curriculum making. This supports Clayton’s (2007) suggestion that self-appraisal and questioning one’s own values in the process of curriculum making are essential elements. These may be as important as, or more important than, decision-making about topics and lines of study and about who is to be involved and how in this process. Here curriculum making can be described as praxis (Grundy, 1988). For Clayton, the need through self-reflection to re-evaluate and reconsider personal values and practices is the basis for changing and enhancing how teachers work best, particularly in terms of inclusivity and equity, as curriculum makers in their own classrooms. Draper (1936) presented one approach to curriculum making as medium-term planning which he described as ‘progressive’, in that it expressed an active learning focus to engage and involve children directly. It has been taken further in this project. Draper’s notion is deepened by Alexander (2008b) in his work on dialogic teaching, which is informative for this study. The principles underlying Alexander’s case for dialogic teaching include the need not simply to listen to children but to hear what they say. This means giving children time and support to convey what they want to, and to consider thoughtfully what children propose, rather than dismissing their ideas. It involves mutuality in collective approaches to enquiry, questioning and probing, and means considering together the lines of enquiry to follow, while evaluating at intervals and reappraising directions of study, including agreement to digress where there is useful interest or potential in doing so. This supports the teachers’ perspectives about enhancing children’s engagement in active curriculum making as agents in their own learning. As in a secondary school geography study, the primary teachers recognised children’s need to be listened to and heard clearly and fully, so that a dialogue emerged as a result of teachers’ openness to children’s contributions and partnership (Biddulph, 2011, 2013; Hopwood, 2007, 2012). Likewise, the need for teachers’ teaching repertoires to be broad-based, building on and taking forward enquiries, involves a dialogic approach for this to be meaningful, moving beyond being active to activating children’s contributions. This would appear to be enabled, as Biddulph (2011, 2012) found with secondary geography teachers, when teachers are knowledgeable about their subject, to the extent that they can recognise children’s understandings (and misunderstandings) in the subject and appreciate the relationship of children’s subject learning to their everyday experiences. While most of the primary teachers felt confident in their geography subject knowledge, what surprised themwere the greater extent of children’s knowledge of their local environment and their awareness and views about sustainable development whichweremore informed than expected – in the past children’s views were less fully engaged with in class. Geography topics, it would seem, are fre-quently for children to undertake and learn about, rather than opportunities

DOI link for curriculum making. This supports Clayton’s (2007) suggestion that self-appraisal and questioning one’s own values in the process of curriculum making are essential elements. These may be as important as, or more important than, decision-making about topics and lines of study and about who is to be involved and how in this process. Here curriculum making can be described as praxis (Grundy, 1988). For Clayton, the need through self-reflection to re-evaluate and reconsider personal values and practices is the basis for changing and enhancing how teachers work best, particularly in terms of inclusivity and equity, as curriculum makers in their own classrooms. Draper (1936) presented one approach to curriculum making as medium-term planning which he described as ‘progressive’, in that it expressed an active learning focus to engage and involve children directly. It has been taken further in this project. Draper’s notion is deepened by Alexander (2008b) in his work on dialogic teaching, which is informative for this study. The principles underlying Alexander’s case for dialogic teaching include the need not simply to listen to children but to hear what they say. This means giving children time and support to convey what they want to, and to consider thoughtfully what children propose, rather than dismissing their ideas. It involves mutuality in collective approaches to enquiry, questioning and probing, and means considering together the lines of enquiry to follow, while evaluating at intervals and reappraising directions of study, including agreement to digress where there is useful interest or potential in doing so. This supports the teachers’ perspectives about enhancing children’s engagement in active curriculum making as agents in their own learning. As in a secondary school geography study, the primary teachers recognised children’s need to be listened to and heard clearly and fully, so that a dialogue emerged as a result of teachers’ openness to children’s contributions and partnership (Biddulph, 2011, 2013; Hopwood, 2007, 2012). Likewise, the need for teachers’ teaching repertoires to be broad-based, building on and taking forward enquiries, involves a dialogic approach for this to be meaningful, moving beyond being active to activating children’s contributions. This would appear to be enabled, as Biddulph (2011, 2012) found with secondary geography teachers, when teachers are knowledgeable about their subject, to the extent that they can recognise children’s understandings (and misunderstandings) in the subject and appreciate the relationship of children’s subject learning to their everyday experiences. While most of the primary teachers felt confident in their geography subject knowledge, what surprised themwere the greater extent of children’s knowledge of their local environment and their awareness and views about sustainable development whichweremore informed than expected – in the past children’s views were less fully engaged with in class. Geography topics, it would seem, are fre-quently for children to undertake and learn about, rather than opportunities

curriculum making. This supports Clayton’s (2007) suggestion that self-appraisal and questioning one’s own values in the process of curriculum making are essential elements. These may be as important as, or more important than, decision-making about topics and lines of study and about who is to be involved and how in this process. Here curriculum making can be described as praxis (Grundy, 1988). For Clayton, the need through self-reflection to re-evaluate and reconsider personal values and practices is the basis for changing and enhancing how teachers work best, particularly in terms of inclusivity and equity, as curriculum makers in their own classrooms. Draper (1936) presented one approach to curriculum making as medium-term planning which he described as ‘progressive’, in that it expressed an active learning focus to engage and involve children directly. It has been taken further in this project. Draper’s notion is deepened by Alexander (2008b) in his work on dialogic teaching, which is informative for this study. The principles underlying Alexander’s case for dialogic teaching include the need not simply to listen to children but to hear what they say. This means giving children time and support to convey what they want to, and to consider thoughtfully what children propose, rather than dismissing their ideas. It involves mutuality in collective approaches to enquiry, questioning and probing, and means considering together the lines of enquiry to follow, while evaluating at intervals and reappraising directions of study, including agreement to digress where there is useful interest or potential in doing so. This supports the teachers’ perspectives about enhancing children’s engagement in active curriculum making as agents in their own learning. As in a secondary school geography study, the primary teachers recognised children’s need to be listened to and heard clearly and fully, so that a dialogue emerged as a result of teachers’ openness to children’s contributions and partnership (Biddulph, 2011, 2013; Hopwood, 2007, 2012). Likewise, the need for teachers’ teaching repertoires to be broad-based, building on and taking forward enquiries, involves a dialogic approach for this to be meaningful, moving beyond being active to activating children’s contributions. This would appear to be enabled, as Biddulph (2011, 2012) found with secondary geography teachers, when teachers are knowledgeable about their subject, to the extent that they can recognise children’s understandings (and misunderstandings) in the subject and appreciate the relationship of children’s subject learning to their everyday experiences. While most of the primary teachers felt confident in their geography subject knowledge, what surprised themwere the greater extent of children’s knowledge of their local environment and their awareness and views about sustainable development whichweremore informed than expected – in the past children’s views were less fully engaged with in class. Geography topics, it would seem, are fre-quently for children to undertake and learn about, rather than opportunities