Tradition, Authority and Disciplinary Practice in History Education

Datos Bibliográficos

ID8857124
AutoresMichael Fordham (0009-0002-6998-7897, University of Cambridge, autor de correspondencia)
Año2016
Volumen49
Número6
Páginas631-642
Fecha de publicación2016-08-11
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaEducational Philosophy and Theory (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0013-1857 • E-ISSN: 1469-5812
EditorialTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/00131857.2015.1135777
OpenAlexW2507618074
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas6
Referencias citadas20

The concepts of ‘tradition’ and ‘authority’ are generally understood to be problematical in history curriculum design. Drawing on MacIntyre’s account of disciplines as social practices, this article argues that, to the contrary, these are concepts that need to be incorporated into any curriculum theory that attempts to build a school subject on the foundations provided by an academic discipline. In history education, there is a strong consensus towards deriving the ideas of the history curriculum from the discipline of history, and this article argues that it is therefore necessary for history curriculum theory to account for the concepts of ‘tradition’ and ‘authority’ as they exist in disciplinary practice

Curriculum · Curriculum development · Curriculum theory · Discipline · Education theory · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Higher education · Intellectual history · Pedagogy · Philosophy of education · Political science · Social history (medicine · Social science · Social studies · Sociology · Subject (documents · Educator Training and Historical Pedagogy · Engineering · Global Education and Multiculturalism · Law · Philosophy · Religious Education and Schools