The core content framework and the ‘new science’ of educational research

IF 2.3 3区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Oxford Review of Education Pub Date : 2023-02-27 DOI:10.1080/03054985.2023.2182768

J. Hordern, C. Brooks

{"title":"The core content framework and the ‘new science’ of educational research","authors":"J. Hordern, C. Brooks","doi":"10.1080/03054985.2023.2182768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper unpacks the assumptions underpinning England’s new Core Content Framework (CCF) in respect of the educational research required for teacher expertise, with particular attention to the sources referenced in the final part of the CCF and claims that these constitute the ‘best available educational research’. Drawing on sociological studies of educational knowledge, and assessments of the quality of educational research in England, in addition to the philosophy of expertise as related to teaching, it is argued that the CCF is currently orientated towards a scientism that (i) marginalises longstanding traditions of educational thought, and (ii) technicises and instrumentalises teaching practice. The predominance of a scientistic model of educational knowledge is demonstrated through a profile of the sources identified in the CCF, with a focus on the journals in which referenced material is published and an overview of subject matter via an analysis of keywords and titles. With an overwhelming preference for this ‘New Science’ as opposed to other traditions of educational knowledge, the CCF encourages an image of teaching as a decontextualised series of interventions with narrow objectives, and thus implicitly marginalises wider educational goods and purposes and deprofessionalises teachers work.","PeriodicalId":47910,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2182768","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper unpacks the assumptions underpinning England’s new Core Content Framework (CCF) in respect of the educational research required for teacher expertise, with particular attention to the sources referenced in the final part of the CCF and claims that these constitute the ‘best available educational research’. Drawing on sociological studies of educational knowledge, and assessments of the quality of educational research in England, in addition to the philosophy of expertise as related to teaching, it is argued that the CCF is currently orientated towards a scientism that (i) marginalises longstanding traditions of educational thought, and (ii) technicises and instrumentalises teaching practice. The predominance of a scientistic model of educational knowledge is demonstrated through a profile of the sources identified in the CCF, with a focus on the journals in which referenced material is published and an overview of subject matter via an analysis of keywords and titles. With an overwhelming preference for this ‘New Science’ as opposed to other traditions of educational knowledge, the CCF encourages an image of teaching as a decontextualised series of interventions with narrow objectives, and thus implicitly marginalises wider educational goods and purposes and deprofessionalises teachers work.

查看原文本刊更多论文

教育研究的核心内容框架与“新科学”

摘要本文揭示了英国新的核心内容框架（CCF）在教师专业知识所需的教育研究方面的假设，特别关注CCF最后部分引用的来源，并声称这些来源构成了“最佳可用教育研究”。根据对教育知识的社会学研究和对英国教育研究质量的评估，以及与教学相关的专业哲学，有人认为CCF目前倾向于科学主义，即（i）边缘化长期的教育思想传统，以及（ii）技术化和工具化教学实践。通过CCF中确定的来源简介，重点是发表参考材料的期刊，以及通过分析关键词和标题对主题的概述，证明了科学教育知识模式的优势。与其他传统的教育知识相比，CCF对这种“新科学”有着压倒性的偏好，它鼓励将教学视为一系列目标狭窄的非文本化干预措施，从而隐含地边缘化了更广泛的教育产品和目的，并使教师的工作失去了专业化。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Oxford Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Oxford Review of Education is a well established journal with an extensive international readership. It is committed to deploying the resources of a wide range of academic disciplines in the service of educational scholarship, and the Editors welcome articles reporting significant new research as well as contributions of a more analytic or reflective nature. The membership of the editorial board reflects these emphases, which have remained characteristic of the Review since its foundation. The Review seeks to preserve the highest standards of professional scholarship in education, while also seeking to publish articles which will be of interest and utility to a wider public, including policy makers.