Lambert, DM; (2017) Who thinks what in geography classrooms? Powerful disciplinary knowledge and curriculum futures. The New Geography , 65 (3)

Preview	Text (Published article in Japanese) Lambert_Who_thinks_what_geography_classrooms_VoR.pdf - Published Version Download (808kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (Accepted manuscript in English) Lambert_Who_thinks_what_geography.pdf - Accepted Version Download (581kB) | Preview

Abstract

There is, at least in the West, a long-standing difficulty with knowledge in education. This may have arisen from a deep distrust of the value of dead or useless, disconnected ‘facts’ such as was parodied by Charles Dickens through his awful caricature of ‘Gradgrind’. But distrust was reinforced by influential scholarly work such as that from Michael Young in 1971 who in Knowledge and Control communicated influential arguments about how the school curriculum, through its selection of knowledge, favoured the elite and alienated the majority of young people. This article opens up a discussion about what kind of school curriculum is appropriate for young people now and in the future – as a pedagogic right. We argue that the distrust of knowledge among progressive educationists has led to what we name as ‘Future2ism’. Such a skills or competence-led curriculum thinking is not, we argue, in the interests of children, especially the disadvantaged. Michael Young, who wrote about the elitist ‘knowledge of the powerful’ in the 1970s has himself revised, or extended, his thinking by pointing out (Young 2008) that such specialist knowledge is also powerful knowledge. Thus, if policy makers, or school leaders, decide that it is better for ‘less academic’ children to receive a differentiated curriculum to suit their ‘needs’ then they are denied access to powerful knowledge. This is unfair on a number of levels; not least it reinforces social and economic divisions. In the article, I describe the rise of Future 2 curriculum thinking as a response to the long-known inadequacies of the ‘traditional’ school curriculum, since at least Gradgrind. But despite its superficial attractions, and its appeals to ‘creativity’ and ‘twenty-first century skills’, the weaknesses of Future 2 thinking are exposed. Following this we then explore what a Future 3 curriculum may look like – one that is knowledge-led but progressive and conscious of the pupils we teach, who are seem as agentive and diverse. The key to Future 3 is to grasp the significance of the discipline expressed as powerful knowledge – in the case of this article, geography. This is challenging, for powerful knowledge cannot easily be expressed on the page – through a list of ‘key concepts’ for example. Rather than a list, it requires specialist understanding of the subject’s goals and purposes expressed more as a system of thought and enquiry, which itself is dynamic being subject to contestation and change. In this sense, pupils (all pupils) are inducted into the discipline of knowledge-making, where the quality of argument matters, where evidence needs to be identified and evaluated and where reliable conclusions drawn (but nevertheless never beyond contestation or challenge). The article draws upon an international project called GeoCapabilities which has explored these ideas with particular reference to their implications for high-quality teaching and the need for teachers to see themselves as curriculum leaders – as professionals with responsibility for enacting a Future 3 curriculum.

Download activity - last month

Export as JSONCSVXML

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as JSONCSVXML

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as XMLCSVJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item