Curriculum Design and Epistemic Ascent

Abstract

Three kinds of knowledge usually recognised by epistemologists are identified and their relevance for curriculum design is discussed. These are: propositional knowledge, know‐how and knowledge by acquaintance. The inferential nature of propositional knowledge is argued for and it is suggested that propositional knowledge in fact presupposes the ability to know how to make appropriate inferences within a body of knowledge, whether systematic or unsystematic. This thesis is developed along lines suggested in the earlier work of Paul Hirst. The different kinds of know‐how and their relationships are discussed and it is suggested that they occupy different places and different relationships in any curricular hierarchy. The changing role that knowledge by acquaintance plays within this hierarchy is also discussed. Implications of this account for the current National Curriculum and for curriculum design more generally are discussed, looking at History, Science and Design Technology as examples.

On the making and faking of knowledge value in higher education curricula

“…The occlusion or 'de-differentiating' (Muller 2015, 413) of valuable knowledge emerges in curricula if there is little appreciation of importance of offering students access to forms of conceptual coherence and the procedural and inferential know how that enables them to find their way around the knowledge base and evaluate new knowledge claims (Winch 2010(Winch , 2013. Recognising what should comprise a curriculum subject is invaluable, but the complexity, subtlety and differentiation that this entails run counter to trends towards the 'generic' in higher education (Bernstein 2000, 53), and instrumentalist demands for accountability and 'value for money'.…”

“…What is considered systematically organised within a discipline can include forms of propositional knowledge (know that) and the knowledge of how to make inferences between propositions and to use procedures for assessing knowledge claims (know how) (Winch 2010;Muller 2014). In many disciplines, and their curriculum forms in higher education, types of experiential knowledge (or acquaintance knowledge) may be particularly important (Winch 2013) for students to get a feel for the subject matter and to engage in disciplinary practice. Curricula may contain differing admixtures of know that, know-how and acquaintance knowledge, and this may vary between disciplines and within disciplines, with differing institutions accenting aspects of the discipline differentially.…”

“…The process of recontextualisation may be quite specific to the discipline and the context in which the stakeholders are operating. Rules that indicate how knowledge can be recontextualised are present in the systematically organised vertical discourse of disciplines, where particular knowledge structures and conceptual schema suggest particular patterns of curriculum organisation and 'epistemic ascent' (Muller 2009;Winch 2013). Such 'recontextualisation rules' (Bernstein 2000) are not present in unstructured horizontal discourse where knowledge has no necessary schematic relation to other knowledge, other than through everyday patterns and routines (i.e brushing one's teeth and tying shoelaces (Bernstein 1999, 160)).…”

“…It is suggested that this knowledge should form the core content of a higher education curriculum, as it offers a credible basis for reasoning, theorisation and inquiry (Muller 2009;Young andMuller 2013, 2014). This foregrounding of disciplinary knowledge suggests also that the acquisition of types of skill, competence, or graduate attribute, are ancillary benefits of the curriculum, and that these are enhanced via a curriculum that is knowledge-based (Winch 2013;Muller 2009). This is not, however, an argument simply in favour of the pure disciplines of the physical sciences or humanities (Becher 1994), although inherent value in these disciplines may be more immediately perceptible.…”

Exploring the complexities of describing foundation phase teachers’ professional knowledge base

“…This knowing that of teaching contains academic as well as diagnostic classifications. On the other hand, knowing that implies knowledge of the particular inferential relationships that are accepted within the given domain of knowledge (Winch 2012;. This is often learned as tacit knowledge or co-learning (Andersen 2000) through participation in practice, but can be articulated if needs be.…”