|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Social Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Levels and equivalence in credit and qualifications frameworks: Contrasting the prescribed and enacted curriculum in school and college|
|Publisher:||Taylor & Francis (Routledge)|
|Citation:||Miller K, Edwards R & Priestley M (2010) Levels and equivalence in credit and qualifications frameworks: Contrasting the prescribed and enacted curriculum in school and college, Research Papers in Education, 25 (2), pp. 225-243.|
|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.|
|Rights:||Published in Research Papers in Education by Taylor & Francis (Routledge).; This is an electronic version of an article published in Research Papers in Education, Volume 25, Issue 2, pages 225 - 243. Research Papers in Education is available online at: http://www.informaworld.com|
|Levels and equivalence in credit frameworks-final draft.pdf||181.72 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.