Two Curriculum Models: ‘Progressive Knowledge’ and ‘21st Century learning’

Graham McPhailElizabeth Rata

A research project examining two curriculum design types

1. Type One: Cross-disciplinary curriculum, student-inquiry pedagogy

2. Type Two: Subject-based curriculum, teacher-led pedagogy

Aims

To examine the claims made by two different types of school curriculum design:

Each type claims:• The design promotes academic learning for all students• The design uses an engaging pedagogy• The design rejects a ‘gradgrind’ pedagogy

Methodology

1. Theoretical framework2. Empirical Studies Theoretical FrameworkConstructed idealised models with which to analyse the two types using theories of knowledge drawn from the literature.

Model One: 21st Century LearningModel Two: Progressive Knowledge

Empirical Studies

• A case study of Type One: A 21st Century School with a inter-curriculum design; student inquiry and teacher facilitation and student-centred pedagogy (2014 ongoing)

• A case study of Type Two: Subject-based curriculum, student-centred pedagogy (literature study only to date)

The theoretical frameworkThe purpose of the idealised models is to identify the distinctive features of each type and to identify and analyse the theory of knowledge (epistemology) underpinning each type.

The theory of knowledge drew on philosophers and educational sociologists: e.g. Kant, Durkheim, Vygotsky, Popper, Bernstein, Collins, Muller, Winch et. al.

Publications informing the models:McPhail, 2012, 2013, 2015 in pressRata, 2012, 2015Barrett & Rata, 2014McPhail and Rata, under review

What does a theory of curriculum knowledge require?

A coherent explanation of:• How knowledge is created, developed and disciplined• How knowledge is constituted, structured and

disciplined (its episteme)• How knowledge is altered for teaching at school (as

subjects from the disciplines or in an inter-disciplinary approach using projects, themes or topics) and the effects of such alteration?

• How knowledge is acquired (conceptual progression/ epistemic ascent or student constructed)

What ‘knowledge’ are we talking about?

Distinguish between knowledge drawn from experience and the abstract knowledge developed in the disciplines and altered for teaching in schools as subjects

1. Experiential knowledge (social, culture . . .)2. Abstract knowledge (disciplinary, objective, science . . .

Theorised the acquisition of abstract knowledge as ‘epistemic ascent’ (Winch, 2013) or ‘conceptual progression’ or ‘moving from lower order to higher order understanding’ (Vygotsky, 1962)(These ideas are from the philosophical literature)

Abstract knowledge

A key question

• “How do children learn to think about what is not encountered in experience by using concepts that themselves are not known in experience?”

Rata, 2015

Common Feature

Both curriculum design types emphasise academic achievement for allOur questions: 1.How does this occur?By conceptual progression (from the literature)

2. Is conceptual progression found in both curriculum design types

What is conceptual progression?

• The coherent integration of concepts into structured systems of meaning – disciplinary building blocks

• “The process of systematisation by which a concept is defined as the set of relations that it maintains with other concepts, not by direct connection with a referent. Being able to think in systems of connections is to understand the internal structure of subject disciplines such as Mathematics, Physics and History.” (Gamble, 2014, p. 173)

How does conceptual progression occur?

In order to identify conceptual progression we needed to identify the internal mechanisms which extend concepts from lower order to higher order meanings? (i.e. conceptual progression)

Evidence that it has occurred (e.g. academic success) doesn’t explain how it occurs

How?The ‘how’ is the basis of difference between the two curriculum types

• Type One (21st Century) claims CP occurs as students construct their understanding as they pursue their interests – with teacher facilitation and technological resources

• Type Two (PK) claims that CP occurs as students are taught concepts by knowledgeable teachers using sequencing, pacing, and evaluating pedagogical techniques to maintain the integrity of the systems of meaning, i.e. subjects (also supported by motivational resources)

By what mechanisms?

Conceptual progression occurs1. By relating concepts to other concepts sequentially

(rather than to an object) in order to maintain the subject’s internal epistemic structure. This recognises the internal constitutive relation of concepts.

2. By using techniques of language co-extension so that the symbolic representation of concepts matches the conceptual meaning

Co-extensionLanguage needs to match the acquisition of concepts in the building of systems of meaning in order to represent the concept. This occurs as ‘vertical co-extensions’ are produced by 4 types of meaning relations:

• Synonyms (similarities that evoke meaning)• Antonyms (differences that evoke meanings)• Hyponyms (classification of concepts; sub-types from a general class)• Meronyms (part-whole composition relations, e.g. fingers as part of a

hand)

(Halliday and Hasan, 1991; Naidoo, 2012)

A second distinction between the two types

A second distinction is a pedagogical one -between the two curriculum design types comes from the different views about whether CP is student initiated or teacher led.• Student led: experiential knowledge comes

first• Teacher led: abstract knowledge comes first

Implications for pedagogy

How should learning proceed then?

• Abstract knowledge which can be applied to experience

• Or• Experience as the basis for knowledge construction

A fundamental distinction between the two types of curriculum design types

“Concepts form and develop under entirely different inner and outer conditions, depending on whether they originate in classroom instruction or in the child’s personal experience.”(Vygotsky, 1962, p.86)

From concepts to experienceVygotsky contends that learning proceeds from contact with abstract concepts and then engages with the everyday concepts that are acquired from experience.

‘In the scientific concepts that the child acquires in school, the relationship to an object is mediated from the start by some other concept. Thus the very notion of scientific concepts implies a certain position in relation to other concepts, i.e. a place within a system of concepts. It is our contention that the rudiments of systemisation first enter the child’s mind by way of his contact with scientific concepts and are then transferred to everyday concepts, changing their psychological structure from the top down.’ (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 93)

Research QuestionWe wanted to know:

• Which type has the stronger claim to develop students’ academic learning (i.e. conceptual progression) given the strength of the case for direct teaching to enable conceptual progression?

A case based on:• The differentiation between experiential and abstract knowledge• The epistemic constitution of abstract concepts into systems of meaning that are

bounded or disciplined into disciplines and altered for teaching as school subjects• The universal nature of abstract knowledge – Bourdieu quote• The cultural nature of experiential knowledge. (NB. Even Dewey cautions against

what experience is used)

Type One: The Case Study

A 21st century New Zealand secondary school Also known in NZ as:• ‘future-oriented education’ • ‘future-focused’ • ‘future-oriented learning’ • ‘21st century learning’ In the progressive pedagogic tradition (more recently ‘constructivism)

References• Barrett, B. & Rata, E. (2014). (Eds.), Knowledge and the future of the curriculum: International studies in

social realism. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. • Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity. Oxford: Rowman.• Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1991). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic

perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.• McPhail, G. (2012). Knowledge and the curriculum: Music as a case study in educational futures. New

Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 47(1), 33-46.• McPhail, G. (2013). Mixed pedagogic modalities: the potential for increased student engagement and

success. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 48(1), 113-126.• McPhail, G. (in-press). The fault lines of recontextualisation: the limits of constructivism in education. The

British Education Research Journal.• McPhail, G. & Rata, E. (under review) Two Curriculum Models: ‘Progressive Knowledge’ and ‘21st Century

Learning’• Muller, J. (2009). Forms of knowledge and curriculum coherence. Journal of Education and Work, 22(3),

205-226.• Naido, D. (2012). Analysing pedagogy: Visibility and Meanings. Journal of Education, 53, 37-54.• Rata, E. (2012). The politics of knowledge in education. London & New York: Routledge.• Rata, E. (2015). A pedagogy of conceptual progression and the case for academic knowledge. British

Educational Research Journal. DOI: 10.1002/berj.3195