Toward a renaissance in curriculum theory and development in the USA

Wraga, William G.; Hlebowitsh, Peter S.

doi:10.1080/00220270305527

Cited by 46 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…; nor is every instance of curriculum theory interdisciplinary" (p. 2). Not everyone agrees with either definition, of the scope of this field, and indeed there is an emerging and lively new debate about just what should be the scope and referent of curriculum inquiry (see Hamilton, 1999;Hopmann & Riquarts, 2000;Moore & Young, 2001;Wraga & Hlebowitsh, 2003). The project which gave rise to the current review of theses was specifically concerned with schooling in Australia, and with a conception of curriculum in line with Yates' (2005) comments above.…”

Section: The Field Of Curriculum Inquirymentioning

confidence: 99%

Classifying curriculum scholarship in Australia: A review of postgraduate theses 1975–2005

O’Connor

Yates

2010

Aust. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses an initial analysis of the form of Australian postgraduate scholarship over the last four decades in relation to curriculum inquiry. The study forms part of an ARC funded project on the shifts and emphases of Australian curriculum policy from 1975 to 2005 which seeks to contribute to understandings of how Australian curriculum has developed across states and over time. Analyses of changing emphases within education thesis production are hampered by the lack of systematic and consistent indexing of the theses, but within the criteria and methods we used, the thesis analysis elicited some tantalising findings. These seem to show a changing focus away from curriculum study in the most recent decade of Australian postgraduate theses, following three decades of rising interest in that area of education. But the study also demonstrated inherent methodological and practical problems for doing the inquiry itself, in terms of (1) the ways we categorise and think about education as a field; (2) limitations of the archiving and coding practices we have put in place to sustain a sense of our own history and the need to improve these; and, (3) potentially, research assessment now in train, and its intention to categorise work via "field of research" codes.

show abstract

Section: The Field Of Curriculum Inquirymentioning

confidence: 99%

Classifying curriculum scholarship in Australia: A review of postgraduate theses 1975–2005

O’Connor

Yates

2010

Aust. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A renascence of the curriculum field would occur 'only if curriculum energies are in large part diverted from theoretic pursuits … to three other modes of operation … the practical, the quasi-practical and the eclectic' (592). The diagnosis, albeit formulated over 40 years ago, continues to hold true for the current state of affairs of curriculum studies (Connelly 2009, Wraga and Hlebowitsh 2003. And, the Practical remains as a promising way forward for tackling the current crisis and for revitalizing curriculum studies worldwide for the 21 st -century (Connelly 2013, Kü nzli 2013, Westbury 2013.…”

Section: Introduction Zongyi Dengmentioning

confidence: 96%

Introduction

Deng¹

2013

Journal of Curriculum Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This complexity probably explains why it was so slow to emerge. After a period in which interest in curriculum studies fell off (Wraga and Hlebowitsh 2003), and the field even lost influence (Kliebard 1995), today the field is experiencing a veritable renaissance. It is moving towards becoming an autonomous disciplinary field developed in independent departments and faculties in countries of the Anglo-Saxon tradition.…”

Section: What Status Should a Curriculum Have?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Curricula and curricular analysis: Some pointers for a debate

Jonnaert

Therriault

2013

Prospects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This introduction to our guest-edited issue provides a framework for reflecting on curricula, based on the four still fundamental questions raised by Tyler (Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1949) about effective ways to organize educational experiences that can meet the school's educational purpose. The authors begin by decoding the Franco-European and Anglo-Saxon/North American approaches to the concept of curriculum, and seek points where the two are complementary. Using Tyler's four questions, they then clarify the concept in a conceptual outline, organize it into a rational model, and seek a reference framework that can offer pointers for a debate on curriculum. They then show that, because a curriculum necessarily originates in a specific society, some of that society's irrationality affects the nature of the curriculum. Thus, any curriculum experiences a tension between the rationality of the models that define it in theoretical terms and the irrationality of its surrounding societywhich has the power to regulate it. Therefore, tools for curriculum analysis must consider all these dimensions, contradictions, and tensions to achieve a truly systemic perspective. While a system model is important for evaluation, it is also important to understand the less rational aspects and to place them in dialogue with their models. In this respect, providing pointers for the debate on curriculum remains a perilous exercise. Finally, the authors reflect on a systemic and holistic approach to the curriculum, and suggest pointers for contemporary reflection on curriculum.

show abstract

Toward a renaissance in curriculum theory and development in the USA

Cited by 46 publications

References 17 publications

Classifying curriculum scholarship in Australia: A review of postgraduate theses 1975–2005

Classifying curriculum scholarship in Australia: A review of postgraduate theses 1975–2005

Introduction

Curricula and curricular analysis: Some pointers for a debate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About