Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHordern, Jim
dc.contributor.authorBrooks, C
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-02T08:55:12Z
dc.date.issued2023-02-27
dc.identifier.issn1465-3915
dc.identifier.issn1465-3915
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/20526
dc.description.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.

dc.format.extent1-19
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTaylor and Francis Group
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectTeacher education reform
dc.subjecteducational knowledge
dc.subjectteacher professionalism
dc.subjectinitial teacher education
dc.titleThe core content framework and the 'new science' of educational research
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000941959700001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008
plymouth.issueahead-of-print
plymouth.volumeahead-of-print
plymouth.publication-statusPublished online
plymouth.journalOxford Review of Education
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/03054985.2023.2182768
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business/Plymouth Institute of Education
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-02-06
dc.rights.embargodate2023-3-3
dc.identifier.eissn1465-3915
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1080/03054985.2023.2182768
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV