dc.contributor.author |
Ormond, BM |
|
dc.coverage.spatial |
Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2021-10-05T02:01:36Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2021-10-05T02:01:36Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2017-11-13 |
|
dc.identifier.citation |
Knowledge in Education Unit (KERU) 7th Annual International Symposium, 13 Nov 2017 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
https://hdl.handle.net/2292/56750 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
Epistemic progression should be a fundamental objective for curricula design. Systematic provision for developing understanding of critical knowledge is essential if equity of access to powerful knowledge is to be achieved. This paper examines models of progression for History education and reflects upon curriculum framing for progression in the New Zealand context. The focus upon disciplinary skills and historical thinking concepts in history education globally has often left the question of conceptual progression and building of substantive historical knowledge unaddressed. Lee and Shemilt (2003) have explored the idea of progression as a ‘way in which pupils’ ideas - about history and the past - develop’ and recognition of progression is often measured in relation to students’ improvements in their use of disciplinary procedures and ability to critique historical interpretations. While recognising that these are important in enabling students to understand the nature of history and make valid assertions about historical situations, this paper explores possibilities for progression in the epistemological dimensions of learning about the past.
The systematic ordering of knowledge to enable substantive concepts to be understood and brought in relation to each other to make sense of history is however, complex. In History any model of progression needs to be flexible and capable of taking into account a multiplicity of possible avenues of inquiry and interrelationships. Epistemic progression should also be based upon the specialised knowledge produced within academic institutions and reliant, for its effective structuring in the recontextualised locality of the school, upon teachers who are well versed in the substance of the histories they teach.
The discussion draws upon Rata’s case for conceptual progression (2016) as a means to ‘interrupt inter-generational’ disadvantage in education, Bernstein’s theories on horizontal and vertical knowledge structures (2000) and Maton’s examination of Bernstein’s ideas in relation to the arts disciplines (2010). Empirical evidence from interviews of history teachers and New Zealand History Teachers Association surveys is also used to illustrate the ways in which epistemic progression is understood by the profession. |
|
dc.relation.ispartof |
Knowledge in Education Unit (KERU) 7th Annual International Symposium |
|
dc.rights |
Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. |
|
dc.rights.uri |
https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm |
|
dc.title |
Epistemic progression: The challenge of systematic progression in a complex horizontally structured field |
|
dc.type |
Presentation |
|
dc.date.updated |
2021-09-23T08:18:34Z |
|
dc.rights.holder |
Copyright: The author |
en |
pubs.finish-date |
2017-11-13 |
|
pubs.start-date |
2017-11-13 |
|
dc.rights.accessrights |
http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/OpenAccess |
en |
pubs.subtype |
Conference Oral Presentation |
|
pubs.elements-id |
715640 |
|