Read on Twitter
Thread with my key takeaways and reflections so far from the superb 'Knowing History in Schools', edited by @ArthurJChapman.
Summary: read it!
Thanks again to @UCLpress for making it available open access: https://www.uclpress.co.uk/products/130700
Summary: read it!
Thanks again to @UCLpress for making it available open access: https://www.uclpress.co.uk/products/130700
@ArthurJChapman's 'Introduction' sets out w/ incredible clarity the way that 'powerful knowledge' does not consist solely of substantive knowledge (or disciplinary 'products'). Whilst lots of substantive knowledge is necessary, it is not sufficient.
Instead, curricula need to secure pupil progress in many different dimensions of knowledge, including:
1) the organising ideas of disciplines;
2) understanding of how knowledge claims and arguments are developed and validated in specialised disciplinary communities;
& others.
1) the organising ideas of disciplines;
2) understanding of how knowledge claims and arguments are developed and validated in specialised disciplinary communities;
& others.
@ArthurJChapman makes an inspiring call 4 equality of access 2 this powerful (incl disciplinary) knowledge ('equality of epistemic access') since 'all children become citizens equally & should have equal access to the knowledge resources necessary to exercise agency in the world'
@ArthurJChapman's analysis of what is required to achieve this (p. 10) feels particularly urgent and important - is it too much to hope that all school and education leaders read it?
I am both excited & challenged by Alison Kitson's chapter, exploring how the theory of 'powerful knowledge' might help us to select content for the curric. I tend to get a little queasy whenever I hear talk of how school hist enables Ss to think in new/diff ways abt the present.
I fear this can lead, intentionally or unintentionally, to teachers transforming the way young people think about the present world *in particular ways*. However, Kitson is alive to this tension, & her nuanced argument is certainly persuasive.
I think I am too wary to be convinced yet - I wonder if there are preferable ways of managing the inevitable impact that our political/cultural assumptions have on content selection. That said, there is so much I'm keen to explore further here - esp. use of frameworks in hist.
I am, though, completely convinced by Kitson's arguments abt 'powerful pedagogy'. Kitson brilliantly cuts through the error of seeing 'powerful knowledge' as requiring a solely trad pedagogy. Instead, a range of pedagogical approaches is needed. Teacher-led instruction is vital,
but Ss also need to be engaged in knowledge creation. Social realists see knowledge as produced collectively w/ critique a vital part of this. If Ss are encouraged solely to accept facts at face value & memorise them, they can never come to understand disciplinary procedures.
I found Catherine McCrory's chapter thrilling! Having been persuaded by @Counsell_C (e.g. in her @histassoc Cons Keynote) that Ss can't simply learn core knowledge statements or key takeaways by memorising them, McCrory uses Brandom's work on 'inferentialism' to explore why.
McCrory's conclusions leave so much to ponder. 1st, as soon as Ps start the reasoning necessary to make meaning of new content, they are drawing on 2nd-order concepts. Along w/ the work of @mfordhamhistory & @MonsieurBenger, who explored the way Ss might use SO concepts to...
...make sense of the substantive, this suggests a danger in separating the substantive and the disciplinary. Will leaving the disciplinary until later in the enquiry hinder Ss ability to make sense of the substantive they learn at the beginning of the enquiry?
Secondly, McCrory highlights limits of curric docs that define curric goals. Such docs only offer a 'representation' of key knowledge/concepts. This means:
a) Ss learn *their* understanding of the concept (prob diff to ours!)
b) teachers will bring diff meanings to the concepts.
a) Ss learn *their* understanding of the concept (prob diff to ours!)
b) teachers will bring diff meanings to the concepts.
As a result, McCrory emphasises importance of encouraging 'explicit utterances' that reveal the meaning Ss (& teachers!) have attached to concepts.
Also think this means we need to explore further how we allow Ss to reason towards richer & more nuanced understandings of concepts
Also think this means we need to explore further how we allow Ss to reason towards richer & more nuanced understandings of concepts
