The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Still no pedagogy? principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary education
Abstract
This article revisits Brian Simon's 1981 Simon B (1981) Why no pedagogy in England? in: B. Simon & W. Taylor (Eds) Education in the eighties: the central issues (London, Batsford) 124 145 [Google Scholar] judgement that for deep‐seated historical reasons English education lacks a coherent and principled pedagogy. Given that since 1997 the tide of educational centralisation has added teaching methods to those aspects of schooling which the UK government and/or its agencies seek to prescribe, it is appropriate to test the continuing validity of Simon's claim by reference to a major policy initiative in the pedagogical domain: the government's Primary Strategy, published in May 2003. This article defines pedagogy as both the act of teaching and its attendant discourse and postulates three domains of ideas, values and evidence by which both are necessarily framed. It then critically assesses the Primary Strategy's account of some of the components of pedagogy thus defined, notably learning, teaching, curriculum and culture, and the political assumptions which appear to have shaped them. On this basis, the Primary Strategy is found to be ambiguous and possibly dishonest, stylistically demeaning, conceptually weak, evidentially inadequate and culpably ignorant of recent educational history. The article is an extended version of the last in the 2002–2003 Research Lecture series at Cambridge University Faculty of Education, and preserves some of the style of its initial mode of presentation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · cited 2×
“Not according to the Kings’ assessment for learning research (Black & Wiliam, 1998).”
BackgroundBruner, J. (1996) · doi:10.4159/9780674251083 · Cited by 6,231
Working inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004) · Phi Delta Kappan · doi:10.1177/003172170408600105 · Cited by 1,323 · cited 1×
“…item here which has a recognisable empirical basis is the final one, which hints at the important ideas about assessment for learning and its implications for classroom talk which have come from Paul Black and his colleagues in the London King’s group (Black & Wiliam, 1999; Black et al., 2002).”
Background
Cited by
Classroom assessment and pedagogy
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2018.1441807 · Cited by 1,133
Spratt, J., & Florian, L. (2015) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.006 · Cited by 199
Rayner, S. (2009) · Educational Review · doi:10.1080/00131910903404004 · Cited by 83
Competing pressures in practice: Teachers’ pedagogies and work under complex policy conditions
Hardy, I. (2013) · International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning · doi:10.5172/ijpl.2013.8.3.206 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Alexander *, R.
- Venue
- Cambridge Journal of Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-03
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7-33
- ISSN
- 0305-764X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3577
- OpenAlex
- W2001312265
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 54.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.