In many countries, curricula operate with various descriptions of student mastery (Højgaard & Sølberg, 2023). However, curricula descriptions of mastery differ, through various use of terms like competences, skills, and knowledge. Of the three terms, competences represent a clear ambition to set student mastery as a goal for education (Højgaard & Sølberg, 2023). Major international organisations, including the OECD, UNESCO, the World Bank, and the European Commission, promote a competence-based educational orientation which especially influenced European curricula, peaking in the early 2000s (Tahirsylaj & Sundberg, 2020).

Consequently, competence has become a central organising concept in many primary and lower secondary curricula (e.g. Education Scotland, 2009; Gordon et al., 2014; Ministry of Education and Research, 2019), although no consensus exists regarding the meaning of the term (Ropohl et al., 2018; Tahirsylaj & Sundberg 2020; Christiansen, 2025). In other curricula terms such as skills or capabilities (e.g. in England and Australia) are used in ways that arguably reflect similar competence-oriented intentions (Anderson Levitt, 2017).

Naturally, science education has likewise adopted competence-based goals, though with substantial variation across countries (e.g. Waddington et al., 2007; Mathelitsch, 2013). In Denmark, the compulsory primary and lower secondary science curricula are organised around four competence goals (Ministry of Children and Education, 2019):

1) Inquiry competence – the ability to design, conduct, and evaluate inquiries/investigations in biology, physics/chemistry, and geography;

2) Modelling competence – the ability to apply and critically assess models within biology, physics/chemistry, and geography;

3) Perspective-taking competence – the ability to relate biology, physics/chemistry, and geography to societal and environmental contexts, and to connect subject content to the development of scientific understanding; and

4) Communication competence – the ability to communicate scientific issues within biology, physics/chemistry, and geography

The curricula emphasise that competence exceeds the mere accumulation of knowledge and skills. It includes the capacity to independently and responsibly reflect on their application in specific science related situations, thereby enabling critical thinking and informed action (Ministry of Children and Education, 2019).

According to an executive order from the Ministry of Children and Education, primary and lower secondary students should come to recognise science and technology as part of culture and worldview, strengthen their sense of responsibility toward nature and resource use, and develop confidence in their ability to take a stance and act (Ministry of Children and Education, 2024).

Especially, the ability to act is a central goal in Danish primary and lower secondary competence-oriented curricula, with an underlying competence definition comparable to that of Adelsberger et al. (2008), who describe competence as “the ability to act in unknown areas, using knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (p. 4070). Thus, competence concerns the ability to respond appropriately to challenges in both familiar and unfamiliar contexts. It is performance based and reflected in observable actions and choices. Being competent requires not only qualification but also the willingness and ability to apply one’s qualifications.

These four areas of science competence constitute the framework Danish primary and lower secondary teachers are required to work with. However, competence-oriented teaching appears challenging for both teachers and students (Christiansen, 2025). To better understand the roots of these challenges, this study examined, through interviews, students’ and teachers’ perceptions of science and science education in relation to formal science competence goals, pursuing the following questions:

1. What do students and teachers say about science competence and what it means to be good at science?

2. To what extent is there alignment between the official science curricula's description of educational goals and teachers’ and their students’ perceptions of educational goals, and to what extent would possible differences pose a problem?

Study Settings This study draws on semi‑structured interviews with lower‑secondary students and their science teachers from four Danish schools. Across 12 classes, 36 students and 11 science teachers participated in individual interviews conducted on school premises during school hours in spring 2024. The student sample comprised 15 boys and 21 girls aged approximately 12–15 years, including nine 7th‑grade, twenty‑one 8th‑grade, and six 9th‑grade students. The interview design was approved by school principals. From the group of students with parental consent, science teachers selected three students per class, with the intention of ensuring the greatest possible variation in terms of students’ interest in and proficiency within science. During the student interviews, the students were asked what, in their view, it means to be good at science — that is, what abilities and practices characterize a successful student in their view. In addition, the students were asked whether they had encountered the notion of competence in relation to science teaching, and finally, what they considered to be characteristic of each of the four science competence domains. The last question was supported by four illustrations representing these competence domains used as prompts to encourage broader reflections. Teacher interviews explored how curricular rules and norms influence opportunities to develop students’ science competences, which possibilities and constraints they experience in this work, and how frequently they address the four competence domains in their teaching. The semi‑structured format allowed for follow‑up questions and elaboration through personal examples. All interviews were audio‑recorded with consent and subsequently transcribed. Data Analysis The 36 student and 11 teacher interview transcripts were analysed using ATLAS.ti (version 25). All files to be used were uploaded to the system, and the data analysis were performed in the software itself, by the researcher, who played the central role in the analyse process, as a code developer, critical thinker and overall, as an analyst. The data were organised through thematic content analysis, with codes grouped into broader analytical categories. For instance, in analysing students’ descriptions of what characterises being good at science, codes such as “is analytical,” “is committed,” “is interested in science,” “is curious,” “is reflective/argumentative,” “can collaborate,” “asks questions,” and “has knowledge” were identified. Similar coding procedures were applied to teacher interviews to detect recurring patterns and relationships across participants’ responses. Quotations will be used in presenting the findings, with all student and teachers names being replaced with pseudonyms to maintain confidentiality.

The findings indicate that teachers generally report that the curriculum plays little to no role in their everyday science teaching. Most teachers state that they refrain from communicating the formal competence goals to students because they perceive the curriculum as overly academic and assume that students would not understand the concept of competence. Furthermore, some teachers consider it problematic to spend time teaching science competences instead of teaching science, as if they were two separate areas. Student interviews reveal a narrow understanding of what it means to be good at science. For 27 of the 36 students, being good at science is primarily associated with factual knowledge, indicating that knowledge acquisition remains their dominant reference point. Even though competence goals structure Danish compulsory science curricula from grades 1 to 9, most students report that they had not heard about any of the formal competence domains until grade 9, when preparation for the final examination begins to play a significant role. Together, these findings indicate a gap between the intended and implemented/attained curriculum (see van den Akker, 2004). They further raise the question of whether teachers' strained relationship with competences is because they do not actually understand the concept of competence from curriculum themselves. This may help explain why many teachers do not base their instruction on the curriculum’s competence framework. These insights open a broader discussion about the systemic challenges associated with implementing competence‑oriented curricula, and how to overcome these challenges.

Adelsberger, H.H., Ehlers, U. & Schneckenberg, D. (2008). Stepping up the Ladder: Competence Development Through E-Learning?! I: J. Luca & E. Weippl (red.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (s. 4068‑4082). Wien: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Anderson-Levitt, K. (2017) Global Flows of Competence-based Approaches in Primary and Secondary Education. Cahiers de la Recherche Sur l'éducation et les Savoirs, 16, 47–72. Christiansen, J. L. (2025) Assessing Science Competencies in Danish Primary and Lower Secondary Education (Chapter 14). In G. Cakmakci, & M. F. Tasar (eds.), Connecting Science Education with Cultural Heritage, Contributions from Science Education Research 15, p. 187-197. Springer. Education Scotland (2009) Curriculum for Excellence: Sciences – Experiences and outcomes. Retrieved 2026.01.30 from Scottish Government. https://education.gov.scot/media/wpsnskgv/all-experiencesoutcomes18.pdf Gordon, J., Arjomand, G., O., R., Siewiorek, A., Vivitsou, M., von Reis Saari, J., Kearney, C., Kallunki, V., Erstad, O., & Gilje, O. (2014). KeyCoNet 2013 Literature Review: Key competence development in school education in Europe. Key Competence Network on School Education. Højgaard, T. & Sølberg, J. (2023) Fostering competence: a narrative case study of developing a two-dimensional curriculum in Denmark, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 55:2, 223-250. Mathelitsch, L. (2013). Competencies in Science Teaching. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3(3), 49-64. Ministry of Children and Education (2019). Læseplan for faget Natur/teknologi/biologi/fysik/kemi & geografi. Ministry of Children and Education (2024). BEK nr 1715 af 30/12/2024 [Executive Order no. 1715 of 30/12/2024] Retrieved 2026.01.30 from https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2024/1715 Ministry of Education and Research (2019) Curriculum for Natural science. Established as a Regulation by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 15 November 2019. Valid from 01.08.2020. Retrieved 2026.01.30 from https://data.udir.no/kl06/v201906/laereplaner-lk20/NAT01-04.pdf?lang=eng Ropohl, M., Nielsen, J. A., Olley, C., Rönnebeck, S., & Stables, K. (2018) The concept of competence and its relevance for science, technology and mathematics education. In J. Dolin & R. Evans (Eds.), Transforming assessment: Through an interplay between practice, research and policy Transforming assessment: Through an interplay between practice, research and policy (pp. 3–25). Springer. Tahirsylaj, A. & Sundberg, D. (2020). The unfinished business of defining competences for 21st century curricula - a systematic research review. Curriculum Perspectives, 40(2), 131-145. van den Akker, J. (2004) Curriculum Perspectives: An Introduction, In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper, & U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum Landscapes and Trends (pp. 1-10). Dordrecht: Springer. Waddington, D., Nentwig, P., & Schanze, S. (2007). Making it comparable. Standards in science education. Münster: Waxmann.