Knowledge and the university curriculum

Abstract

What are students learning in university? Can this learning be measured? We do not at this time possess a conceptual framework for understanding what and how knowledge is acquired in different university disciplines. A framework for the acquisition of knowledge would have to account for the manner in which forms of knowledge differ. Disciplinars? differences could be expected to occur at four levels: in the nature of the concepts used; in the logical structure of the discipline; in the truth criteria used; and in the methods employed in the discipline. In this article, such a framework is tested on university courses representative of different disciplines. At the most basic level, characteristics of the most important concepts used in courses across disciplines are investigated. The characteristics include concept familiarity, generality and abstractness. At a second level, differences in the logical structure of disciplines are examined through analysis of the relationships between course concepts, the structure of propositions in the field, and organizing principles which play a major role in the discipline. The truth criteria used by various disciplines suggest more global differences which would affect the acquisition of knowledge. Finally, the methods considered important in different disciplines, and their effect on the development of students' intellectual skills, complete the portrayal of the parameters of knowledge and the university curriculum. Directions for future research are discussed.

The ideal research‐teaching nexus in the eyes of academics: building profiles

“…From earlier research (Brew, 2003;Robertson & Bond, 2001) we know that the research-teaching nexus and its components are understood differently by different academics. The differences that arise might be partly caused by disciplinary differences, which are related to differences in epistemology, truth criteria and culture (Becher, 1989;Donald, 1986;Robertson & Bond, 2005). In this study we focused on one area of scholarship, namely the humanities.…”

Disciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in the Study of Knowledge

“…Since knowledge concerns human apprehension of truth and facts, this notion of social fact, whether applied conservatively or liberally, affects the analysis of knowledge. The more extreme versions of constructivism (e.g., Haraway, 1991;Latour & Woolgar, 1979/1986) raise the question of whether truth is optional (Hacking, 1999). Constructivism (sometimes also known as constructionism) not only covers a range of intensities but is connected to different kinds of claims about what is constructed (Sismondo, 1993).…”

“…The latter requires the researcher to take into account concepts about populations, units of analysis, data acquisition procedures, and metrics. The different general approaches to knowledge in humanities and social science disciplines, as described by the educational psychologist J. G. Donald (1986), illuminate the predicament Shera faced in wanting to use humanistic paradigms and methodologies (such as they are) to process social science materials. Donald refers to studies by Dorothy Ross (1979) and Laurence Veysey (1979) (Donald, 1986, p. 276).…”

Aprendibilidad- enseñabilidad- educabilidad: una discusión

“…D. Hodson (1988) anotó que era un error asumir esas relaciones como simples y directas. Además, J. G. Donald (1986), puntualizó que era menester diferenciar entre el contenido estructural de las disciplinas y las estructuras curriculares con las cuales se asiste a los alumnos, para que se aproximen críticamente a los saberes y desarrollen habilidades y destrezas en un saber disciplinar dado. Hoy, en consecuencia, esos compromisos empiropositivistas han sido objeto de revisión.…”