X hits on this document

212 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

29 / 102

Figure 2.2:

CLASSIFICATION

STRONG

WEAK

Strong boundaries Strong (visible) insulation Subjects well insulated. (No or little integration) Vary in degree

Weak (blurred) boundaries Reduced insulation. Subjects integrate. Allow integration at a degree of Levels

TYPES OF CURRICULA

Collection

Integrated

No links: School/ Community/ content. De-contextualized Pure concept of math only No interdisciplinary relations(Tayler et. al., 2003) Strongly classified Type of knowledge: Vertical discourse. Top to bottom hierarchical. Mathematics for mathematicians only.

Link: School/Community/ Content. Contextualised/inter-discursive relationship) Inter-disciplinary relations Weak classified Type of knowledge: Dual System of knowledge Horizontal and Vertical, EMS and Mathematics at the same level and hierarchy free.

Framing

  • Form or structure of context in which knowledge is transmitted.

  • Controls on communications in local and interaction able relations.

  • It is about who controls what.

  • The nature of the control over the selection of the communication, its sequencing and pacing; the criterion

and the social base

  • Explains and determine the structure of pedagogy.

The curriculum in use is leaning stronger in the direction of an integrated curriculum code and hence the concepts in use in this study need to be integrated and shared between EMS and Mathematics without hierarchy. The classification needs to be weak and the framing strong with learners input and relational understanding between the learning areas, as made explicit by the educators of the different learning areas as they plan collectively to integrate concepts.

Prevein Marnewicke: Forms and meanings of Integration. A case study towards completion

of a Master of Education degree.

Page 18

Document info
Document views212
Page views212
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 00:36:25 UTC 2016
Pages102
Paragraphs1627
Words29076

Comments