期刊名称：Journal for Research in Arts and Sports Education
电子版ISSN：2535-2857
出版年度：2019
卷号：3
期号：2
页码：22-33
DOI：10.23865/jased.v3.1240
出版社：Cappelen Damm Akademisk NOASP
摘要：Siden 2006 har læreplanens formål og kompetansemål i kroppsøving i norsk skole blitt endret i 2012 og 2015. I denne artikkelen er det foretatt en analyse av endringer i formål og kompetansemål i læreplanene i kroppsøving i perioden fra og med 2006 til 2015. Grunnlaget for analysen er hentet fra teori om kroppsøvingsfagets mål og begrunnelse av Peter J. Arnold (1988) og Claes Annerstedt (2001). Analysen viser at målformuleringene i læreplanene har blitt utviklet i et spenningsfelt mellom et ferdighets- og prestasjonsfokus, som definerer måloppnåelse hos eleven etter forhåndsdefinerte fysisk-motoriske kriterier og rene idrettslige prestasjoner på den ene siden, og på den andre siden mål om individuell ferdighetslæring som definerer måloppnåelse etter øvings- og treningsprinsipper som er relevante for å oppnå kroppslig utvikling og helse ut ifra elevens læreforutsetninger, som er ulike. Kunnskapsdepartementet forsøker å ivareta to ulike forståelser om mål i kroppsøving som det er krevende å forene i et helhetlig fagsyn i læreplanen. Læreplaner i framtiden vil trolig også utvikles i et spenningsfelt mellom disse ulike forståelsene av formål og kompetanser i faget, men det er usikkert hvor fruktbart dette vil være. Contradictory aims in PE in Norway – An analysis of the national curriculum in PE from 2006 to 2015 Since 2006, aims in the National Curriculum for physical education (PE) have been revised in 2012 and 2015. In this study, the revisions in the period from 2006 to 2016 are analyzed in the light of perspectives on aims in PE by Peter J. Arnold (1988) og Claes Annerstedt (2001). The curriculum has been revised in an area of tension between performance aims, which are defined from external standards, and individual development aims, which are defined from internal standards and on the basis of training principles, which are used to attain individual improvement and health. The analysis shows that the curriculum allowed for more individual and differentiated aims in 2012, compared with the curriculum in 2006. Through revisions in 2012 and 2015, the ministry signals that internal standards and individual and differentiated aims are important in PE, but at the same time performance aims, which are defined from external standards, are also relevant. The ministry tries to ensure two perspectives on aims that are difficult to unite in an overall view on PE. The national curriculum for PE will probably evolve in an area of tension between the two aims perspectives also in the future, but it is unclear how fruitful it will be.
其他摘要：Since 2006, aims in the National Curriculum for physical education (PE) have been revised in 2012
and 2015. In this study, the revisions in the period from 2006 to 2016 are analyzed in the light of
perspectives on aims in PE by Peter J. Arnold (1988) og Claes Annerstedt (2001). The curriculum
has been revised in an area of tension between performance aims, which are defined from external
standards, and individual development aims, which are defined from internal standards and on
the basis of training principles, which are used to attain individual improvement and health. The
analysis shows that the curriculum allowed for more individual and differentiated aims in 2012,
compared with the curriculum in 2006. Through revisions in 2012 and 2015, the ministry signals
that internal standards and individual and differentiated aims are important in PE, but at the same time performance aims, which are defined from external standards, are also relevant. The ministry
tries to ensure two perspectives on aims that are difficult to unite in an overall view on PE. The
national curriculum for PE will probably evolve in an area of tension between the two aims perspectives
also in the future, but it is unclear how fruitful it will be.
