In line with the general societal beliefs and governmental proposals (Meld.St. 34 (2023-2024) that “a more practical school” contribute learning, the school subject’s physical education, arts and crafts, food and health and music are important for education. These are among the school subjects not included in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) family of international large-scale assessments (LSA). Although these subjects  each have a long history in Nordic schools, we have little knowledge of how the curricula are put into play and operationalised, and how this has an effect in the classrooms. This study directs the lens towards what happens in everyday practices in school and the overall research question is in which ways these practical and aesthetic subjects are practiced in the context of the Norwegian National Curriculum reform “Kunnskapsløftet 2020” (LK20).

Based on practice architecture theory (Kemmis, 2022) and transactional theory (Røvik, 2009), the problem is illuminated through three research questions. Educational practices are connected in characteristic ways through language, actions, and relationships, according to practice architecture theory. From this theoretical perspective, we can expect new language, actions and relationships in the translations from previous curricula to LK20.

We have chosen a multi-method research design and produced observation from classrooms in primary and lower secondary education, interview data based on focus group interviews with students, teachers, school leaders and school district leaders, and a national survey to education leaders. The purpose has been to form a good starting point for describing, understanding, and interpreting teaching practices in practical and aesthetic subjects in interaction between national curriculum, local governance and classrooms.

It emerges that the teachers as well as school leaders and school district leaders believe that the subjects represent important values for school and society. Teachers have a lot of room for action in their practices, both from governing documents and from the local leaders. However, students' and teachers' practices are interconnected and interdependent in ways that contribute to stability and conservation towards what the subjects have been in earlier curriculums, rather than translation and change towards new practices in line with the LK20 reform. Transformations and translations from previous curricula to LK20 take place at several levels and in interaction with various practices. Students enjoy the subjects as “something else” than other, theoretical subjects. They value the room for social participation and opportunities to move around in the classroom settings. For them, the subjects are about the experience of autonomy and participation, about negotiation and forms of co-creation in teaching and that the subjects are more closely linked to a perceived relevance for themselves. There is less connection between teachers' and school leaders' interpretations of the subject practices and how these subjects contribute student learning. Here it may be that the consideration of the subjects' uniqueness and especially the expectations for the practical nature of the subjects may stand in opposition to expectations in LK20 about more flexibility and interdisciplinarity, and collaboration on interdisciplinary topics. Practical and aesthetic school subjects are historical parts of Nordic education, not easily translatable to an Anglophone audience (Krejsler, 2023). Yet, the subjects are influenced by international discourses. This project contributes to a knowledge base for the subject area in primary and lower secondary education in European countries.

Kemmis, S. (2022). Transforming Practices. Changing the World with the Theory of Practice Architectures. Springer 978-981-16-8973-4.pdf (springer.com) Krejsler, J. B. (2023). The Nordic Dimension in Education – Between Myth and Reality. Nordic Studies in Education, 43(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v43.5420 Røvik, K. A. (2009). Skoleeier som iverksetter [School owner as implementer]. I D. Langfjæran, J. S. Jøsendal & Ø. Gjølberg Karlsen (Red.), Sluttrapport fra FoU-prosjektet”. Hvordan lykkes som skoleeier? Om kommuner og fylkeskommuners arbeid for å øke elevenes læringsutbytte” (s. 135-146). Pricewater House Coopers/Kommunenes Sentralforbund.