ABSTRACT The idea of powerful knowledge as a curriculum principle has led to extensive discussion. It has been framed as a way of bringing knowledge back into curriculum thinking in the light if its absence in curriculum theory. However, questions have been raised regarding powerful knowledge as a knowledge-based curriculum principle; questions about difficulties in converting it into curriculum content, as well as putting knowledge-as-an-end-in-itself above educational aims. The focus of this article is on how powerful knowledge can be conceived of as capacity-building curriculum content, as well as how this is related to the epistemological underpinning of the idea of powerful knowledge. Knowing as the capacity-building aspect of powerful knowledge is highlighted as is a widening of the concept of knowledge to also include tacit aspects in what counts as knowledge. Through revisiting Paul Hirst’s forms of knowledge as well as his practice turn, I argue that Hirst became stuck in a tension similar to Michael Young and Johan Muller. By a shift of focus from powerful knowns to powerful knowings the tension between a knowledge and practice-based view of the curriculum can be dissolved.

中文翻译：

---

强大的知识和强大的知识

摘要 强大知识作为课程原则的想法引起了广泛的讨论。它被认为是一种将知识带回课程思维的方式，如果它在课程理论中缺失的话。然而，关于强大的知识作为基于知识的课程原则的问题已经被提出；关于将其转化为课程内容的困难，以及将知识作为目的本身置于教育目标之上的问题。本文的重点是如何将强大的知识视为能力建设课程内容，以及这与强大知识概念的认识论基础有何关联。知道作为强大知识的能力建设方面得到了强调，因为知识概念的扩展也包括了作为知识的隐性方面。通过重新审视保罗赫斯特的知识形式以及他的实践转向，我认为赫斯特陷入了类似于迈克尔杨和约翰穆勒的紧张局势。通过将重点从强大的知识转移到强大的知识，可以消除知识和基于实践的课程观之间的紧张关系。