content, and role of those concerned. The official guides were the following: 1960 (in force 1960-1976), 1976 (in force 1976-1989), 1989 (in force 1989-1999) and 1999 (in force 1999-2010). First, the position and role of learners, teachers, subject matter and milieu were observed and secondly the extent to which they adhered to a content/product model on the one hand or a process/development model on the other hand.

The synchronic perspective meant studying the status or cross-section of a curriculum at a particular point of time, in this case the curriculum in force 1999 – 2010. It was assumed that those who belonged to that time and it´s educational context shared the same official guidelines, the same law and official curriculum, but presumably perceived and followed them differently, and had different educational and communal uses for them. Thus schools were expected to appear as ‘particularistic’ (cf. Elmore & McLaughlin, 1988) and vary regarding the use and interpretation of the intended curriculum (cf. Atkin & Black, 1996). 

The research question was:

What characterised the transformation of the science curriculum for Icelandic compulsory schools in force from 1960 to 2010:  a) from a diachronic perspective? b) from a synchronic perspective?

Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (2007). History of science curriculum reform in the United States and the United Kingdom. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 781–806). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Black, P. J., & Atkin, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject: Innovations in science, mathematics and technology education. London: Routledge. Bybee, R. W., & Ben-Zvi, N. (2003). Science curriculum: Transforming goals to practices. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 487–498). Dordrecht: Kluwer academic publishers. Donnelly, J. (2006). The intellectual positioning of science in the curriculum, and its relationship to reform. Journal of curriculum studies, 38(6), 623–640. Donnelly, J. F., & Jenkins, E. W. (2001). Science education: policy, professionalism, and change. Sage/Chapman: London Eisner, E. W. (1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan College Publishing. Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work: policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Giroux, H. A. (1990). Curriculum theory, textual authority, and the role of teachers as public intellectuals. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5(4), 361-383. Goodson, I. (2010). Curriculum reform and curriculum theory: A case of historical amnesia. In J. Arthur & I. Davies (Eds.), The Routledge education studies reader (pp. 192–201). London: Routledge. Kelly, A. V. (2009). The curriculum: Theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield Foundation. Retrieved April 24, 2010, from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_Report_Final.pdf Schiro, M. (2008). Curriculum theory: conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Los Angeles: SAGE. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum, (pp. 402–435). New York: Macmillan. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. van den Akker, J. (2010). Curriculum perspectives: an introduction. In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends (pp. 1–10). London: Kluwer Academic. Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.