Vinsamlegast notið þetta auðkenni þegar þið vitnið til verksins eða tengið í það: http://hdl.handle.net/1946/17493
Samkvæmt núgildandi aðalnámskrám skal skólastarf mótast af svonefndum grunnþáttum og lykilhæfni. Sjálfsábyrgð, sjálfstæði og frumkvæði nemenda hljóta töluvert meiri athygli þar en þekktist í fyrri námskrám. Hugmyndir um sjálfræði nemenda og skapandi hugsun eru þó ekki nýjar af nálinni. Þeim var til dæmis gert hátt undir höfði í menntamálaumræðu Vesturlanda frá miðri 19. öld og fram á miðja 20. öld. Á tímum iðn- og tæknibyltingar lá beint við að búa nemendur undir líf og starf með þessum hætti, það er að örva sjálfstæða og skapandi hugsun og þjálfa þá til að leysa margvísleg vandamál og viðfangsefni án fyrirfram gefinnar stýringar eða forskriftar. Af þessum meiði er það svið í almennri menntun sem nefnt hefur verið nýsköpunar- og frumkvöðlamennt. Markmið þessarar greinar er að kynna og skilgreina þetta svið, rekja skyldar hugmyndir og hugsjónir í sögu menntunar og varpa ljósi á hvernig þær birtast í námskrám hér á landi, ekki síst í núgildandi námskrá framhaldsskóla. Tilgangurinn er að auka þekkingu á nýsköpunar- og frumkvöðlamennt sem námssviði í almennri menntun, draga fram fræðilegan grundvöll menntunar á námssviðinu og skýra stöðu sviðsins í námskrám á framhaldsskólastigi. Meginspurningin sem leitað er svara við í greininni er þessi: Á hvers konar nám-skrárhugsjónum byggir nýsköpunar- og frumkvöðlamennt? Fjallað er um nýsköpunar- og frumkvöðlamennt í sögulegu og fræðilegu samhengi og þessu námssviði í námskrá framhaldsskóla frá árinu 2011 gefinn sérstakur gaumur. Söguleg skoðun sýnir að námssviðið á rætur í skyldum hugmyndum um menntun allt frá tímum Forn-Grikkja og svipaðar menntahugsjónir má meðal annars sjá í verkhyggju. Margvísleg tækifæri fyrir nýsköpunar- og frumkvöðlamennt má sjá í núgildandi námskrá framhaldsskóla, þó svo að námssviðið sé ekki kynnt sem sérstök náms-grein eða skilgreindir áfangar þar.
The current national curriculum for secondary education in Iceland (i. Aðalnámskrá framhaldsskóla) may be identified as learnercentred in the sence that it presents knowledge and skills as personal and each learner is considered as unique. Learning and teaching are seen as interactive exercises where the learn-er is portrayed as a self-propelled agent of his or her own growth and development. But it can also be identified as socially oriented because it focuses to a considerable extent on the ability to function in society, and that each student should be prepared to formulate his or her own opinion or stance with respect to problems that our society faces. Thus critical and creative thinking are competences that are highly acknowledged according to the “new curriculum”, and knowledge and skills are supposed to give learners the ability to interpret and take part in reconstructing their society unprompted. The curriculum identifies six fundamental concerns (important issues) (i. grunnþættir), that are supposed to characterize all educational activities in schools: literacy, sustainability, democracy and human rights, equality, health and welfare and creativity (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2012). Thus the new national curriculum encourages a vision of a future society where these educational principles dominate. Concepts such as autonomy and initiative receive more attention than in former national curricula. The word “initiative” (i. frumkvæði) can be found on seventeen pages in the curriculum guide for secondary education. Ideas about student autonomy, creativity and critical thinking are certainly not new in curriculum discourse. During the era of pedagogical progressivism, from the middle of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, such ideas were highly endorsed. And during the industrial revolution it was considered self-evi-dent that education should focus on daily life and work in a rapidly developing society where technological solutions were emerging in all aspects of human culture (cf. life adjustment education). Therefore it was considered natural that schools promoted free and creative thinking and focused on teaching students to solve relevant and meaningful problems without prescribing instructions on how to tackle such problems. Actually, educational discourse has always been per-meated with conflicting visions of what should be learnt and taught in schools, how to learn and teach, and why. Messages such as those that Jean-Jacques Rousseau presented in his writings about Émile in the middle of the 18th century have appeared in educational discourse as recurring cycles ever since. Such messages and views reject traditional ideas about schools, where officially approved doctrines are transmitted from texts and teachers to learners. Such schools are considered as systems of indoctrination and compulsion, restraining creative thinking and entrepreneurial spirit. The essence of innovation and entrepreneurial education (IEE) is exactly what the above desribed debate is about, which is the aspect of public education that might rightfully be identified as the cornerstone of cultural growth, technological development and scientific discovery. Innovation and entrepreneurial education has developed in Iceland as a concept where innovation is more commonly taught at the compulsory level and entrepreneurship more often at the upper-secondary level. In other countries, the terms entrepreneurship education, entre-preneurial education or enterprise education is more commonly used for this kind of education. However innovation education is starting to emerge interna-tionally as a special area as the new Routledge International Handbook of Inno-vation Education (Shavinina, 2013) is a testament of. IEE is a curricular area that is about using creativity and knowledge to solve problems that learners identify and analyse. It aims at developing critical and creative thinking in design, science, technology, marketing and enterprise. The main emphasis in IEE is about enhancing creative skills and actualizing learner ideas with their active participa-tion. The pedagogy of IEE has been analysed as emancipatory pedagogy, where the learner has ample agency and the teacher gradually and systematically gives control to students in their projects (Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, 2011). Based on Michael Schiro’s (2008) classification of curriculum ideologies into four classes, learner-centred, scholar academic, social efficiency, and social recon-strunctionist, we conclude that IEE is influenced by learner-centred, social efficiency and social reconstructionist curriculum ideas.