Predominant Curriculum Discourse among School Teachers of Punjab

Abstract
The study has been undertaken to determine predominant curriculum discourse among
school teachers of Punjab. The study employed questionnaires and interviews to gather
data. The data obtained showed that curriculum discourse among teachers of private as
well as public sector schools of Punjab is more classical/ vocational. Progressive discourse
has also been visibly noticed but socially critical discourse could not be vividly observed. The
study has concluded that discourse on curriculum is embedded in collective thoughts at the
societal level.

Introduction
The word curriculum always takes up a central position in education debates all over the
world. One may trace discussions on curriculum during preparation of state-lead education
policies, textbook development, selecting assessment procedures and tools, recruiting
teachers at different levels etc. Being a pivotal element of education, curriculum itself has
been debated since ages resulting into formulation of different images like: curriculum as
cultural reproduction; curriculum as content or subject matter; curriculum as program of
planned activities; curriculum as intended learning outcomes; curriculum as discrete tasks
and concepts; curriculum as an agenda for social reconstruction; and curriculum as currere
(Schubert, 1986).

These various images of curriculum advocate diversity as well as

complexity of the concept.

Grundy, Warhurst, Laird & Maxwell (1998) believe that the content and form of the
curriculum is not in some sense predetermined, but is rather determined at particular
historical times in particular locations, within a particular society or even a particular
school. They have elaborated their argument by asserting that curriculum is not valueneutral, but represents the dominant or hegemonic values of a society and/or community at
that historical moment. These arguments signify that education is a social phenomenon
and curriculum is a social construction (Grundy, Warhurst, Laird & Maxwell, 1998).
1

Curriculum construction is essentially embedded in some educational discourse and there

is a plethora of discourses that might be represented in the curricula of schools (Grundy,
Warhurst, Laird & Maxwell, 1998). It is important to note that curriculum choices are
clearly based upon epistemological (Phillips, 1974) and moral assumptions and positions
(Lovat & Smith, 1995). Kemmis, Cole & Suggett (1983) have identified and analyzed three
distinct discourses which take different value positions. They assert that these discourses
are three different orientations, therefore, they are different codes, different games with
different set of rules. They cannot be taken as different styles. They have argued that a
coherent view of education cannot be composed of all three different orientations. School
communities typically embrace protagonists of all three orientations: the curricula which
their schools present are therefore practical compromises between positions (Kemmis,
Cole & Suggett, 1983).
Keeping in view the importance of curriculum discourse in determining the course of
education, this study has tried to investigate the predominant curriculum discourse among
school teachers of Punjab. The area being very broad, encompasses a number of elements.
For the sake of convenience, this research has tried to answer only the following questions:
1. What is the predominant curriculum discourse among private school teachers in
Punjab?
2. What is the predominant curriculum discourse among public school teachers in
Punjab?

Literature Review
A curriculum is a particular way of ordering content and purposes for teaching and learning
in schools (Walker, 2003). He further says, the curriculum is a quiet, almost imperceptible
presence in every classroom (Walker, 2003). Varied curriculum discourses are seen in
diverse groups in different parts of the world. They exhibit "understanding paradigm" of the
people. The curriculum discourse is influenced by cultural studies, language, history, societal
needs, aspirations, globalization and past experiences including colonization. Pennycook
(1998) testifies that colonialism should not be seen as a forgotten era in the past but rather
as the context in which current ideas (and practices too) were framed. Nandy (1983)
defines it as a state of mind in the colonizers and the colonized. The education in the
colonies was set up as a leverage to create subjects who could submit to being ruled and
take pride in being followers of colonizers legacy. The system used language as the major
tool in creating a difference between the educated and uneducated. The curriculum
discourse that emerged in colonized countries is essentially different from colonizer
countries.
Contemporary curriculum discourse revolves around political, economic, and cultural
perspectives. Continuing themes in curriculum are of power, control, access,
participation, centralization, decentralization, the tension between the interests of the
individual learner and the state, and changing levels of state responsibility for funding and
supporting all learners and schools (Smith & Ewing, 2002). Curriculum discourse is
potentially complex as well as multidimensional because of the nature of curriculum studies.
Autio (2009) asserts that curriculum studies is an interdisciplinary approach to understand
the myriad dilemmas, questions, and problems related to societally and institutionally
organized education. Hazlett (1979) asserts that curriculum is unsure of its boundaries; it
suffers from chronic definitional ambiguity (there is not even a standard nomenclature for
its members); it persistently stumbles over the notion of theory; its treatment of
contradictions tends toward expediency; its agenda is cyclical rather than linear; and though
always moving, it shows few signs of development.

Study of political economy of the curriculum is essential to appreciate its influence on

citizenship, economics of the country or any other system of a state. The political economy
of the curriculum particularly of the school subject, is then of vital concern for it is a
'heartland' for the patterning and prioritizing which establishes a particular 'character' for
schooling (Goodson, 1995). As education is apolitical therefore school curricula are
typically nationally legislated, planned, and administered (Autio, 2009).
Curriculum studies cannot be separated from Didaktik. In fact, appreciation of teachers
role in operationalizing the curriculum somehow depends upon appreciation of Didaktik.
Weniger (2000) defines Didaktik as primarily, and certainly in everyday terms, the study of
teaching and learning, the study of instruction. Hopmann and Riquarts (2000) believe that
curriculum theory has taught the Didaktik tradition important lessons concerning the
relationship between school and society, on the nature and scope of educational planning,
and on the socially constructed character of schooling. Teachers as agents of change can
only be believed if the relationship between Didaktik and Curriculum Studies is understood.
Hiller (2000) points out that the education industry has in recent years been publishing
more handbooks for teachers, which evidently sell better if they are presented as series of
well-designed lesson crib sheets, increasingly forcing teachers out of their role as
instructional designers and claiming them as engineers for learning processes, schooled in
communication psychology and motivation theory. Such kind of practice can be questioned
as it does not really produce teachers who can question societal inequalities; think of
freedom at individual as well as societal level.
Shulman (1986) suggests that mix of content and pedagogy is uniquely the province of
teachers. Teachers own particular form of professional understanding includes: knowledge
of learners and their characteristics; knowledge of educational contexts, ranging from the
workings of the group or classroom, the governance and financing of school districts, to the
character of communities and cultures; and knowledge of educational ends, purposes and
values, and their philosophical and historical grounds. Similarly, Ben-Peretz (1990) allows
teachers the most active role in the formulation of content: teachers are encouraged to see
their major role in the partnership of curriculum development as that of informed and
creative interpreters who are prepared to reflect on their curriculum and to reconstruct it.
4

Complexities of curriculum studies have made curriculum discourse multidimensional.

Schubert (1986) claimed that more than 1,100 curriculum books had been written in this
century. After 25 years of the stated claim, the volume of publications including research
articles, books and electronic material probably has increased manifold. World around us
does not organize itself into school subjects neither do we as human beings nor the
problems we encounter in life. What should be taught to children is as much a political as a
scientific question. It would be naive to believe that there are simple or permanent
solutions or responses to this type of questions (Autio, 2009).
An important aspect of curriculum discourse is the issue of subjects. Kemmis, Cole, &
Suggett (1983) assert that the classical discourse believes in rigid compartmentalization of
subjects and timetabling and therefore selects students based on performance criteria. The
progressive discourse exhibits weak differentiation of subjects and timetabling. It allows
students to choose subjects on basis of their interest and readiness. The socially critical
orientation of curriculum allows stakeholders to decide on integration or differentiation of
subjects and use of time based on negotiation.

Methodology
Research Design
The research is descriptive in nature and has applied mixed method design for data
collection.
Study Sample
Fifty teachers from the following five private and five public sector schools in Punjab were
included as study subjects (Detailed profiles of the respondents have not been included as
the study does not involve investigation of profile specific trends):
Private Sector Schools

1. Dar-e-Arqam School, Rawalpindi.

2. Al-Suffa Model School System, Mianwali City.
5

3. The Educators, Pattoki.

4. SOS Hermann Gmeiner School, Ferozepur Road, Lahore.
5. Allied School, Chunian.

Public Sector Schools

1. Government Town Girls Elementary School, Rawalpindi.

2. Government Girls High School, Gopal Nagar.
3. Government Suleimania High School, Samanabad, Lahore.
4. Government Girls School, Chupshah, Kasur.
5. Government Junior Model School, Samanabad, Lahore.

Ten teachers, five each from the above private and public sector schools, were randomly
selected for interviews.
Instrumentation
The instruments used are questionnaire and interviews. Keeping in view the limitations of
Lickert-Scale identified by Wilke & Losh (2008), multiple choice items have been constructed
to determine teachers curriculum orientation. In each item, option A has been based
upon classical/ vocational curriculum discourse, option B upon progressive curriculum
discourse, and option C has been constructed around socially critical discourse. The
respondents rated different options of each MCQ item from 3-1 where 3 indicates first
preference; 2 second preference and 1 the last preference. The questionnaire was
developed in the light of ten curriculum dimensions identified by Kemmis, Cole & Suggett
(1983).
A semi-structured interview of teachers was also designed. Details of questions have been
mentioned in the findings.
Procedures for Data Interpretation
6

Rating of MCQ options (vocational, progressive and socially critical discourse) done by
private and public school teachers has been aggregated separately to determine the
predominant curricular discourse. Following key has been used for interpreting the scores:
56 (75% of the total) or above = Dominant
37 55 (49% - 73% of the total) = Intermediate
Less than 37 (less than 49% of the total) = Low

Results
Data & Data Analysis
To answer the research questions i.e. what is the predominant curriculum discourse among
private school teachers in Punjab and what is the predominant curriculum discourse among
public school teachers in Punjab, following data on questionnaire was gathered from fifty
teachers, 25 teachers from private schools and 25 from public sector schools (Table 1).
Table 1
MCQ Item

Score of
public
sector
school
teachers

Trend

Score of
private
sector
school
teachers

Trend

Desired outcome of school

curriculum is:

Better prospective for a

60

Dominant

58

Dominant

61

Dominant

58

Dominant

29

Low

34

Low

reasonable job.
B

Self-direction and
autonomous learning.

Highly developed critical

thinking and problem solving
skills.

Classroom organization
should be:
7

Very formal and structured

61

Dominant

53

Intermediate

59

Dominant

56

Dominant

30

Low

41

Intermediate

62

Dominant

59

Dominant

60

Dominant

55

Intermediate

28

Low

36

Low

to ensure learning.
B

In group form;
heterogeneous/ mixed ability
groups

Informal; heterogeneous
groups where ability is
irrelevant

Focus of the curriculum

needs to be:

Teaching major school

subjects like: Mathematics,
Science and Languages.

Integration of subjects to
help students see that
knowledge is holistic.

On study units instead of

subjects.

Aim of schooling should be:

Developing right behaviours.

59

Dominant

52

Intermediate

Enabling students to be

54

Intermediate

51

Intermediate

37

Intermediate

47

Intermediate

60

Dominant

62

Dominant

53

Intermediate

50

Intermediate

autonomous learners.
C

Developing analytical skills of

students to identify and solve
social issues collectively.

A preferred place for

teaching Biology topics to
grade 8 children needs to be:

Science Lab to ensure

availability of resources.

The one decided by the

majority of students.
C

The one agreed upon by all

37

Intermediate

38

Intermediate

62

Dominant

57

Dominant

the students.
6

A child in pre-school starts

talking with her friend
during circle time activity. In
this situation, the teacher
should:

Ask her not to talk in a polite

way.

Let her talk.

61

Dominant

56

Dominant

Stop the activity and join the

27

Low

37

Intermediate

55

Intermediate

60

Dominant

58

Dominant

51

Intermediate

37

Intermediate

39

Intermediate

60

Dominant

58

Dominant

55

Intermediate

47

Intermediate

35

Low

45

Intermediate

student.
7

In a school timetable:

more time needs to be given

to Mathematics, Science,
Urdu and English classes.

time should be allocated

according to pupils' needs
and interests.

time should be divided

according to the need of
study units.

School decisions need to be

taken by:

Board of directors and school

head.

School heads as well as

teachers.

All stakeholders

Parents of children are:

9

School clients thus need to

67

Dominant

66

Dominant

54

Intermediate

46

Intermediate

29

Low

38

Intermediate

be treated like clients.

B

Facilitators in nurturing their

childrens potential.

Important stakeholders in all

school matters.

10

Physical, aesthetic and literal

activities need to be:

Done in after school time.

65

Dominant

65

Dominant

Scheduled as per students

50

Intermediate

51

Intermediate

35

Low

34

Low

611 (81%*)

Dominant

590

Dominant

interests and decisions.

C

Done as agreed upon by all

the stakeholders.

Total
of A
Total
of B

Total in Classical Orientation

Total in Progressive

(79%*)
565 (75%*)

Dominant

Total in Socially Critical

of C

Orientation

Intermediate

(69%*)

Orientation

Total

521

324 (43%*)

Low

389

Intermediate

(52%*)

(10 MCQ items with total rating value of 6 i.e. 3,2,1 were given to 25 teachers of each
category, public sector and private sector. This makes aggregate score 1500 (10625) in
each category.)
* percentages have been calculated as: value 100/1500.
Analysis
Aggregate score indicates that curriculum discourse among school teachers of Punjab is
more classical. It is significant to note that public sector school teachers generally have
classical as well as progressive orientation of curriculum. On the other hand, private school
teachers have predominant classical orientation of school curriculum. Questionnaire results
10

clearly show that socially critical curriculum discourse is NOT a dominant discourse among
teachers in Punjab. Though private sector school teachers rated socially critical discourse
items better than private school teachers, they are still low rated as compared to items of
other orientation.
Interview Data
Ten teachers, five from private and five from public sector schools, were interviewed. The
interview was semi-structured and designed around following four questions (The
respondents were requested to provide brief answer against each question):
1

What is school curriculum?

What is teachers role in school curriculum?

What is the role of school head in designing school curriculum?

Should there be different specialized subject teachers to teach at primary level?

The interview responses have been transcribed as follows:

Q.I

What is school curriculum?

Responses given by five public sector school teachers

It is like a map of an interesting journey. This map directs us where to go.

School curriculum is everything that can possibly help the students to learn. It
includes all the things.

School subjects, their break up, books, resources and examination all constitute
school curriculum.

Syllabus of different subjects is curriculum. Syllabus means study topics. In fact, these
topics guide us what to teach in a class.

Formal documents prepared by Ministry of Education, or University of Cambridge for

GCSE, or by internal academic committees constitute school curriculum.
Responses given by five private school teachers

School syllabus, scheme of work and books are curriculum. Lesson plans are also part
of the curriculum.
11

Textbooks are curriculum. Some schools follow Punjab Textbook Board curriculum,
some Oxford curriculum and some Singapore curriculum.

All school activities including exams are curriculum. Curriculum is a broad term
encompassing everything occurring in school. It includes hidden curriculum also.

Probably curriculum is course outline and lesson plans. Syllabus break up is also part
of the curriculum.

All school subjects, core and elective, form the curriculum. Teachers work planners
may also be included in school curriculum.

Analysis
Socially critical discourse sees curriculum as a combination of act and object. The
progressive discourse sees it as an object based upon students interests. On the other
hand, classical discourse views curriculum as an object. The above ten responses show that
only two respondents see curriculum as a set of activities. The rest have perceived
curriculum as an object and mostly the subjects which are taught in schools. This indicates
teachers inclination towards classical/ vocational orientation.
Q.II

What is teachers role in school curriculum?

Responses of public sector school teachers

1

To give directions during the journey so that students reach their destination. Each
student has different potential and requires specific assistance. Teacher needs to
cater for the needs of each individual.

Teacher should be a facilitator.

Teacher should be aware of students learning needs. Continuous modifications are

important to fulfill these needs; therefore, a teacher must have the right to make
necessary changes in the curriculum.

A teacher should teach his/her subjects honestly and dedicatedly. Teacher must
complete the syllabus in time.

To help the learners to practice things so that they become skillful.

Responses given by private school teachers

12

To teach effectively and honestly. Teacher must make children understand

concepts. At the same time, teacher should cover the syllabus.

To teach according to the abilities of students. Teacher should identify prior

knowledge of her/his students and then plan teaching.

To make teaching interesting for the learners so that students participate in the
lesson. At the same time teacher should help the child learn the difference between
good and bad things.

To help children learn the taught content. Teacher should enable students to
perform well in examination.

To cover the syllabus in the given time frame. At the same time, teacher should
help the slow learners to raise their level.

Analysis
The role of teacher in operationalizing the curriculum has been viewed largely as a person
who can finish the syllabus in the given time. Some teachers have seen it as an activity to
build pupils interest. No response is rooted in socially critical orientation where teacher
produces analytical minds who are able to question societal practices. Concern regarding
finishing the syllabus on time shows classical orientation of curriculum where transmission
of knowledge is considered the most important aspect of schooling. The pattern emerged
from the ten responses is of vocational discourse.
Q.III

What is the role of the school head in designing school curriculum?

Responses of public sector school teachers

1

Heads need to commit that under their Jurisdiction milestones will be followed.

A very important role, and yet a very responsible job.

They are the school executives so decision making lies with them. Their job is to
provide a direction for curriculum development.

Being captain of the ship, the guidance will come from the head.

The head needs to provide a thorough roadmap to the teachers to help them find
their roles and responsibilities regarding teaching and learning. The head needs to
13

involve all stakeholders in the process of making decisions on curriculum to create

ownership and participation.
Responses given by private school teachers
1

To provide complete guidance. Head is the school leader thus s/he must create a
vision and ask teachers to follow that.

Head should hold meetings with the teachers to make any decisions regarding school
curriculum, time table or any other aspect.

To plan new things and give the staff training on new things so that they can
implement new ideas in real teaching.

Head teacher should make sure that her/his team prepares and delivers good
curriculum. Head should not interfere in what teaching and learning experts
recommend. Heads role is important in terms of facilitation.

To ensure advance preparations before the school starts. Needs to assign

responsibilities in advance so that students ultimately show good results in
examination.

Analysis
The data shows that people expect decision-making role as the prime responsibility of the
head. It is expected that the head will provide a complete road map for all the yearly
activities. The head will also prepare relevant documents and assign responsibilities.
Achievement of students in terminal examination has also been taken as school heads
responsibility. Though two responses highlight the involvement of all stakeholders in
curriculum development, general thoughts indicate vocational discourse, where things are
fixed and hierarchical.
Q.IV

Should there be different specialized subject teachers to teach at primary level?

Responses of public sector school teachers

1

I think specialized subject teacher needs a different definition. At primary level

teacher needs to be specialized but doesnt mean specialized in subject area. I give
14

more value to know about child psychology and pedagogy. He should analyze needs
of children and facilitate accordingly.
2

Yes, only a specialized subject teacher can do justice with a subject.

All teachers cannot teach English, Mathematics and Science. For the sake of quality,
the important subjects need to be taught by subject specialists.

Subject knowledge is very important to make pupils concepts clear. For this reason,
specialization is certainly needed. The problem is that the subject specialists do not
prefer teaching primary classes as they think that they are not meant for teaching in
early grades. I believe that early years are more important so more qualified teachers
should teach at this level.

All teachers should be able to teach in primary classes. Subject content is not very
difficult and can be taught easily by a trained teacher.

Responses of private school teachers

1

Yes, a specialist teacher can teach better.

I am weak in Mathematics so I do not think if I can deliver properly if asked to teach

mathematics. I think my strength is in teaching Science so I should be given only this
subject to teach.

Subject specialized teachers are needed to impart strong content knowledge.

I think a teacher needs to be an all rounder. May be I am not good in one subject but
I can always learn that subject at least at junior level.

If a teacher has a degree in the relevant subject then he will teach in much better
way. He will know depth of the subject and how to teach that subject.

Analysis
Interview responses have clearly shown that generally teachers believe in segregation of
subjects and prefer subject specialists to teach primary classes. If subjects are considered as
a whole then integration can be done, otherwise they would remain compartmentalized and
detached from each other. Analysis of teachers responses signify that teachers, both in
private as well as government sector schools, have classical/ vocational orientation of
curriculum.
15

Discussion & Conclusion

Curriculum discourse, being an umbrella term, covers almost every aspect of school life.
However, this investigation has covered only a few aspects like: desired students outcomes;
classroom organization; institutional decision-making; subject description and role of
teachers and parents.
Major findings regarding two study questions are as follows:
When teachers were provided with some options, teachers opted for progressive as well as
classical orientations of the curriculum. However, their responses to interview questions
were clearly based upon vocational, classical orientation.
It is interesting to note that most of the respondents want ultimate outcome of education
as self-actualized, constructive and enlightened individuals who can think critically. On the
same note, preparation for work has also been given a priority. This indicates strong
influence of our culture on our beliefs regarding education. Mostly parents educate their
children so that they can find reasonable living later on. They are very much concerned
about their grades as they matter a lot to get into professional degree programmes. Teacher
education programmes usually claim to produce teachers who are reflective practitioners
who can improve their own performance through reflection in action and reflection on
action. The courses and course outlines proposed in such curriculum are to produce
pragmatic, self-actualizing individuals only. Unfortunately, when the document is
operationalized in instruction, the progressivism reduces to vocational orientation.
Classroom organization is another facet of curriculum discourse. Strict, homogenous
grouping of students is favoured in classical discourse to ensure structured learning. The
progressive discourse asks for mixed-ability grouping to help learners learn from each
others expertise. The ability is absolutely irrelevant in socially critical discourse. It asks for
informal gatherings where everyone is a learner and problem-solver. Everyone has
responsibility to share and participate (Kemmis, Cole & Suggett, 1983). The study has found
that mostly people prefer heterogeneous grouping in classrooms. Ability is important aspect
for consideration. It is assumed that high ability students tutor low ability students and raise
16

their level. Structured classrooms have also been considered useful by a number of
teachers. Informal grouping was perceived useful relatively by only a few respondents. This
is completely in contrast with socially critical orientation. The reason is again cultural which
is based on authoritarianism. Authoritarianism compartmentalizes everything including
abilities too. As our social structure is rooted in authoritarianism, therefore, curriculum
discourse also revolves around the same.
Curriculum discourse also encompasses institutional decision-making. The vocational
discourse views teacher as an operative or instrument within the system; decisions are
taken at the top of the hierarchy and sharing of decision-making is based on specialization
of functions within a strong control structure (Kemmis, Cole & Suggett, 1983). The study
has indicated that teachers in Punjab are inclined towards this orientation where there is
control and decisions follow top-down approach.
Matter of subjects lies at the top of any curriculum discourse. Responses in interview have
shown that educators and school heads see subjects as clearly divided areas. Curricula
developed by the Ministry of Education also have indicated rigid differentiation of subjects
leading to a conclusion that the curricula are based on vocational orientation.
Role of parents in schools is also rooted in curriculum orientation. The classical discourse
views parents as clients and puts a responsibility on schools to take care of the parents
delight. The progressive discourse is concerned with parental input in their own childs
education. Inversely, the socially critical discourse involves parents in all school matters. In
this study, respondents indicated an inclination towards classical discourse. The reason is
again socially rooted. The parents whose children are studying in private schools want to be
treated as clients as they buy education. In this situation, school sells education and parents
see themselves as clients. Though many people believe that the role of parents is very
important in their childrens education but they are unable to communicate it to the parents
who are paying heavy fees.
The study has been concluded with a thought that discourse on curriculum is embedded in
collective thoughts at the societal level. As education is considered a means of good living
by majority of the people in Punjab, people related to education have also demonstrated
17

the same thing predominantly. Progressive curriculum discourse has also been identified
among the school teachers. The reason could be reading or some training during teacher
education courses/ workshops which ask for cooperation, integration and childcenteredness.
The quantitative as well as qualitative data have signified that vocational discourse on
curriculum is the dominant discourse among school teachers of Punjab. Though public
sector school teachers rated progressive discourse item almost equally high, their responses
to interview questions clearly exhibited vocational discourse.
Significance of the Study
The study has highlighted dominant curriculum orientations among school teachers of
Punjab. The findings might be found beneficial for:

The curriculum developers as a baseline study for further work.

Teacher educators to review their own curricula to change teachers orientation.

Scope & Limitations

1. The study has investigated the predominant curriculum discourse among school
teachers of Punjab only. The study has been limited to Punjab only. It has not
investigated curriculum discourse at policy level or among curriculum developers.
2. The study has used a relatively small sample for data collection.
Recommendations
In the light of this study, here are some recommendations for the educators, curriculum
developers and textbook writers.
Teacher education programmes need to include practical component of curriculum studies
to help the prospective teachers experience the phenomenon. It is important to do it
otherwise teachers as well as head teachers reduce the curriculum talk to syllabus and get
worried about its completion on time.
18

Curriculum developers need to invest time in reading current researches in curriculum to

equip themselves with the contemporary curriculum thoughts.
Here are some recommendations for further study:
1. What is the predominant curriculum discourse in teacher education?
2. Is there any relationship in teachers qualification and curriculum orientation?
3. How do textbooks influence discourse patterns on curriculum in classroom?
Bibliography
Autio, T. (2009). Globalization, Curriculum, and New Belongings of Subjectivity. In E. Ropo, &
A. Tero (Eds.), International Conversations on Curriculum Studies: Subject, Society and
Curriculum (pp. 1-20). Rotterdam: Sense.
Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: freeing teachers from the tyranny
of texts . NewYork: State University of New York Press.
Goodson, I. (1995). Studying the teachers life and work. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical Discourses
on Teacher Development. London: Cassell.
Grundy, S., Warhurst, J., Laird, D., & Maxwell, T. (1998). Interpreting the Curriculum. In E.
Hatton (Ed.), Understanding Teaching (2nd ed., pp. 123-134). Melbourne: Thomson.
Hazlett, J. S. (1979). Conceptions of Curriculum History. Curriculum Inquiry , 9 (2), 129-135.
Hiller, G. G.(2000). Levels of classroom participation. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K.
Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik Tradition (G. H.
Krger, Trans.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (2000). Starting a dialogue: A beginning conversation between.
In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a Reflective Practice: The
German Didaktik Tradition (pp. 197-205). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19

Kemmis, S., Cole, P., & Suggett, D. (1983). Orientations to Curriculum. In E. Hatton (Ed.),
Understanding Teaching (pp. 139-146). Melbourne: Thomson.
Lovat, T., & Smith, D. (1995). Curriculum: action on reflection. Sydney: Social Science Press.
Nandy, A. (1983). The intimate enemy: loss and recovery of self under colonialism. Delhi:
Oxford Univesity Press.
Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of Colonilaism. London: Routldge.
Phillips, D. (1974). Perspectives on structure of knowledge and the curriculum. In P.
Musgrave (Ed.), Contemporary studies in the curriculum (pp. 15-29). Sydney: Angus &
Robertson.
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspectives, Pardigm and Possibility. New York:
Macmillan.
Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A
contemporary perspective. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.,
pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan.
Smith, D., & Ewing, R. (2002). Curriculum Studies: Storylines. Change: Transformations in
Education , 5 (1), 26-45.
Walker, D. F. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: passion and professionalism (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weniger, E. (2000). Didaktik as a theory of Education. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K.
Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik Tradition (G. H.
Kruger, Trans., pp. 111-138). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wilke, R. A., & Losh, S. C. (2008). Beyond belief: Preservice teachers' planned instructional
strategies. Action in Teacher Education , 30 (3), 64-73.

20

21