Who thinks what in geography classrooms? Powerful disciplinary knowledge and curriculum futures

Who thinks what in geography classrooms? Powerful disciplinary knowledge and curriculum futures
复制标题

谁在地理课堂上思考什么？

DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Lambert
D. Lambert
中科院分区：
--
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Lambert

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

至少在西方，教育知识方面长期存在困难。这可能有 源于对死亡或无用的、互不相关的“事实”的价值的深深不信任，例如被戏仿的 查尔斯·狄更斯通过他对“格雷德格林德”的可怕漫画。但有影响力的人加剧了不信任 学术著作，例如 Michael Young 于 1971 年发表的学术著作，他在《知识与控制》一书中进行了交流 关于学校课程如何通过知识选择来支持的有影响力的争论 精英阶层，疏远了广大年轻人。这篇文章引发了一场关于什么类型的讨论 学校课程适合现在和未来的年轻人——作为一项教学权利。我们 认为进步教育家对知识的不信任导致了我们所说的 “未来主义”。我们认为，这种以技能或能力为主导的课程思维并不符合 儿童，尤其是弱势儿童。迈克尔·杨（Michael Young）撰写了关于精英主义“知识的知识”的文章 20 世纪 70 年代的“强大的”自己修正或扩展了他的想法，指出（Young 2008） 这样的专业知识也是强大的知识。因此，如果政策制定者或学校领导决定 对于“学业较差”的孩子来说，接受差异化的课程来满足他们的“需求”会更好 那么他们就无法获得强大的知识。这在很多层面上都是不公平的；尤其是它 加剧社会和经济分化。 在本文中，我将“未来 2”课程思维的兴起描述为对众所周知的“未来 2”课程思维的回应。 “传统”学校课程的不足之处，至少从 Gradgrind 开始。但尽管它表面上 吸引力，以及它对“创造力”和“二十一世纪技能”的吸引力，是《未来 2》的弱点 思想暴露了。接下来，我们将探讨 Future 3 课程可能是什么样子——一 这是以知识为主导的，但又进步并意识到我们所教的学生，他们似乎是积极主动的 和多样化。 Future 3 的关键是要掌握以强大的方式表达的学科的意义 知识——就本文而言，是地理。这是具有挑战性的，因为强大的知识无法 很容易在页面上表达——例如通过“关键概念”列表。它不是一个列表，而是 需要对主题的目标和目的有专业的理解，更多地表达为一个系统 思想和探究本身就是动态的，会受到争论和变化。从这个意义上说， 学生（所有学生）被引入知识创造的学科，其中论证的质量 重要的是，需要识别和评估证据并得出可靠的结论（但 尽管如此，永远不会超越争议或挑战）。 本文借鉴了一个名为 GeoCapability 的国际项目，该项目探讨了这些想法 特别是它们对高质量教学的影响以及教师了解的必要性 作为课程领导者——作为负责制定未来 3 的专业人士 课程。
There is, at least in the West, a long-standing difficulty with knowledge in education. This may have arisen from a deep distrust of the value of dead or useless, disconnected ‘facts’ such as was parodied by Charles Dickens through his awful caricature of ‘Gradgrind’. But distrust was reinforced by influential scholarly work such as that from Michael Young in 1971 who in Knowledge and Control communicated influential arguments about how the school curriculum, through its selection of knowledge, favoured the elite and alienated the majority of young people. This article opens up a discussion about what kind of school curriculum is appropriate for young people now and in the future – as a pedagogic right. We argue that the distrust of knowledge among progressive educationists has led to what we name as ‘Future2ism’. Such a skills or competence-led curriculum thinking is not, we argue, in the interests of children, especially the disadvantaged. Michael Young, who wrote about the elitist ‘knowledge of the powerful’ in the 1970s has himself revised, or extended, his thinking by pointing out (Young 2008) that such specialist knowledge is also powerful knowledge. Thus, if policy makers, or school leaders, decide that it is better for ‘less academic’ children to receive a differentiated curriculum to suit their ‘needs’ then they are denied access to powerful knowledge. This is unfair on a number of levels; not least it reinforces social and economic divisions. In the article, I describe the rise of Future 2 curriculum thinking as a response to the long-known inadequacies of the ‘traditional’ school curriculum, since at least Gradgrind. But despite its superficial attractions, and its appeals to ‘creativity’ and ‘twenty-first century skills’, the weaknesses of Future 2 thinking are exposed. Following this we then explore what a Future 3 curriculum may look like – one that is knowledge-led but progressive and conscious of the pupils we teach, who are seem as agentive and diverse. The key to Future 3 is to grasp the significance of the discipline expressed as powerful knowledge – in the case of this article, geography. This is challenging, for powerful knowledge cannot easily be expressed on the page – through a list of ‘key concepts’ for example. Rather than a list, it requires specialist understanding of the subject’s goals and purposes expressed more as a system of thought and enquiry, which itself is dynamic being subject to contestation and change. In this sense, pupils (all pupils) are inducted into the discipline of knowledge-making, where the quality of argument matters, where evidence needs to be identified and evaluated and where reliable conclusions drawn (but nevertheless never beyond contestation or challenge). The article draws upon an international project called GeoCapabilities which has explored these ideas with particular reference to their implications for high-quality teaching and the need for teachers to see themselves as curriculum leaders – as professionals with responsibility for enacting a Future 3 curriculum.