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

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520902928507

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; Curriculum-based assessment; Curriculum planning Great Britain; Accreditation (Education); College credits

Journal
Research Papers in Education: Volume 25, Issue 2

• Levels and equivalence in credit frameworks-final draft.pdf