Levels and equivalence in credit and qualifications frameworks: contrasting the prescribed and enacted curriculum in school and college

Kate Helen Miller, Richard Edwards, Mark Priestley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Drawing on data from an empirical study of three matched subjects in upper secondary school and further education college in Scotland, this article explores some of the factors that result in differences emerging from the translation of the prescribed curriculum into the enacted curriculum. We argue that these differences raise important questions about equivalences which are being promoted through the development of credit and qualifications frameworks. The article suggests that the standardisation associated with the development of a rational credit and qualifications framework and an outcomes‐based prescribed curriculum cannot be achieved precisely because of the multiplicity that emerges from the practices of translation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)225-243
Number of pages19
JournalResearch Papers in Education
Volume25
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

equivalence
qualification
credit
curriculum
school
further education
school education
secondary school

Keywords

  • Prescribed curriculum
  • enacted curriculum
  • credit frameworks
  • learning outcomes
  • translation

Cite this

@article{1ea56aa012e24e529669f52c292e313c,
title = "Levels and equivalence in credit and qualifications frameworks: contrasting the prescribed and enacted curriculum in school and college",
abstract = "Drawing on data from an empirical study of three matched subjects in upper secondary school and further education college in Scotland, this article explores some of the factors that result in differences emerging from the translation of the prescribed curriculum into the enacted curriculum. We argue that these differences raise important questions about equivalences which are being promoted through the development of credit and qualifications frameworks. The article suggests that the standardisation associated with the development of a rational credit and qualifications framework and an outcomes‐based prescribed curriculum cannot be achieved precisely because of the multiplicity that emerges from the practices of translation.",
keywords = "Prescribed curriculum, enacted curriculum, credit frameworks, learning outcomes, translation",
author = "Miller, {Kate Helen} and Richard Edwards and Mark Priestley",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1080/02671520902928507",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "225--243",
journal = "Research Papers in Education",
issn = "1470-1146",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

Levels and equivalence in credit and qualifications frameworks : contrasting the prescribed and enacted curriculum in school and college. / Miller, Kate Helen; Edwards, Richard; Priestley, Mark.

In: Research Papers in Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2010, p. 225-243.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Levels and equivalence in credit and qualifications frameworks

T2 - contrasting the prescribed and enacted curriculum in school and college

AU - Miller, Kate Helen

AU - Edwards, Richard

AU - Priestley, Mark

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Drawing on data from an empirical study of three matched subjects in upper secondary school and further education college in Scotland, this article explores some of the factors that result in differences emerging from the translation of the prescribed curriculum into the enacted curriculum. We argue that these differences raise important questions about equivalences which are being promoted through the development of credit and qualifications frameworks. The article suggests that the standardisation associated with the development of a rational credit and qualifications framework and an outcomes‐based prescribed curriculum cannot be achieved precisely because of the multiplicity that emerges from the practices of translation.

AB - Drawing on data from an empirical study of three matched subjects in upper secondary school and further education college in Scotland, this article explores some of the factors that result in differences emerging from the translation of the prescribed curriculum into the enacted curriculum. We argue that these differences raise important questions about equivalences which are being promoted through the development of credit and qualifications frameworks. The article suggests that the standardisation associated with the development of a rational credit and qualifications framework and an outcomes‐based prescribed curriculum cannot be achieved precisely because of the multiplicity that emerges from the practices of translation.

KW - Prescribed curriculum

KW - enacted curriculum

KW - credit frameworks

KW - learning outcomes

KW - translation

U2 - 10.1080/02671520902928507

DO - 10.1080/02671520902928507

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 225

EP - 243

JO - Research Papers in Education

JF - Research Papers in Education

SN - 1470-1146

IS - 2

ER -