DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION
Thinking about knowledge: Young versus
Roberts and beyond
GTE Conference
Winchester 2014
Why this paper?
Issues with Young and Roberts


Had shared concerns: e.g. recent
curriculum policy context,
relevance of disciplinary
knowledge/subjects to young
peoples’ education, reference to
and use of Vygotsky (scientific and
everyday concepts) BUT
Didn’t seem to recognise the
common ground in some of their
thinking: social nature of
knowledge, there are different
types of knowledge in use in the
classroom: everyday and
disciplinary knowledge

Young concerned with the nature of
disciplined knowledge, Roberts less
so
 Young explicit and Roberts less so
about underpinning theoretical
approach to disciplined knowledge:
Young: social realism (normative
character of thought and knowledge),
Roberts: social constructivism??? equal validity? Learning rather than
knowledge?
There was a good deal of ‘talking past’ each other
Why this paper?
Listening to some of the student teachers putting forward such
insubstantial and polarised arguments during the Q & A session
FOR [constructivist] learning and AGAINST knowledge
The seminar inspired me to sort out my own thinking
5.
The statement on the importance of a broad and balanced curriculum at
the start of the draft framework looks tokenistic. instead, a very narrow set
of aims has been proposed, which do not appear to consider children in
their own right. They are to be provided with ‘core knowledge’ and
introduced to ‘the best that has been thought and said’. There is no place
for them to be active learners – their role is to accept and internalise
what they are told rather than learn to think for themselves.

Issues with the theoretical foundations for active learning and with
the conceptualisation of knowledge
Background themes running through the presentation and questions

Tendency for polarised debate about knowledge and
often don’t actually talk about the epistemic nature of
knowledge

Opportunities presented by the NC: how might we
support teachers?

The influence of constructivism on teachers’ thinking
about knowledge abstract parts from the whole which
result in distorted understandings of its application
Questions
1. What theoretical resources are available [to teacher educators] to help
teachers in their thinking about disciplined knowledge?
2. What would constitute an appropriate epistemological stance toward
knowledge for students? (Students do have views about knowledge and
knowing)
My starting point
1. Until recently disciplined knowledge was probably the
most neglected and misunderstood idea in education
2.
And when we do consider it – we seem to do anything
other than actually engage with our conceptions of it –
we talk about ‘content’, teachers’ knowledge, learning
etc instead
3. As educators we need to think carefully about how we
conceptualise knowledge
Starting point
4.

Recognise that knowledge is important - agree with
Michael Young that the question of disciplined
knowledge does seem to have disappeared from
the theory and practice of curriculum and pedagogy
- and does need to be brought back into education
RF’s disclaimer - knowledge is not the be all and
end all of education but knowledge is important and
we need to think about it carefully
The subject knowledge of teachers

Research has drawn attention to the complexity of the knowledge base of
teachers at all phases of education (much of this focused on core
subjects), including specialised subject knowledge

There has been some research into the knowledge base of geography
teachers

But no research and little theoretical engagement with conceptualising
students knowledge development/development of geographical thinking in
terms of epistemic features of disciplined knowledge itself

The official and subject specific (geography) discourses of the topic
remain rather blunt and simplistic
Good news: the question of knowledge is being brought back in
Geography Education

e.g. Morgan and Lambert (2008), Lambert (2011), Morgan (2011), Catling
and Martin, 2011 and my own work, Ben Mayor, Steve Puttick

Geographical Association: ‘Knowledge Framework’ developed during the
consultation process of the National Curriculum review

Geographical Association Knowledge Framework: core, conceptual and
procedural (Schwab: syntactic knowledge??) - a simple typology

But there is something missing! Disciplinarity – the focus on the nature of
disciplined knowledge - what Young has described as ‘powerful
knowledge’ i- n the attempt to make the ideas accessible and relevant
‘The time... Seems ripe for some reflection on the roles of knowledge and children’s
experience in a subject-based curriculum’ (p. 318). The arguments centre on 4 key
ideas:
1. the recognition of different types of knowledge as a basis for the curriculum:
everyday-/ethno-knowledge (ethno-geography) and the academic knowledge of
disciplines and school subjects
2. the authority relationship between these knowledges in relation to the curriculum
and pedagogy
3. the differentiation of types of knowledge as a social justice issue
4. the significance of ethno-geography as a source of geographical knowledge for
primary teachers and its implications for teacher education
Well worth reading

In establishing the case for ethno-knowledge it discusses the nature of knowledge itself
– both disciplinary and ethno – in terms of their characteristics

Catling and Martin contest the way Young characterises everyday knowledge and
privileges disciplinary knowledge as the standard by which to view everyday knowledge

Argue that both are rational, conceptual and structured, but differently so

Argue that this is not helpful in terms of the primary curriculum nor the subject
knowledge of primary teachers. Based on the work of Freire and postcolonial theory
What we learn is:

Disciplinary knowledge: ‘powerful knowledge’, ‘academic knowledge’, ‘culture
of the academy’, ‘generalised’, ‘abstract concepts’, ‘structure’, ‘coherence’,
‘rational, ‘objective’, revised and developed into an abstract body of
knowledge that goes beyond the social circumstances of its generation’ (has
genesis and development)

ethno-knowledge: ‘everyday knowledge’, ‘everyday experiences as a potential
source of geographical knowledge’, ‘culture of the everyday’, ‘everyday
concepts’, but also ‘objective, ‘powerful’, ‘rational’, ‘reflective upon
experience’, ‘has structure and formalised in ways suited to its context’,
‘evolving’ (also has genesis and development)
BUT - three points:
1.
Appreciate what trying to do, but In establishing the case for ethnoknowledge and encouraging us to reconsider what counts as
geographical knowledge disciplinary knowledge moves out of focus
2.
This ‘silence’ is not helpful for teachers - primary or secondary: they also
need to be encouraged to consider disciplined knowledge
3.
No concern with the normative aspect of knowledge and thought – if not
valued we lose norms that are at least partially dependent on how the
world is
4.
Frankenstein and Powell agree with C and M but also note:
‘On the other hand, we need to avoid.. Freire’s tendency toward an
uncritical faith in ‘the people’ [which] makes him ambivalent about saying
outright that educators can have a theoretical understanding superior to
that of the learners and which is, in fact, the indispensable condition of
the development of critical consciousness’
‘We need to do more research to find ways of helping our students
learn about their ethno [mathematical] knowledge, contributing to our
theoretical knowledge, without denying inequality of knowledge, but as
much as possible based on co-operative and democratic principles of
equal power’
Disciplinary/disciplined knowledge
From content and concepts to episteme

We need to raise our eyes beyond the particular
‘subject content’

The discipline is more than bundles of key facts,
concepts, explanatory frameworks

It has its own characteristic epistemes

An episteme: can be described as a system of
ideas or ways of understanding that allows us to
establish [construct and validate] knowledge

Many students will not have heard of epistemes
but we deal tacitly with them all the time
•
Schwab, Bruner, Dewey
and Vygotsky have all
emphasised the importance
of students understanding
the epistemic nature of the
disciplines they are
studying
Disciplinary/disciplined knowledge

Schwab (1978) distinguishes between substantive and syntactic knowledge

Substantive knowledge: key facts, concepts, principles, structures and
explanatory frameworks in a discipline

Syntactic knowledge: concerns the rules of evidence and warrants of truth within
the discipline, the nature of enquiry in the discipline, and how new knowledge is
introduced and accepted in that community – in short how to find out and
construct knowledge

In geography this distinction seems to have been equated to that between content
(substantive) and process/enquiry (syntactic). But syntactic knowledge entails
greater epistemological awareness than ‘process knowledge’ . We need to
recognise and work with syntactic knowledge
Disciplinary/disciplined knowledge
Constraining constructivism: introducing disciplined judgment
(Stemhagen et al, 2013) Focus is preservice teachers

In applying constructivist theories to the classroom teachers must skillfully
move between student knowledge constructions and disciplinary knowledge
and discourses

Although the gulf between these two ways of knowing varies markedly by
discipline, constructivist approaches are often taught to beginning teachers as
if they can be applied uniformly across all subjects

We need to critique the use of overly-simplified applications of constructivism
in secondary classrooms – what about primary?

They illustrate the way constructivist approaches are constrained to differing
degrees in the classrooms of three disciplines: English, history, mathematics
Disciplinary/disciplined knowledge
These arguments apply to geography. We need to:
Consider the idea of disciplinary constraint – be concerned with the role of
student constructions of knowledge and the limits that must be placed on them
 Consider the differing existential realities of the tension that teachers must
navigate between disciplinary modes of thought and the less formally
disciplined beliefs of students
 Consider the usefulness of the idea of disciplined judgment in teaching and
learning geography

Disciplinary/disciplined knowledge
Disciplined judgment

Constructivist classrooms must balance the individual judgments that students
apply during the course of their work with the normalising tools of judgment as
employed within the discipline

Making the criteria of disciplinary judgment explicit will provide a crucial scaffold for
students

Disciplined judgment is a term that describes the application of criteria that emerge
from the institutional context of each discipline to judge the worth of knowledge
constructions

Rather than seeing this knowledge as a static entity that a learner either acquires,
or fails to acquire, disciplinary judgment can help students to understand
disciplined knowledge. Thus, a primary challenge to educators is to find ways for
students to become skilled, not only at constructing knowledge but also at
evaluating it - judging its worth - in disciplined ways.
Disciplined judgment

The framework, disciplined judgment, is designed to help
educators become more aware of their discipline, its unique
approach to knowledge, and how to help students learn to employ
the normative tools provided by the discipline

Rather than attempting to resolve the tension between disciplined
and ethno knowledge, the employment of disciplined judgment in
a constructivist pedagogy encourages teachers to accept this
tension and work with it – it is both inevitable and useful. The
tension is useful because it helps bring the knowledge that has
been constructed into sharper relief or both teachers and their
students

Disciplined judgment will lead to metacognition, which itself will
lead to a greater understanding and appreciation of the
epistemological foundations of the discipline
‘Constructivism’s great contribution to curriculum theory is that it has placed student
understanding as the central goal of education. As such, the theory has helped
educators to reorient the hierarchical structure of teaching and learning into a more
horizontal one in which student constructions of knowledge play a more central role. In
choosing to focus on the disciplinary facets of how constructivist teachers
appropriately limit student knowledge construction, we are consciously suggesting that
answering the question of how teachers can and should influence student knowledge
construction requires partially wrestling constructivism writ large from sole possession
of educational psychologists and giving it to teachers and disciplinary experts.’ (p. 57)
What constitutes an appropriate epistemological stance toward
knowledge for students
More generic approach (Elby and Hammer, 2001, research based study)

Often fail to distinguish between correctness and productivity – a belief is
productive if it generates behaviour, attitudes and habits that lead to
‘progress’ – help students learn

4 epistemological dimensions to beliefs about academic/disciplinary
knowledge (consensus view underlined): certainty vs. tentativeness;
realism vs. relativism; authority vs. independence; simplicity vs. complexity

What is accepted within the practices of philosophy, sociology of
knowledge and psychology need not be considered accepted in the
practices of the discipline
What constitutes an epistemological stance toward knowledge for students
Elby and Hammer, 2001

Need to attend to context: e.g. A
blanket mistrust of authority is no
more appropriate/sophisticated than
a blanket trust

Epistemological sophistication
requires student abilities and
inclinations to evaluate the
trustworthiness of different sources
of information

Need to distinguish acceptance from
understanding
Summary

Constructivism possesses epistemological, psychological and
pedagogical dimensions

We need to recognise the relevance of syntactic knowledge to
students’ learning

We need to be clear about the theoretical underpinnings of how
we conceptualise knowledge – and its implications for
education: work to do - social constructivism? ‘Transactional
realism ‘

Importance of normativity and the inequality of knowledge –
teachers need to work with inequality in the classroom

Classrooms are based on democratic principles but we should
not deny the inequality of knowledge