Abstract
This chapter focuses on knowledge and how it relates to the school curriculum, with the argument being made that a curriculum, and a set of curriculum standards, is necessarily framed by a theory of knowledge. Indeed, it would be difficult to think about learning and the curriculum without also at the same time making reference to what is to be learned, in other words, the learning object or objects. And therefore our aim as curriculum-developers and educators becomes the development of some form of knowledge, and in turn this points to the many different types of knowledge that can come from learning. A curriculum, which is a set of teaching and learning prescriptions, is a knowledge-forming activity. However, this cannot settle the issue of what should be included in that curriculum and what should be excluded from it. And in addition, there is still a need to determine what might constitute legitimate and illegitimate forms of knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bhaskar, R. (2010). Reclaiming reality (New Edition). London/New York: Routledge.
Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
California State Board of Education. (2006). California career technical education model curriculum standards: Grades seven through twelve. Sacramento: California State Board of Education.
Cromby, J., & Nightingale, D. (1999). What’s wrong with social constructionism? In D. Nightingale & J. Cromby (Eds.), Social constructionist psychology: A critical analysis of theory and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Derry, J. (2013). Can inferentialism contribute to social epistemology. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47(2), 222–235.
Dweck, C. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.
Hacking, I. (2000). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
National Curriculum in England History Programme. (2013). London: HTML.
Oakeshott, M. (1962) Rationalism in Politics. London: Methuen.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2009b). Knowledge and skills for life: PISA. Paris: OECD Publications.
Peirce, C. S. (1982) The essential peirce, two volumes, edited by Nathan Houser, Christian Kloesel, and the Peirce Edition Project, Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University Press.
Putnam, H. (2004). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reiss, M., & White, J. (2012). An Aims-based Curriculum: The significance of human flourishing for schools (Bedford way paper). London: Institute of Education Press.
Sellars, W. (1997). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol 1: Problems of general psychology (eds.) R. W. Rieber & A. Carton). New York: Plenum Press
Williams, M. (2001). Problems of knowledge: A critical introduction to epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Young, M. (2006). Education, knowledge and the role of the state: The “nationalisation” of educational knowledge. In A. Moore (Ed.), Schooling, Society and Curriculum. London: Routledge Falmer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Scott, D. (2016). Knowledge and the Curriculum. In: New Perspectives on Curriculum, Learning and Assessment. Evaluating Education: Normative Systems and Institutional Practices. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22831-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22831-0_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22830-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22831-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)