Curriculum Theory Since 1950 Crisis, Reconceptualización and Internalization

The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and
Instruction
Curriculum Theory Since 1950: Crisis,
Reconceptualization, Internationalization
Contributors: Author:William F. Pinar

Edited by: F. Michael Connelly, Ming Fang He & JoAnn Phillion
Book Title: The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction
Chapter Title: "Curriculum Theory Since 1950: Crisis, Reconceptualization, Internationalization"
Pub. Date: 2008
Access Date: August 23, 2021
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9781412909907
Online ISBN: 9781412976572
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976572.n25
Print pages: 491-513
© 2008 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Reference
© 2008 by Sage Publications, Inc.
Curriculum Theory Since 1950: Crisis, Reconceptualization, Internationalization
Curriculum theory since 1950: Crisis, reconceptualization, internationalization
Contemporary United States curriculum theory is structured by three historical moments: (1) the field's
inauguration and paradigmatic stabilization as curriculum development, 1918–1969; (2) the field's
reconceptualization, 1969–1980, from curriculum development to curriculum studies, an interdisciplinary
academic field paradigmatically organized around understanding curriculum, 1980 to current; and (3), most
recently, the field's internationalization, 2000 to current. I start this historical narrative near the end of the first
historical moment at in fact its theoretical culmination, an event that occurred just before its devolution into
crisis.1
The Crisis of Curriculum Development
The main thrusts in curriculum development and reform over the years have been directed at microcurricular
problems to the neglect of macrocurricular problems.
Tanner and Tanner, 1975, p. ix
The culminating event of the first paradigmatic moment was the appearance, in 1949, of “the Bible of
curriculum making” (Jackson 1992, p. 24): Ralph W. Tyler's Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction.
In his introduction to the 1992 Handbook of Research on Curriculum, Philip Jackson (1992) asserts that “a
more influential text within the field of curriculum would be hard to name” (p. 24). Within the academic field,
however, criticism of the Tyler Rationale became voluminous and finally decisive (see Kliebard 1992, p. 153),
in spite of efforts to rescue it (Hlebowitsh 1993; Wraga 1999). Despite its intellectual fate, versions of Tyler's
protocol have remained in wide circulation in United States public schools (see Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, &
Taubman, 1995, chaps. 3–4).
AUTHOR'S NOTE: I wish to thank Nina Asher, Donald Blumenfeld-Jones, and Patrick Slattery for their critical
comments.
The 1950s were a decade of intensifying criticism of the public schools, but it was a specific event that
politicians exploited to mobilize United States public opinion against what right-wing critics would later
stigmatize as the education establishment. The launching of the Soviet satellite Sputnik in 1957 cast doubt on
the quality of the United States educational system. Despite the irrationality of this charge, politicians would
make it stick. Sputnik launched a persisting curricular obsession with science and technology. To impose such
curricular standardization meant wresting curricular from schoolteachers and from curriculum development
specialists located in universities.
This political agenda became evident at a 1959 invitational conference held at Woods Hole in Cape Cod,
Massachusetts and attended by psychologists, scientists, and mathematicians; educators and curriculum
development specialists were conspicuously absent. The Woods Hole Conference was organized by the
National Academy of the Sciences and supported by the National Science Foundation, the Air Force, the
Rand Corporation, the U.S. Office of Education, the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
and the Carnegie Corporation (see Tanner & Tanner, 1980, p. 523). What followed was a curriculum manifesto
to frame the National Curriculum Reform Movement of the early 1960s, Jerome Bruner's (1960) The Process
of Education.
In this widely read book, Bruner (1960) sketched a curriculum theory based on the notion of disciplinary
structure. Bruner argued that understanding a discipline's structure enabled any student to understand how a
discipline worked: how it understood its problems, what conceptual and methodological tools it employed to
solve those problems, and what constituted knowledge in the discipline. A decade later Bruner (see 1971, p.
21) would do an about-face. The social, political, and racial crises of the 1960s had persuaded him that the
curriculum must address issues other than those associated with the structure of academic disciplines (see
Bruner, 1996).
The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction
Page 2 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
The most systematic attempt to elaborate the structure of the disciplines was made by Joseph Schwab (1964/
1978), who asserted that there were “major but related sets of problems which define … the structure of the
disciplines” (p. 10). First was the problem of determining the membership and organization of the disciplines,
including the identification of particular disciplines and their relations to one another. Second was the problem
of identifying the particular structures and limits of the disciplines, structures Schwab termed substantive.
Third was the problem of the “syntactical structure of the disciplines,” which included the “canons of evidence
and proof” and “how they can be applied” (1964/1978, p. 14).2
Astute critics of the 1960s national curriculum reform movement understood that not only academic, but
also military and nationalistic objectives animated endorsement of the structures-of-the-disciplines means
of curriculum development. Despite its academic patina, the long-range purpose “was neither personal
development nor social reform but national power. We were a warfare state seeking international supremacy
in military-related scholarship” (Tanner & Tanner, 1990, p. 178). As they do today, astute curriculum critics
lacked political influence in the 1960s, and in the avalanche of money and prestige accompanying the
structure-of-disciplines bandwagon, curriculum specialists' critiques of the structure-of-the-disciplines
movement were ignored.
In retrospect, the early 1960s was the high-water mark of positivism and structuralism in United States
curricular theory (see Cherry-holmes, 1988). The marginalization of curriculum scholars as a consequence
of 1950s assaults on the public schools, led first by arts and sciences scholars (Bestor, 1953; Hofstadter,
1962) and later by military and political leaders (Rickover, 1959), created the paradigmatic crisis in the field—it
was then curriculum development—that led to the field's reconceptualization. No longer the major players in
curriculum development, curriculum scholars needed “something to do,” the title of a 1983 essay by Schwab.
Despite Jackson's (1992) effort to give retrospective credit to Schwab for the reconceptualized field (see p.
34), it was James B. Macdonald (1995), Dwayne Huebner (1999), and Maxine Greene (1971) who laid the
theoretical groundwork for the intellectual events of the 1970s.3
From Curriculum Development to Understanding Curriculum
Understanding sets free what is hidden from view by layers of tradition, prejudice, and even conscious
evasion.
Slattery and Rapp, 2002, p. 96
With its traditional raison d'être—curriculum development—hijacked by politicians and their academic allies,
the field went into crisis, forcing a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1962). Bureaucratized curriculum
development—associated with the Tyler protocol—was replaced by a multidiscursive academic effort to
understand curriculum: historically, politically, racially, autobiographi-cally or biographically, aesthetically,
theologically, institutionally and internationally, as well as in terms of gender, phenomenology, postmodernism,
and poststructuralism (see Pinar et al., 1995). In the reconceptualized field, there were obvious links to earlier
moments: theological curriculum studies can be linked to Dewey's (1935/1968) articulation of a common faith
(see also Huebner, 1999; Slattery, 2006), and political curriculum theory recalled the earlier interests of the
social reconstructionists (Reynolds, 2003; Stanley, 1992; Willinsky, 1987). Despite these continuities, the field
was unrecognizable to many scholars who had come of intellectual age during the first paradigm (Tanner &
Tanner, 1979).
Contemporary curriculum theory incorporates literal and institutional meanings of the concept of curriculum,
but it is by no means limited to them. Curriculum is now a highly symbolic concept. Curriculum is an
extraordinarily complicated conversation (Applebee 1996; Pinar 2004). Through the curriculum and our
experience of it, we choose what to remember about the past, what to believe about the present, what to hope
for and fear about the future. Curriculum debates—such as those over multiculturalism—are also debates
over the American national identity. The traditional field had been ahistorical; contemporary curriculum theory
is defined by its historicity.

Page 3 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Curriculum History
It is time to place historical study at the center of the curriculum enterprise.

Goodson, 1989, p. 138
To understand curriculum requires historical consciousness (Seixas, 2004). The ahistorical posture of the
traditional field meant that “curriculum [had been] practiced with urgency in a crisis atmosphere that excludes
contemplation of its evolution” (Hazlett, 1979, p. 131). Traditional curriculum theory was complicit with this
presentistic capitulation to the “reform” du jour. The ahistorical and atheoretical character of traditional
curriculum development disabled teachers from understanding the history of their present circumstances
(Kliebard, 1986).
History is central to the contemporary field (Baker, 2001; Burlbaw & Field 2005; Kliebard, 2002; Winfield,
2006; Lesko 2001; McKnight, 2003; Selden, 1999; Spring, 1989; Teitelbaum, 1995), and not only in itself, but
in a curricular occasion for working through historical trauma (Morris, 2001; Morris & Weaver, 2002; Simon,
Rosenberg, & Eppert, 2000) as well as the political battleground for defining the present (Berliner & Biddle,
1996; Hirsch, 1999; Pinar, 2004; Ravitch, 2000). The very conception of curriculum history has been debated
(Crocco, Munro, Weiler, 1999).
New discourses—such as complexity and chaos theory—are careful to situate themselves within the history
of the field (see W Doll, Fleener, Trueit, & St. Julien, 2005). Distinguished 20th-century scholars have been
remembered (Kridel et al., 1996). More specifically, the essays of key figures in the prereconceptualization
generation have been collected (Huebner, 1999; Macdonald, 1995; Pinar & Irwin, 2005; see, also, Haggerson
2000), and collections of essays focused on the significance of their work have appeared (Ayers & Miller,
1998; Pinar 1998a); essays important to the reconceptualization have also been collected (Goodson, 2005;
Miller, 2005; Pinar, 1994), and an indispensable bibliographical record (Schubert, Lopez Schubert, Thomas,
& Carroll, 2002) has been revised and reissued; a collection of key curriculum documents has been issued
(G. Willis, Schubert, Bullough, Kridel, & Holton, 1994); essays appearing in the JCT—the key journal of
the 1970s reconceptualization—have been collected (Pinar, 1999); and a series of important synoptic texts
have appeared (see, for instance, Marsh, 2004; Marshall, Sears, & Schubert, 1999; Schubert, 1986). Even
collections of essays are organized, at least in part, historically (see Cuban & Shipps, 2000; Flinders &
Thornton, 2004). Curriculum theory worldwide is now reported historically (see, for instance, Green 2003;
Lopes & de Macedo, 2003; Moreira, 2003; Sabar & Mathias, 2003; Zhang & Zhong, 2003).
Political Curriculum Theory
The hidden curriculum deals with the tacit ways in which knowledge and behavior get constructed, outside
the usual course materials and formally scheduled lessons.
McLaren, 1994, p. 191
The ahistoricism of the traditional field had disabled teachers from understanding curriculum as political. The
hidden curriculum refers to those unintended but real outcomes of schooling. The concept became widely
cited by those who argued that the curriculum reproduced social stratification (Apple, 2004). This conservative
function of the school curriculum was termed correspondence or reproduction theory (see Pinar et al., 1995,
chap. 5).
Political theorists welcomed P. Willis' (1981) concept of resistance, in which the process of reproduction
was now theorized as contestable (Anyon, 1988; Apple & Weis, 1983; Giroux, 1983).4 In this swift shift
from reproduction to resistance theory, scholars emphasized the agency of teachers and students. Carlson
(1987) argued that teachers could enable transformative change in the schools. Goodman (1992) studied an
alternative school that had, he argued, institutionalized this teacher-led transformation. The emphasis upon
pedagogy and agency recalled, for many, the work of Paulo Freire (1968), as several collections testified (see,
for instance, McLaren & Leonard 1993), if negatively (Bowers & Apffel-Marglin, 2005).
Critical pedagogy emerged as an umbrella term for resistance-inspired political curriculum theory. Now

Page 4 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
associated with Peter McLaren, the term followed Ira Shor's (1980) concept of critical teaching (see also
Giroux, 1988; Kanpol, 1999; Kincheloe, 2004). Critical pedagogy encountered strong criticism as “voyeuristic”
(Ellsworth, 1989, p. 312), as modernistic (Bowers, 1980), and as ahistorical (Wexler, 1987). Political theory
has been relocated in cultural studies (for brief histories, see Edgerton, 1996, p. 16; Wright, 2004, p. 64).
Interest in popular culture and in particular popular media has intensified in the last 15 years (Daspit &
Weaver, 2000; Edgerton, Holm, Daspit, & Farber, 2004; Giroux, 1999; Giroux & Simon, 1989; Giroux &
McLaren, 1994; Jagodzinski, 2004; Kincheloe, 2002; Weber & Mitchell, 1995). Cultural studies enabled
political scholars to retain a synthetically “political” perspective without Marx (see Carlson, 2002; Dimitriadis
& Carlson, 2003; Kumashiro, 2004a, 2004b; Trifonas, 2000b, 2003) while focusing on specific subjects such
as the body (Shapiro & Shapiro, 2002).
The focus of political theory expanded further, from the cultural to the natural world. The ecological crisis
and the problems of sustainabil-ity have received increasing attention since their appearance in the late
1970s (Krall, 1979, 1988; see Slattery & Rapp, 2002, p. 183). C. A. Bowers (1995, 2000, 2001, 2005)
has provided strong critiques of those cultural assumptions embedded in schooling that prevent policies
supporting sustainability (see also N. Gough, 2003). Ecofeminist theory has made explicit the gender of
sustainability (A. Gough, 1998; Riley-Taylor, 2002; see Slattery & Rapp, 2002, p. 213).
Dispersed into and replaced by other discourses (such as cultural studies), political curriculum history has
all but disappeared (with exceptions: see McLaren, 2000; Apple, 1999), having dispersing into various
discourses such as autobiography (Slattery & Rapp, 2002), citizenship (Richardson & Blades, 2005),
classroom practice (Cooper & White, 2006), cultural history (Popkewitz, Franklin, & Pereyra 2001), early
childhood education (Cannella, 1997; Grieshaber & Canella, 2001), ethnographic studies (Wexler, 1992;
Weis, 2004), school reform (Anyon, 1997, 2005; Popkewitz, 1998), and postcolonial studies (Asher 2002,
2005; Cannella & Viruru, 2004; Dimitriadis & McCarthy, 2001). The Curriculum and Pedagogy Group
(http://www.curriculumandpedagogy.org)—featuring an annual conference with published proceedings and a
journal—provides institutional support for the contemporary expression of political curriculum theory, though
it is no longer avowedly Marxist (Gastambide-Fernandez & Sears, 2004; Henderson & Kesson, 2000,2001;
Sears, 1998; Sloan & Sears, 2001).
Multicultural Curriculum Theory
The old Marxist and neo-Marxist orthodoxies of class and economic primacy in education debates are rapidly
being replaced by the new pan-ethic-cultural orthodoxies of racial origins and racial identity.
McCarthy and Crichlow, 1993, p. xiv
While theory in this sector focuses broadly on the educational experience of Native Americans (Krall, 1981;
Krupat & Swann, 2000; Spring, 1996), Asian Americans (M. Li & Li, 1990; Nakanishi & Nishida, 2002; Park
& Chi, 1999), Latinos/Latinas (Darder, Torres, & Guitierrez, 1997; Malewski, in press; Valenzuela, 1999), and
Chicano/Chicana Americans (Moreno & Morenco, 1998; Tejeda & Martinez, 2000; Valencia, 2002), in this
brief entry I will focus upon race, given the centrality of that experience to struggles over the school curriculum
(Castenell & Pinar, 1993; McCarthy, 1990, 1998; McCarthy & Crichlow, 1993; Taubman, 1993; Zimmerman,
2002). Separated from the effort to understand curriculum politically (during the reconceptualization
dominated by Marxism, as the epigraph records), where it was initially subsumed, race moved to curriculum
theory center stage during the 1990s. Among the indices of this centrality were reviews of race and related
issues included in the 1992 Handbook of Research on Curriculum (Fillmore & Meyer, 1992; Strickland &
Ascher, 1992) as well as numerous in books and collections of essays (Banks, 1997; McCarthy, Crichlow, &
Dimitriadis, 2005; Sleeter & McLaren, 1995).
Multicultural curriculum theory has, on occasion, attempted to incorporate discourses on class, gender, and
sexuality in a synthetic perspective (see De Castell & Bryson, 1997; Grant, 1999), but in general it has been
restricted to studies of ethnicity and more particularly of race. McCarthy (1993) views multicultural-ism as
representing a “curricular truce” (p. 225) between liberals and Black radicals. For McCarthy, multiculturalism
absorbed that Black activism aimed at restructuring schools, reexpressing activism as so-called nonracism.
McCarthy (1993) characterizes multicultural education as a “contradictory and problematic ‘solution’ to
racial inequality in schooling” (p. 225). Multiculturalism “disarticulated elements of Black radical demands
Page 5 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
for restructuring of school knowledge and rearticulated these elements into more reformist professional
discourses around issues of minority failure, cultural characteristics, and language proficiency” (McCarthy,
1993, p. 228). Among these discourses are those focused on diverse classrooms (Rodriguez & Kitchen, 2005)
and settings (Malewski, Phillion, & Lehman, 2005).
Historical and cultural research inform this area. African-American cultural knowledge, Gordon (1993) argued,
was “born out of the African-American community's historic common struggle and resistance against the
various oppressive effects of capitalism and racism” (p. 265). Gordon provided an abbreviated history of
this knowledge, emphasizing the significance of Washington, Du Bois, Miller, Woodson, and Fontaine, and
called for a common intellectual heritage that would give leadership and direction to the African-American
community (see p. 275–276; see also Brandon, 2004).
Watkins (1993) summarized Black curriculum orientations historically. Of the six Watkins identified,
Afrocentrism remains influential, including in the formation of independent Black and Afrocentric schools
(Lomotey & Rivers, 1998). Others point to an African-American epistemology that must structure school
curriculum (Brock, 2005); others point to the impact of street culture (Dance, 2002) and gangs (Dimitriadis,
2003) on racial inequality in schooling. Efforts to understand curriculum racially have focused historically
(Anderson, 1988; Watkins, 2001) on popular culture (Dimitriadis, 2001) and on Whiteness (see Fine, Weis,
Pruitt, & Burns, 2004; Kincheloe, Steinberg, Rodriguez, & Chennault, 1998; McLaren, 1997; Pinar, 2006a).
Curriculum Theory and Gender
In schools we become civilized by denying attachment.

Grumet, 1988, p. 181
Since its beginnings, organized schooling in the United States has been concerned with gender (Tyack &
Hansot, 1990), although the scholarly appreciation of this historical fact is rather recent (see Pinar et al.,
1995, chap. 7). Janet L. Miller (2005) broke the silence. Miller (1990) has focused on feminist issues of
voice, community, and selfhood, including the contradictions that emerged in feminists' attempts to develop
collaborative and dialogical relationships with their students and colleagues. Miller's initial statement proved
prescient (Bloom, 1998; Grumet, 1988; Miller, 2005; Munro, 1998; Noddings, 1991; Pagano, 1990; Wear,
1993).
Grumet (1988) employed psychoanalysis, phenomenology, and autobiography to articulate the relations
between women and teaching. Grumet (1988) postulated the “look” to emphasize intersubjectivity, “a direct
passage between persons” (p. 96). Grumet explained that transference—a psychoanalytic concept that refers
to the reproduction of past emotional patterns in present relationships—denotes the displacement of original,
often traumatic feelings that are transferred from those first associated with them to the psychoanalyst.
Grumet extended the concept of transference beyond psychotherapy to the relationship between student and
teacher. Speaking of teachers, Grumet (1988) pointed out, “We expect them to know and, in that knowing, to
confer knowledge and power on us” (p. 122).
This expectation to know derives from original dependence upon the parent, usually the mother, and becomes
transferred to teachers. However, the medium of dependence—language—is the symbolic order, associated
with the father. Grumet draws upon Lacan's assertion that language is always the “other” and that at the basis
of self formation is estrangement—the other, a “not-self.” Desire and the symbolic order would become key
concepts in curriculum gender theory (see Taubman, 1990; Todd, 1997).
Accompanying feminist curriculum theory was attention to gay and lesbian issues, most prominently in the
work of James T. Sears (1990, 1992, 1997, 2001). Queer theory has joined gay and lesbian studies (Britzman,
1998b, 1998c, 2000; Epstein, O'Flynn, & Telford, 2001; Evans, 2002; Khayatt, 1999; Kumashiro 2001, 2002;
Loutzenheiser, 2005; Mayo, 2004; Pinar, 1998b, 2001; Rasmussen, 2006; Silin, 1995; Sumara & Davis, 1999;
Talburt & Steinberg, 2002; Tierney, 1997). There is a now a Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education,
masculinity has been problematized (Connell, 2000; Ferguson, 2000; Lesko, 2000), lesbian internet identities
studied (Bryson, 2005); and elementary education has been “queered” (Letts & Sears, 1999). Like the political
sector, feminist curriculum theory and gender studies have also become dispersed into other sectors, such as
Page 6 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
history (Crocco et al., 1999; Sadovnik & Semel, 2002; Miller, 2005), science (Gough, 1998), autobiography
(Miller, 1998), and race (Pinar, 2001). It is evident as well in psychoanalytic studies.
There is now a renaissance of scholarly interest in psychoanalysis in education, led by Britzman (1998a,
2003a, 2006), Appel (1999), D. Aoki (2002), Atwell-Vasey (1998), Jagodzinski (2002), Taubman (1990), Pitt
(2003), Todd (2003), and Gilbert (2004). It is also evident in a number of important theoretical studies not
primarily psychoanalytic in orientation; among them is Grumet's (1976, 1988) autobiographical and feminist
studies, Block's (1997) critique of the school's psychological violence against the child, Ellsworth's (1997)
theorization of teaching as a mode of address, Morris' (2001) investigation of curriculum and the Holocaust,
Todd's (2003) elaboration of an ethics of education, Taubman's (1990) theorizing of the “right distance”
between teacher and student, and in Webber's (2003) study of spectacular school violence. I employed
psychoanalytic theory in my effort to understand what I took to be the “queer” dimensions of racial subjugation
(Pinar, 2001).
Phenomenological Curriculum Theory
Curriculum is to be thought of… as meaning and as lived in.

Mann, 1975, p. 147
Huebner was the first to introduce phenomenology to curriculum theory. To take seriously the classroom
in a phenomenological sense is to portray the specificity and concreteness of lived experience. In
phenomenological curriculum theory, the concept and practice of hermeneu-tics emphasizes the social
negotiation of meaning, as well as individual attunement to truth. Phenomenologists suggest that teaching
is an orientation toward being. Pedagogical tact, van Manen (1991) theorized, gives new and unexpected
shape to unanticipated situations and in so doing marks the child. In addition to van Manen, the great
phenomenological scholars have been T. Aoki, Grumet, Jardine, and Smith (see Pinar et al., 1995, chap. 8).
Key to phenomenological inquiry, as Greene (1973) explained, has been the concept of consciousness,
referring to an experienced context or lifeworld. The phenomenologist postulates his or her lifeworld as
central to all that he or she does—including research and teaching—and as a consequence focuses upon the
biographic situation (Pinar, 1994) of each individual. Often the individual is unaware of his or her lifeworld;
he or she is submerged in it. In this state, one adopts the natural attitude, taking for granted the reality and
legitimacy of daily, practical life. The edges and boundaries of this attitude constitute the sites of self-reflexivity
where one may bracket the taken-for-granted. As Greene (1973) has observed, ordinary perception has to be
suspended for questions to be posed. The individual may have to be shocked into awareness of his or her
own perception.
While eclipsed in the 1990s by poststructuralism (T. Aoki 2005a), traces of phenomenology remain audible
(van Manen & Levering, 1996), influencing several sectors, including literary theory (Sumara, 1996),
ecological theory (Jardine, 1998), teaching mathematics (Davis, 1996; Jardine, 1990), narrative research
(Jardine, Clifford, & Friesen, 2006), adult education (Welton, 1995), and interpretative inquiry (van Manen,
2002).
Postmodernism and Poststructuralism in Curriculum Theory
[Postmodern curriculum theory is] a fascinating, imaginative realm (born of the echo of God's laughter)
wherein no one owns the truth and everyone has the right to be understood.
W.Doll, 1993, p. 151
The first curriculum theorist interested in poststructuralism was Peter Taubman (1982). Jacques Daignault
(1992) emerged the major poststructuralist curriculum theorist in North America, arguing, after Serres, that
“to know is to kill” (p. 199), “that running after rigorous demonstrations and after confirmations is a hunt:
literally” (p. 100). For Daignault, “thinking happens only between suicide and murder … between nihilism
and terrorism” (p. 199). Thinking is a passage, but this passage is always in danger of being defined and
known and thereby blocked. It is thinking that constitutes the excluded third or middle between the dualism of
Page 7 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
terrorism and nihilism. “Even the middle,” Daignault (1992) wrote, “attracts new people committed to reducing
it to a matter of knowledge, to a new epistemological stake” (p. 199). The only way to avoid this fate is to allow
thought to think itself, to go beyond or to disrupt dualisms, and to think the difference between them. It is to
introduce paradox. It is not to stop defining, but to multiply the definitions.
Not only summarized the ideas of Foucault, Barthes, Derrida, and other poststructuralists, Cherryholmes
(1988) employed them to critique traditional curriculum discourses: (1) Tyler's principles of curriculum and
instruction, (2) Bloom's 1956 classification of educational objectives, and (3) Schwab's 1983 extension and
application of Tyler's basic principles. “Structuralism shows meanings to be decentered and external to the
individual,” Cherryholmes (1988, p. 61) explained. In contrast, “poststructuralism shows meanings to be
shifting, receding, fractured, incomplete, dispersed, and deferred” (Cherryholmes, 1988, p. 61). Cherryholmes
incorporated aspects of post-structuralism into what he termed “critical pragmatism” (1988, p. 150; see also
Cherryholmes, 1999). “Critical pragmatism,” he writes, “results when a sense of crisis is brought to our
choices, when it is accepted that our standards of beliefs, values, guiding texts, and discourses-practices
themselves require evaluation and reappraisal” (Cherryholmes, 1988, p. 151). Such curriculum theory follows
from adoption of “poststructural insights” (Cherryholmes, 1988, p. 151).
W. Doll (1993, p. 176) argued that the postmodern curriculum should be rich, recursive, relational, and
rigorous. Richness provides depth to a curriculum, creating “layers of meanings … multiple possibilities
or interpretations.… Curriculum needs to have the right amount of indeterminacy, anomaly… chaos,
disequilibrium, dissipation, lived experience” (W. Doll, 1993, p. 176). Recursion is the process of reflecting on
one's work—“to explore, discuss, inquire into both ourselves as meaning makers and into the text itself” (W.
Doll, 1993, p. 178), in an ongoing transformative process: “Recursion aims at developing competence—the
ability to organize, combine, inquire, use something heuristically” (p. 178). The concept of relations refers to
connections within a curriculum's structure, while cultural relations grow
out of a hermeneutic cosmology—one which emphasizes narration and dialogue as key vehicles in
interpretation. Narration brings forward the concepts of history … language … and place…. Dialogue
interrelates these three to provide us with a sense of culture that is local in origin but global in
interconnections.
(W.Doll, 1993, 180)
Finally, rigor, which “keeps a transformative curriculum from falling into either ‘rampant relativism’ or
sentimental solipsism” (W. Doll, 1993, p. 181), is redefined in a postmodern curriculum as mixing
indeterminacy with interpretation. In dealing with interpretations we must always be aware, W. Doll (1993)
notes that “all valuations depend on (often hidden) assumptions. … Rigor … means the conscious attempt
to ferret out these assumptions … as well as negotiating passages between these assumptions, so that the
dialogue may be meaningful and transformative” (p. 183).
Other scholars making significant contributions to postmodernist and/or poststructuralist curriculum theory
included Block (1988), Lather (1991), Trifonas (2000a), Martusewicz (2001), Egéa-Kuehne (as cited in Biesta
& Egéa-Kuehne, 2001) and Roy (2003). Postmodernism and poststructuralism remain discernible in feminist
theory (Ropers-Huilman, 1998), science education (Blades, 1997; Weaver, Appelbaum & Morris, 2001), in
narrative research (Davies, 2000), in intertextual and epis-temological curriculum theory (Cary, 2006; Hasebe-
Ludt & Hurren, 2003), curriculum as performance (Autrey & Casemore, 2001), in teacher education (Britzman,
1991/2003b), adult education (Gazetas, 2000), special education (Skrtic, 1995), teacher education (Phelan,
in press), and in higher education (Ropers-Huilman, 2003). Like political curriculum theory, postmodernism
and poststructuralism have dispersed into other discourses (see De Alba, Gonzalez-Gaudiano, Lankshear,
& Peters, 1999; Reynolds & Webber, 2004) prominent among them is complexity and chaos theory-inspired
research (Davis, 2004; W Doll et al., 2005) and historical research (Green, 2005).
Autobiographical Curriculum Theory
There is no better way to study curriculum than to study ourselves.

Connelly and Clandinin, 1988, p. 31

Page 8 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Pinar and Grumet (1976) introduced autobiographical curriculum theory, denoted by the Latin root of
curriculum, currere, meaning to run the course, or the running of the course. Pinar and Grumet elaborated
methods of currere by means of which students and teachers could study the relations among school
knowledge, life history, and subjective meaningfulness in ways that might function self-transformatively.
Three streams of scholarship followed, the first of which included currere (Doerr, 2004; Pinar, 2004), dialogue
journals (Meath-Lang, 1990), place (Kincheloe & Pinar, 1991), and myth and imagination (M. Doll, 1995,
2000). The second stream was feminist autobiography (Grumet, 1988; Miller, 2005). The third included
efforts to understand teachers' experience biographically and autobiographically, among these efforts were
collaborative autobiography (Butt, 1990, 1991; Butt & Raymond, 1992), the personal practical knowledge of
teachers (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987, 1992, 2000; Connelly & Clandinin, 1988), teacher lore (Schubert &
Ayers, 1992), biographical studies of teachers' lives (Goodson, 1991, 1992; Munro, 1998), and interviews
autobiographically focused but termed personal biographies (Torres, 1998).
Biographical research continues (Kridel, 1998). Like other postreconceptualization curriculum discourses,
autobiographical curriculum theory has dispersed into cross-cultural theory (X. Li, 2002; Wang, 2004): in
psychoanalytic theory (Pitt, 2003), in women's studies (Neumann & Peterson, 1997), in studies of place
(Casemore, in press; Whitlock, 2005, 2007), in innovative pedagogical practices (Britzman, 1998b; Oberg,
2003; Salvio, 1998), in theory (Goodson, 1998), and in ecological theory (Doerr 2004; Krall, 1994).
Aesthetic Curriculum Theory
The aesthetic function of curriculum replaces the amelioration of the technological function with revelation.
Grumet, 1978, p. 280
Thirty years ago Dwayne E. Huebner identified aesthetic language as an important language alternative to
the Tylerian protocol (see Huebner, 1999). What does it mean to understand curriculum aesthetically? The
great philosopher of education, Maxine Greene (1988), explained that
aesthetic experiences … involve us as existing beings in pursuit of meanings. If the uniqueness of the artistic-
aesthetic can be reaffirmed … old either/ors may disappear. We may make possible a pluralism of visions, a
multiplicity of realities. We may enable those we teach to rebel.
(p. 293)
On many memorable occasions (1973, 1995, 2001), Greene made the case that the arts challenge empty
formalism, didacticism, and elitism. Those shocks of awareness to which encounters with the arts can provoke
leave us less submerged in the everyday, more likely to wonder and to question (see Dewey, 1934/1968, p.
104; Eisner, 2004; Jackson, 1998).
Eisner (1985) identified four senses in which teaching is an art. First, there is the sense in which a teacher
is sufficiently accomplished in his or her craft—that for the student as well as the teacher the classroom is
an aesthetic experience. Second, teachers—as do painters, dancers, and so on—make judgments during
the teaching process based on qualities discerned during the course of the process. Pace, tone, and tempo
are among the qualitative features of teaching teachers select as they decode students' responses. Third,
artistry in teaching there is a tension and a balance between routine and inventiveness. Fourth, teaching,
like art, achieves ends sometimes unanticipated at the start, but which are desirable, even welcomed. Eisner
(1985) distinguished between craft and art, the former a process through which skills are employed to achieve
predetermined outcomes, the latter a process in which skills are utilized to discover ends through action.
Teacher-artists avoid a freezing of their pedagogical intelligence into mechanical and routinized behaviors by
allowing for the unanticipated and the creative (see also Vallance, 1991).
Theater has been viewed by several scholars as a central metaphor for curriculum (Doyle, 1992; G. Willis &
Schubert, 1991). Donmoyer (1991) argued: “Theatre and cinema provide very rich raw material for thinking
about educational phenomena and issues” (p. 99). Perhaps more extensively than any other theorist, Grumet
(1978; Pinar & Grumet, 1976) connected curriculum and theater, drawing on the work of Polish theater
director and theoretician Grotowski.
Page 9 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Integrating dance and curriculum theory, Blumenfeld-Jones (1995), collaborating with Stinson and Van Dyke
(1990), reported the voices of young women dance students. Blumenfeld-Jones proposed a creative dance
curriculum with three purposes: (1) to understand and critique how such curricula conceptualize the relation
between creativity and control, (2) to critique the educational value of control in general, and (3) to develop a
method for exploring how curricular language both reveals and hides educational values.
Concerned that curriculum scholars have insulated themselves from the various constituencies in the field,
Barone (1993, 2000) called for portraits of curricula-in-use to make vivid and immediate the lived experience
of curriculum:
The aesthetic impulse will be played out in ordinary classroom projects. These are individual and class
projects that… can be fashioned almost anywhere, in the science corner, in the library, in the nearby
community, in the studio…. Like a drama they being with a sense of dilemma, the discovery of a problem that
the student seizes as her own.
(2000, pp. 128–129)
The arts speak to morality and politics (Beyer, 1985). Art objects make accessible realities inexpressible
through other orders of representation. Certain realities may be politically suppressed; their aesthetic
representation and consequent decodings suggest crucial aspects of aesthetic curriculum theory. Beyer
(1988) posited aesthetic experience as a material production and as a lived experience, requiring several
curriculum changes within educational institutions. First, Beyer argued that the distinction between the fine
arts and the popular arts (or crafts) is a spurious one. The separation of the former into museums and
galleries reinforces art as apart from the daily life. Relatedly, the production of crafts tends to be viewed
as unartistic, certainly not as high art. Second, the isolation of the arts in schools, their characterization
as elective and frill, must end. Third, Beyer (see 1988, p. 395) called for attention to the communicative
significance of the arts. Fourth, the social content of aesthetic objects must be elucidated so that students
decode issues of race, class, and gender embedded in particular art objects; they need to learn to express
more ethical visions of these matters via aesthetic production. Fifth, Beyer reaffirms Rugg's (1963) interest in
the fundamental, multidisciplinary nature of aesthetic experience and knowing. He calls for investigations of
the aesthetic dimensions of language arts, the humanities, social studies, and the natural sciences. Finally,
Beyer (1988) calls for more attention to the aesthetic dimensions of teaching and evaluation, acknowledging
the contributions made by Eisner and Greene.
Others have stressed the significance of the arts to education generally (G. Willis & Schubert, 1991), to
the generative interrelations among the roles of artist, teacher, and researcher (Irwin & de Cosson, 2004),
to the art of learning (Diaz & McKenna, 2004), to passionate pedagogy (Mirochnik & Sherman, 2002), to
the significance of visual culture (Freedman, 2003), especially in postmodernity (Diamond & Mullen, 1999;
Jagodzinski, 1997a, 1997b).
Theological Curriculum Theory
To ignore theological language today… is to ignore one of the more exciting and vital language communities.
Huebner, 1999, p. 259
James Macdonald and Dwayne Huebner argued that ethical and aesthetic language regarding schooling
had been limited, inconsistent, and of much lower priority than other curriculum discourses. Both lamented
the field's dependency upon so-called scientific thought, its ignoring of other great traditions East and West,
including theological traditions. Huebner promoted a moral vision of education wherein the human situations
existing between student and teacher, student and other beings in the world, and the student and the beauty
of the phenomenal world are seen as primary (see Hattram, 2004; Miller, Karsten, & Denton, 2005; Quinn,
2001). Macdonald (1995) also argued against the exclusion of the ethics in education. He wrote,
Education [is] a moral enterprise rather than simply a set of technical problems to be solved within a satisfying
conceptual scheme…. Thus, the struggle for personal integration, educational integrity, and social justice go
on, necessitating a constant reevaluation of oneself, one's work and one's world—with the hope that with
whatever creative talent one possess will lead toward something better that we may all share.
Page 10 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
(Macdonald, 1995, p. 4)
Phenix (1971) made a significant contribution to this moral discourse with his exploration of transcendence
and curriculum. Cherryholmes (1988) criticized structuralism for its separation of ethics and action. Slattery
and Rapp (2002) characterize hermeneutics as an “essential tool” (p. 84) in crafting a critical educational
ethics (see also Henderson & Kesson, 2003; Slattery, Krasny, & O'Malley, in press) and in internationalizing
United States curriculum studies (Slattery, 2003). Others have asserted the primacy of the ethical and the
spiritual in curriculum theory (Garrod, 1992; Goodlad, 1990; Noddings, 1991,1992; Oldenski & Carlson,
2002; Oliver & Gershman, 1989; Purpel, 1989; Tom, 1984; Wexler, 1996). Recent international research has
focused on the comparative politics of character education (Yu, 2004).
Understanding Curriculum Institutionally
Teaching itself is a victim of bureaucra-tization.

Ayers, 1992, p. 260
Whether as an applied or as a theoretical field, curriculum is understood as institution and practice (Pinar
et al., 1995, chap. 13; Reid, 1999). The function of curriculum development during the first paradigmatic
phase of the field (1918–1969) was to improve the institutional curriculum. In the present period, the
focus of curriculum development has shifted: understanding is now the key concern (Slattery, 2006). The
study of curriculum development involves: (1) curriculum policy and school reform (Elmore & Sykes, 1992);
(2) curriculum planning, design, and organization (Saylor, Alexander, & Lewis, 1981); (3) curriculum
implementation (Snyder, Bolin, & Zumwalt, 1992); (4) curriculum technology (see Bowers, 2000; Cuban
2001; Ferneding, 2004; Saettler, 1990; Sloan, 1985; Willinsky 2006); (5) curriculum supervision (Lewis &
Miel, 1972; Garman, 1990; Glanz & Behar-Horenstein, 2000; Glickman, 1992; Sergiovanni & Starratt, 1971);
and (6) curriculum evaluation (Barone, 1987; Eisner, 1985; Madaus & Kellaghan, 1992). Understanding
curriculum institutionally also includes the study of (1) pedagogy (Doyle, 1992; Duckworth, 2001; Henderson,
2001; Jackson, 1986), (2) textbooks (Venezky, 1992; Zimmerman, 2002), (3) students (Erickson & Shultz,
1992; Pope, 2001), and (4) the extra-curriculum (Berk, 1992; Eccles & Templeton, 2002). After the
reconceptualization, curriculum development is less focused on bureaucratic protocols than on deliberative
and innovative practice (McCutcheon, 1995; Salvio, 1998) and on recent research in the disciplines (Pinar,
2006b).
Internationalization
Internationalizing curriculum inquiry might best be understood as a process of creating transnational “spaces”
in which scholars from different localities collaborate in reframing and decentering their own knowledge
traditions and negotiate trust in each other's contributions to their collective work.
Gough, 2003, p. 68
Scholarly interest in the international study of curriculum is not a new phenomenon. In the early decades
of the 20th century, internationalism—associated with political movements on the Left—was advocated by
United States progressives like Counts and Brameld. Until recently, however, much of the North American
scholarship devoted to understanding curriculum internationally was conducted in Canada (see, for instance,
T. Aoki, 1981/2005b; Carson, 1988; Goodson, 1988; Smith, 2003; Willinsky, 1992). Despite calls (see Rogan,
1991; Rogan & Luckowski, 1990) on United States scholars to attend to international developments, not until
the last decade did a major synoptic textbook devote a chapter on the subject (see Pinar et al., 1995, chap.
14). Since then, developments have been rapid, punctuated by three conferences and the establishment of
new organizations.5
The internationalization of a field embedded in distinctive national cultures requires, Gough (2004) points out,
new languages and new publics: “new transnational publics might produce more defensible metanarratives
for curriculum work than nationalism” (p. 2). The emphasis on a “new transnational public” recalls Hardt
and Negri's (2000) observation that “there was a time, not so long ago, when internationalism was a key
component of proletarian struggles and progressive politics in general” (p. 49). For many United States
Page 11 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
scholars after the reconceptualization, the education of the public requires making curriculum public (Ibanez-
Carrasco & Meiners, 2004); it is inseparable from democratization (Burbules & Torres, 2000). In intellectual
as well as chronological terms, then, internationalization follows reconceptualization. Internationalization
promises a third paradigmatic shift, the outlines of which are just now coming in view (Pinar, 2003).
Conclusion
Will either group succeed in recapturing the spirit of optimism and the sense of mission that clearly marked
the first two or three decades of the emergence of curriculum as a field of study?
Jackson, 1992, p. 37
After reviewing the contributions of Bobbitt, Dewey, Tyler, and Schwab, Jackson (1992) focused—in his
introduction to Handbook on Research in Curriculum—on the two major paths taken by contemporary
curriculum specialists. The first was that of “consultant” (Jackson 1992, p. 32), work he linked with the life
history or narrative or autobiography (see Pinar et al., 1995, chap. 10). To illustrate, Jackson cited Connelly
and Clandinin (1988), Elbaz (1983), Barrow (1984), and Oberg (1987).
The second path Jackson (1992) characterized as “moving toward the academy” in which the curriculum
specialist was construed as a “generalist” (p. 34). Schwab (1983) imagined that the curriculum generalists
would study American government and society, including the character of daily life in America. The audience
of these essays would be colleagues, former students, and the public at large. Jackson (1992) observed,
In the late 1960s and early 1970s there emerged a group of curriculum professors whose writing sounded
as though they had taken Schwab's advice to heart, even though his fourth essay [1983; from which the
preceding quote was taken] was not to appear for at least a decade and Schwab himself was to be among
those with whom the group as a whole was said to differ. Some members of this group spoke of what they
were doing as reconceptualizing the task of the curriculum specialists, particularly with respect to the role of
theory in curricular affairs.
(p. 34)
Jackson (1992) describes this group as exhibiting three common features: (1) a dissatisfaction with the Tyler
Rationale; (2) the employment of eclectic traditions to explore curriculum, such as psychoanalytic theory,
phenomenology, existentialism; and (3) a left-wing political bias “that drew on Marxist and neo-Marxist thought
and concerned itself with issues of racial and ethnic inequalities, feminism, the peace movement, and so
forth” (p. 35). Jackson's map was accurate; three features remain discernible in the contemporary field.
As Jackson would, no doubt, acknowledge, we have traveled a long way from Franklin Bobbitt and the
establishment of the field in 1918. No longer a protocol institutionalizing curriculum development, curriculum
theory is a complex, multidiscursive academic discipline6 devoted to understanding educational experience,
focused on, but hardly limited to, the encoding of such experience in the school curriculum. In the
contemporary field, Bobbitt and Tyler's influence has receded; Schwab's negative reputation is under
rehabilitation (see Block, 2004); Dewey's influence7—never absent from the field—is now pervasive and
progressivism resurgent (Carlson, 2002), sharpening the divide between the academic field and the public
schools, the former dominated by right-wing school policies. Contemporary curriculum theory speaks to the
significance of academic knowledge for subjective meaning and social reconstruction. These three domains
of curriculum are inextricably interrelated, for each structures the other two. Academic knowledge languishes
in an anti-intellectual and commercial culture concerned only with practical applications. Social and subjective
reconstruction cannot occur without academic knowledge.
The events of September 11, 2001, intensified the nascent sense that United States scholars must attend
to curricular developments worldwide. Internationalization is not, however, primarily defensive. Rather,
internationalization promises deepened understanding of the local and the individual through encounter with
the global and the collective (see Kridel & Newman, 2003; Slattery, 2003). Unlike globalization (Gabbard,
2000), internationalization promises to intensify the intellectual sophistication of United States' curriculum
theory, especially that theory committed to multicultural, gendered, and political activism toward social justice
and ecological sustainability.
Page 12 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Notes
1. It almost goes without saying that historical narratives are composed in the present and are hardly
independent of the writer's own life history and present intellectual commitments (Popkin, 2005). Rather
than smudging the mirror reflecting reality, lived experience illuminates the landscapes in which it is situated
(Bauman, 1978; Greene, 1978).
2. Despite Schwab's caution (see 1964/1978, p. 29) against dogmatic adherence to disciplinary structures in
curriculum development, his association with the structure-of-the-discipline left him rejected by those scholars
who—after Schwab himself pronounced the field in crisis in 1969—reconceptualized the field. Jackson (see
1992, p. 34) alludes to this development (see conclusion of this essay).
3. The work of Macdonald and Greene was influential, but that of Huebner was decisive. A decade before
political theory would consume one entire wing of the new field, Huebner underscored the importance of
politics to curriculum theory. Fifteen years before phenomenology would emerge as an important sector of
scholarship, Huebner was studying and referencing Heidegger and Jaspers. Nearly a decade before Schwab
judged the field moribund, Huebner declared that the field lacked vitality. Twenty years before theological
studies would constitute a major subject of curriculum theory, Huebner was studying transcendence while
teaching courses at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. Huebner (1999), not Schwab, created the
passage to the reconceptualization.
4. Attention to the significance of resistance continues to the present day (see, for instance, Munro, 1998;
Pitt, 2003).
5. These included a 1993 meeting held in Santiago, Chile and chaired by Juan Casassus that was focused
on curriculum decentralization (Silva, 1993), a 1995 meeting held at the University of Oslo (Norway) chaired
by Bjorg Gundem that created an initial encounter between German Didaktik and Anglo American curriculum
studies (see Gundem & Hopmann, 1998; Westbury, Hopmann, & Riquarts, 2000; Autio, 2006), and
conferences held in 1999 and 2000 at Louisiana State University (LSU) chaired by William E. Doll, Jr.,
and William Pinar that focused on the internationalization of curriculum studies (see Trueit, Wang, Doll, &
Pinar, 2003). The LSU conference led to the establishment in 2001 of the International Association for the
Advancement of Curriculum Studies (IAACS; http://www.iaacs.org). The first triennial meeting was held in
Shanghai, China in 2003; the second in Tampere, Finland in 2006; the first is scheduled for South Africa in
2009. IAACS' United States affiliate (http://calvin.ednet.lsu.edu/~aaacs/index.html) was also founded in 2001
and its journal (http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/jaaacs/) in 2005; the first international handbook of curriculum
research appeared 2 years later (see Pinar, 2003).
6. A significant development since the publication of Understanding Curriculum in 1995 has been an
intensification of intertextuality in United States curriculum theory. Discourses that had been distinctive now
appear in the same work. Hybrid discourses may now be the norm: the arts-based theorist Barone (2000)
does autobiography, for instance, Spring (2003) links multiculturalism and globalization, and the second
edition of Race, Identity and Representation in Education is significantly postcolonial.
7. The pervasiveness of Dewey's influence today is testified by the pervasiveness of antiprogressive reaction
(see Egan, 2002).
William F.Pinar
References
Anderson, J. (1988).The education of Blacks in the South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.5149/uncp/9780807842218
Anyon, J. (1988).Schools as agencies of social legitimation. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Contemporary curriculum
discourses. (pp. 175–200). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Anyon, J. (1997).Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New York: Teachers

Page 13 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
College Press.
Anyon, J. (2005).Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York:
Routledge.
Aoki, D. The price of teaching. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum Studies18(1)(2002). 21–39.
Aoki, T. (2005a).Locating living pedagogy in teacher “research.” In W Pinar and R. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in
a new key (pp. 425–432). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Aoki, T. (2005b).Toward understanding curriculum. In W Pinar & R. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key (pp.
219–228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Original work published 1981)
Appel, S.(1999). (Ed.). Psychoanalysis and pedagogy. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Appelbaum, P. (1995).Popular culture, educational discourse, and mathematics. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Apple, Michael W(1999).Official knowledge: Democratic knowledge in a conservative age. New York:
Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (2004).Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
Apple, M., & Weis, L. (Eds.). (1983).Ideology and practice in schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Applebee, A. (1996).Curriculum as conversation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Asher, N. (En)gendering a hybrid consciousness. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum
Studies18(4)(2002). 81–92.
Asher, N. At the interstices. Teachers College Record107(5)(2005). 1079–1106.
Atwell-Vasey, W. (1998).Nourishing words. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Autio, T. (2006).Subjectivity, schooling, society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Autrey, P. Casemore, B. Deleuzian tourist. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum
Studies17(3)(2001). 111–122.
Ayers, W. The shifting ground of curriculum thought and everyday practice. Theory Into Practice,
XXXI(3)259–263(1992).
Ayers, W., & Miller, J. (Eds.). (1998).A light in dark times. New York: Teachers College Press.
Baker, B. (2001).In perpetual motion. New York: Peter Lang.
Banks, J. (1997).Educating citizens in a multicultural society. New York: Teachers College Press.
Barone, T. On equality, visibility, and the fine arts program in a Black elementary school: An example of
educational criticism. Curriculum Inquiry17(4)(1987). 421–446.
Barone, T. Acquiring a public voice: Curriculum specialists, critical storytelling, and educational reform. JCT:
An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum Studies10(1)(1993). 159–172.
Barone, T. (2000).Aesthetics, politics, and educational inquiry: Essays and examples. New York: Peter Lang.
Barrow, R. (1984).Giving teaching back to teachers. Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble.
Bauman, Z. (1978).Hermeneutics and social science. New York: Columbia University Press.
Beattie, M. (2004).Narratives in the making. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Berk, L. (1992).The extracurriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project
of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 1002–1044). New York: Macmillan.
Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1996).The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public
schools. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Bestor, A. (1953).Educational wastelands: The retreat from learning in our public schools. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Beyer, L. Aesthetic experience for teacher preparation and social change. Educational Theory35(4)(1985).
385–397.
Beyer, L. (1988).Art and society. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Contemporary curriculum discourses (pp. 380–399).
Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Biesta, G., & Egéa-Kuehne, D. (Eds.). (2001).Derrida and education. London: Routledge.
Blades, D. (1997).Procedures of power & curriculum change. New York: Peter Lang.
Block, A. The answer is blowin' in the wind. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum Studies8(4)(1988).
23–52.
Block, A. (1997).I'm only bleeding. New York: Peter Lang.
Block, A. (2004).Talmud, curriculum, and the practical. New York: Peter Lang.
Bloom, L. (1998).Under the sign of hope. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Blumenfeld-Jones, D. Three forms of discipline: Implications for curriculum design. Journal of
Thought29(3)27–40(1994, Fall).
Blumenfeld-Jones, D. Dance as a mode of research representation. Qualitative inquiry1(4)(1995). 391–401.
Page 14 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Blumenfeld-Jones, D. Stinson, S. Van Dyke, J. An interpretive study of meaning in dance. Dance Research
Journal22(2)(1990). 13–22.
Bowers, C. A. Curriculum as cultural reproduction. Teachers College Record82(2)(1980). 267–290.
Bowers, C. A. (1993).Against the grain. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bowers, C. A. (1995).Educating for an ecologically sustainable culture. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Bowers, C. A. (2000).Let them eat data. Athens: University of Georgia.
Bowers, C. (2001).Educating for eco-justice and community. Athens: University of Georgia.
Bowers, C. A. (2005).The false promises of constructivist theories of learning: A global and ecological critique.
New York: Peter Lang.
Bowers, C. A., & Apffel-Marglin, F. (Eds.). (2005).Rethinking Freire. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brandon, L. W/Righting history. Urban Education39(6)(2004). 638–657.
Brantlinger, E. (Ed.). (2005).Who benefits from special education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Britzman, D. (1998a).Lost subjects, contested objects. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Britzman, D. (1998b).Is there a queer pedagogy? In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum: Toward New Identities (pp.
211–231). New York: Garland.
Britzman, D. (1998c).On some psychical consequences of AIDS education. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory
in education (pp. 321–335). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Britzman, Deborah(2000).If the story cannot end: Deferred action, ambivalence, and difficult knowledge. In
Roger I. Simon, Sharon Rosenberg and Claudia Eppert (Eds.), Between hope and despair: Pedagogy and
the remembrance of historical trauma (pp. 27–57). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Britzman, D. (2003a).After education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Britzman, D. (2003b).Practice makes practice (Rev. ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Britzman, D. (2006).Novel education: Psychoanalytic studies of learning and not learning. New York: Peter
Lang.
Brock, R. (2005).Sista talk. New York: Peter Lang.
Bruner, J. (1960).The process of education. New York: Vantage.
Bruner, J. The process of education revisited. Phi Delta Kappan53(1971). 18–21.
Bruner, J. (1996).The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bryson, M. Conjuring the quotidian. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education2(4)(2005). 83–91.
Burbules, N., & Torres, C. (Eds.). (2000).Globalization and education. New York: Routledge.
Burlbaw, L., & Field, S. (Eds.). (2005).Explorations in curriculum history. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Butt, R. (1990).Autobiographic praxis and self education. In J. Willinsky (Ed.), The educational legacy of
romanticism (pp. 257–286). Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Butt, R. (1991). In the spotlight of life. In G. Willis & W. Schubert (Eds.), Reflections from the heart of
curriculum inquiry (pp. 267–276). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Butt, R. Raymond, D. Studying the nature and development of teachers' knowledge using collaborative
autobiography. International Journal of Educational Research13(4)(1992). 402–449.
Cannella, G. (1997).Deconstructing early childhood education. New York: Peter Lang.
Cannella, G., & Viruru, R. (2004).Childhood and postcolonization. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Carlson, D. Teachers as political actors. Harvard Educational Review57(3)(1987). 283–307.
Carlson, D. (2002).Leaving safe harbors. New York: Routledge.
Carson, T. (Ed.). (1988).Toward a renaissance of humanity. Edmonton, Canada: World Council for Curriculum
& Instruction.
Cary, L. (2006).Curriculum spaces. New York: Peter Lang.
Casemore, B. (in press). The language and politics of place: Autobiographical curriculum in the American
South. New York: Peter Lang.
Castenell, L., Jr., & Pinar, W. (Eds.). (1993).Understanding curriculum as racial text: Representations of
identity and difference in education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Cherryholmes, C. (1988).Power and criticism. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cherryholmes, C. H. (1999).Reading pragmatism. New York: Teachers College Press.
Clandinin, D. J. Connelly, F. M. Teachers' personal practical knowledge: What counts as “personal” is studies
of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies19(6)(1987). 487–500.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992).Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W Jackson (Ed.), Handbook
of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 363–401). New
York: Macmillan.
Page 15 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000).Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Connell, R. (2000).The men and the boys. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connelly, F. M, & Clandinin, D. J. (1988).Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Cooper, K., & White, R. (Eds.). (2006).The practical-critical educator. Amsterdam: Kluwer.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/1-4020-4473-9
Counts, G. S. (1978).Dare the school build a new social order?Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
(Original work published 1932)
Crocco, M., Munro, P., & Weiler, K. (1999).Pedagogies of resistance. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (1993).How teachers taught. New York: Longman.
Cuban, L. (2001).Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cuban, L., & Shipps, D. (Eds). (2000).Reconstructing the common good. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Daignault, J. (1992).Traces at work from different places. In W. Pinar & W. Reynolds (Eds.), Understanding
curriculum as phenomenological and deconstructed text (pp. 195–215). New York: Teachers College Press.
Dance, J. (2002).Tough fronts. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Darder, A., Torres, R., & Gutierrez, H. (1997).Latinos and education. New York: Routledge.
Daspit, T., & Weaver, J. (Eds.). (2000).Popular culture and critical pedagogy. New York: Garland.
Davies, B. (2000).A body of writing 1990–1999. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Davis, B. (1996).Teaching mathematics. New York: Garland.
Davis, B. (2004).Inventions of teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006).Complexity and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
De Alba, A., Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E., Lankshear, C., & Peters, M. (1999).Curriculum in the postmodern
condition. New York: Peter Lang.
De Castell, S., & Bryson, M. (Eds.). (1997).Radical interventions. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dewey, J. (1968).A common faith. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Original work published 1934)
Diamond, P., & Mullen, C. (Eds.). (1999).The postmodern educator. New York: Peter Lang.
Diaz, G., & McKenna, M. (Eds.). (2004).Teaching for aesthetic experience. New York: Peter Lang.
Dimitriadis, G. (2001).Performing identity/performing culture. New York: Peter Lang.
Dimitriadis, G. (2003).Friendships, cliques and gangs. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dimitriadis, G., & Carlson, D. (Eds.). (2003).Promises to keep. London: Falmer.
Dimitriadis, G., & McCarthy, C. (2001).Reading & teaching the postcolonial. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Doerr, M. (2004).Currere and the environmental autobiography. New York: Peter Lang.
Doll, M. (1995).To the lighthouse and back. New York: Peter Lang.
Doll, M. (2000).Like letters in running water. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Doll, W., Jr.(1993).A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Doll, W. E., Jr., Fleener, J. M., Trueit, D., & St. Julien, J. (Eds.). (2005).Chaos, complexity, curriculum, and
culture. New York: Peter Lang.
Doll, W., Jr., & Gough, N. (Eds.). (2002).Curriculum visions. New York: Peter Lang.
Donmoyer, R. The evaluator as artist. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum Studies2(2)(1980).
12–26.
Donmoyer, R. (1991).The first glamourizer of thought. In G. Willis & W. Schubert (Eds.), Reflections from the
heart of educational inquiry (pp. 90–106). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Doyle, W. (1992).Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A
project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 486–516). New York: Macmillan.
Dreeben, R. The unwritten curriculum and its relation to values. Journal of Curriculum Studies8(2)(1976).
111–124.
Duckworth, E. (Ed.). (2001).Tell me more. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eccles, J., & Templeton, J. (2002).Extracurricular and other after-school activities for youth. In W. Secada
(Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 113, p. 180). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Edgerton, S. (1996).Translating the curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Edgerton, S. H., Holm, G., Daspit, T., & Farber, P. (Eds.). (2004).Imagining the academy: Higher education
Page 16 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
and popular culture. New York: Routledge.

Egan, K. (2002).Getting it wrong from the beginning. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Eisner, E. (1985).The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York:
Macmillan.
Eisner, E. (2004).Arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Elbaz, F. (1983).Teacher thinking. London: Croom Helm. Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (in press). Teachers' voices.
Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Ellsworth, E. Why doesn't this feel empowering?Harvard Educational Review59(3)(1989). 297–324.
Ellsworth, E. (1997).Teaching positions. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ellsworth, E. (2004).Places of learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Elmore, R., & Sykes, G. (1992).Curriculum policy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook research on curriculum:
A project of the American Educational Research (pp. 185–215). New York: Macmillan.
Epstein, D., O'Flynn, S., & Telford, D. (2001).“Othering” education. In W. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in
education (Vol. 25, pp. 127–179). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1992).Students' experience of the curriculum. In P. W Jackson (Ed.), Handbook
York: Macmillan.
Evans, K. (2002).Negotiating the self. New York: Routledge.
Ferguson, A. (2000).Bad boys. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ferneding, K. (2004).Questioning technology. New York: Peter Lang.
Figgins, M. (1989, October). Reclamations. An original theater piece presented to the Bergamo Conference
on Curriculum Theory and Classroom Practice, Dayton, OH.
Fillmore, L., & Meyer, L. (1992).The curriculum and linguistic minorities. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook
York: Macmillan.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Pruitt, L. P., & Burns, A. (2004).Off white: Readings on power, privilege, and resistance.
New York: Routledge.
Flinders, D., & Thornton, S. (Eds.). (2004).The curriculum studies reader. New York: Routledge.
Fowler, L. (2006).A curriculum of difficulty: Narrative research in education and the practice of teaching. New
York: Peter Lang.
Fowler, L. (in press). Narrative research in education and the practice of teaching. New York: Peter Lang.
Freedman, K. (2003).Teaching visual culture. New York: Teachers College Press.
Freire, P. (1968).Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans). New York: Seabury.
Gabbard, D. (Ed.). (2000).Knowledge and power in the global economy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gardner, G. (1993).Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
Garman, N. Theories embedded in the events of clinical supervision. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision5(3)(1990). 201–213.
Garrod, A. (Ed.). (1992).Learning for life. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Gastambide-Fernandez, R. A., & Sears, J. T. (Eds.). (2004).Curriculum work as a public moral enterprise.
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gazetas, A. (2000).Imagining selves. New York: Peter Lang.
Gilbert, J. (2004).Between sexuality and narrative. In M. Rasmussen, E. Rofes, & S. Talburt (Eds.), Youth and
sexualities. New York: Palgrave.
Giroux, H. (1983).Theory and resistance in education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Giroux, H. (1988).Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. South Hadley, MA: Bergin
& Garvey.
Giroux, H. A. (1999).The mouse that roared. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Giroux, H. & Simon, R. (1989).Popular culture, schooling, and everyday life. South Hadley, MA: Bergin &
Garvey.
Giroux, H., & McLaren, P. (Eds.). (1994).Between borders. New York: Routledge.
Glanz, J., & Behar-Horenstein, L. (Eds.). (2000).Paradigm debates in curriculum and supervision. Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Glickman, C. (1985).Supervision of instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Glickman, C. (Ed.). (1992).Supervision in transition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Good, R. (2005).Scientific habits of mind. New York: Peter Lang.
Page 17 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Goodlad, J. (1990).The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Goodman, J. (1992).Elementary schooling for critical democracy. Albany: State University of New York.
Goodson, I. (1983).School subjects and curriculum change. London: Falmer.
Goodson, I. (1988).International perspectives in curriculum history. Boston: Routledge.
Goodson, I. Curriculum reform and curriculum theory. Cambridge Journal of Education19(2)(1989). 131–141.
Goodson, I. (1991).Teachers' lives and educational research. In I. Goodson and R. Walker (Eds.), Biography,
identity, and schooling (pp. 137–149). London: Falmer.
Goodson, I. (1992).Sponsoring the teacher's voice. In A. Hargreaves and M. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding
teacher development (pp. 110–121). New York: Teachers College Press.
Goodson, I. (1995).The making of curriculum (2nd ed.). London: Falmer.
Goodson, I. (1998).Storying the self: Life politics and the study of the teacher's life and work. In W. F. Pinar
(Ed.), Curriculum: Toward New Identities (pp. 3–20). New York: Garland.
Goodson, I. (2005).Curriculum, pedagogy, and life works. London: Routledge.
Gordon, B. (1993).Toward emancipation in citizenship education. In L. Castenell, Jr., & W. Pinar (Eds.),
Understanding curriculum as racial text (pp. 263–284). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Gough, A. (1998).Beyond Eurocentrism in science education. In W. Pinar (Ed.) Curriculum: Toward new
identities (pp. 185–209). New York: Garland.
Gough, N. (1998).Reflections and diffractions. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum: Toward new identities (pp.
93–127). New York: Garland.
Gough, N. (2003).Thinking globally in environmental education. In W. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of
curriculum research (pp. 53–72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gough, N. Editorial: A vision for transnational curriculum inquiry. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry1(1)(2004).
1–11. Retrieved June 23, 2005, from http://www.deakin.edu.au/tci
Grant, C. (Ed.). (1999).Multicultural research. London: Falmer.
Green, B. (2003).Curriculum inquiry in Australia. In W. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum
research (pp. 123–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Green, B. Post-curriculum history?Curriculum Perspectives25(1)(2005). 51–54.
Greene, M. Curriculum and consciousness. Teachers College Record73(2)(1971). 253–269.
Greene, M. (1973).Teacher as stranger. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Greene, M. (1978).Landscapes of learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Greene, M. The artistic-aesthetic and curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry6(4)(1988). 283–296.
Greene, M. (1995).Releasing the imagination. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, M. (2001).Variations on a blue guitar. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grieshaber, S., & Cannella, G. (Eds.). (2001).Embracing identities in early childhood education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Grumet, Madeleine R. (1976).Psychoanalytic foundations. In W. F. Pinar & M. R. Grumet, Toward a poor
curriculum (pp. 111–146). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Grumet, M. (1978).Songs and situations. In G. Willis (Ed.), Qualitative evaluation (pp. 274–315). Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan.
Grumet, M. (1988).Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Guilllory, N. (2005).Schoolin women: Hip hop pedagogies of Black women rappers. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Gundem, B., & Hopmann, S. (Eds.). (1998).Didaktik and/or curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
Haggerson, N. (2000).Expanding curriculum research and understanding. New York: Peter Lang.
Hamilton, D. (1976).Curriculum evaluation. London: Open Books.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000).Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hasebe-Ludt, E., & Hurren, W. (Eds.). (2003).Curriculum intertext. New York: Peter Lang.
Hattram, R. (2004).Awakening-struggle. Flaxton, Australia: Post Pressed.
Haymes, N. (1995).Race, culture, and the city. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hazlett, S. Conceptions of curriculum history. Curriculum Inquiry9(2)(1979). 129–135.
Henderson, J. (2001).Reflective teaching. Columbus: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Henderson, J., & Kesson, K. (Eds.). (1999).Understanding democratic curriculum leadership. New York:
Henderson, J., & Kesson, K. (Eds.). (2000).Transformative curriculum leadership (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Henderson, J., & Kesson, K. (2001).Curriculum work as public intellectual leadership. In K. Sloan & J. Sears
Page 18 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
(Eds.), Democratic curriculum theory & practice (pp. 1–24). Troy, NY: Educator's International Press.
Henderson, J., & Kesson, K. (2003).Curriculum wisdom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hirsch, E. D. (1987).Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr.(1999).The schools we need. New York: Anchor Books.
Hlebowitsh, P. (1993).Radical curriculum theory reconsidered. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hofstadter, R. (1962).Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Vintage.
Huebner, D. (1999).The lure of the transcendent. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ibanez-Carrasco, F., & Meiners, F. (Eds.). (2004).Public acts. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Irwin, R. L., & de Cosson, A. (Eds.). (2004).A/r/tography. Vancouver, Canada: Pacific Educational Press.
Jackson, P. W. (1986).The practice of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jackson, P. W. (1992).Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 3–40).
New York: Macmillan.
Jackson, P. W. (1998).John Dewey and the lessons of art. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jagodzinski, J. (1997a).Postmodern dilemmas: Outrageous essays in art and art education. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jagodzinski, J. (1997b).Pun(k) deconstruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jagodzinski, J. (Ed.). (2002).Pedagogical desire: Authority seduction, transference, and the question of
ethics. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Jagodzinski, J. (2004).Youth fantasies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/
9781403980823
Jardine, D. On the humility of mathematical language. Educational Theory40(2)(1990). 181–192.
Jardine, D. (1998).To dwell with a boundless heart. New York: Peter Lang.
Jardine, D., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (Eds.). (2006).Curriculum in abundance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Joseph, P. (2000).Cultures of curriculum. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kanpol, B. (1999).Critical pedagogy (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Khayatt, D. Sex and the teacher. Harvard Educational Review67(1)(1999). 107–113.
Kilpatrick, W. The project method. Teachers College Record19(4)(1918). 319–335.
Kincheloe, J. (2002).The sign of the burger. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kincheloe, J. (2004).Critical pedagogy. New York: Peter Lang.
Kincheloe, J., & Pinar, W. (Eds.). (1991).Curriculum as social psychoanalysis. Albany: State University of New
York Press.
Kincheloe, J., Steinberg, S., Rodriguez, N., & Chennault, R. (Eds.). (1998).White reign. New York: St. Martin's
Press.
Kliebard, H. (1986).The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–1958. Boston: Routledge.
Kliebard, H. (1992).Forging the American curriculum: Essays in curriculum history and theory. New York:
Routledge.
Kliebard, H. (2002).Changing course: American curriculum reform in the 20th century. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Krall, F. Living metaphors. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum Studies1(1)(1979). 180–185.
Krall, F. Navajo tapestry, a curriculum for ethno-ecological perspectives. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of
Curriculum Studies3(2)(1981). 165–209.
Krall, F. Flesh of the earth, voice of the earth. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum
Studies8(1)(1988). 55–80.
Krall, F. (1994).Ecotone. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kridel, C. (Ed.). (1998).Writing educational biography. New York: Garland.
Kridel, C., Bullough, R. V, Jr., & Shaker, P. (Eds.). (1996).Teachers and mentors. New York: Garland.
Kridel, C., & Newman, V. (2003).A random harvest. In W. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum
research (pp. 637–650). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krupat, A., & Swann, B. (Eds.). (2000).Here first. New York: Modern Library.
Kuhn, T. (1962).The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kumashiro, K. (Ed.). (2001).Troubling intersections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kumashiro, K. (2002).Troubling education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kumashiro, K. (2004a).Crisis, uncertainty, and hope. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kumashiro, K. (2004b).Against common sense. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Page 19 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Lather, P. (1991).Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. London: Routledge.
Lesko, N. (Ed.). (2000).Masculinities at school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
9781452225548
Lesko, N. (2001).Act your age! A cultural construction of adolescence. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Letts, W., & Sears, J. (Eds.). (1999).Queering elementary education. Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lewis, A., & Miel, A. (1972).Supervision for improved instruction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Li, M., & Li, P. (Eds.). (1990).Understanding Asian Americans. New York: Neal-Schuman.
Li, X. (2002).The Tao of life stories. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lomotey, K., & Rivers, S. (1998).Models of excellence. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum: Toward new identities
(pp. 343–353). New York: Garland.
Lopes, A., & de Macedo, E. (2003).The curriculum field in Brazil in the 1990s. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.),
International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 185–203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Loutzenheiser, L. The ambivalences and circulation of globalization and identities. JCT: An Interdisciplinary
Journal of Curriculum Studies21(2)(2005). 118–140.
Macdonald, J. B. (1995).Theory as a prayerful act. New York: Peter Lang.
Madaus, G., & Kellaghan, T. (1992).Curriculum evaluation and assessment. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp.
119–154). New York: Macmillan.
Malewski, E. (in press). Unsettling beliefs and sights unseen. In L. Soto (Ed.), The Latino encyclopedia.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Malewski, E. Phillion, J. Lehman, J. D. A Freirian framework for technology-based virtual field experiences.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education4(4)(2005). Retrieved August 11, 2005, from
http://www.citejournal.org/v014/iss4/general/article1.cfm
Mann, J. (1975).Curriculum criticism. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing (pp. 133–148). Troy, NY:
Educator's International Press.
Marsh, C. (2004).Key concepts for understanding curriculum. London: Routledge.
Marshall, J. D., Sears, J. T, & Schubert, W. H. (1999).Turning points in curriculum: A contemporary American
memoir. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Martusewicz, R. (2001).Seeking passage. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mayo, C. Queering school communities. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education1(3)(2004). 23–36.
McCarthy, C. (1990).Race and curriculum. London: Falmer.
McCarthy, C. (1993).Multicultural approaches to racial inequality in the United States. In L. Castenell & W.
Pinar (Eds.), Understanding curriculum as racial text (pp. 225–246). Albany: State University of New York
Press.
McCarthy, C. (1998).The uses of culture. New York: Routledge.
McCarthy, C., & Crichlow, W. (Eds.). (1993).Race, identity, and representation in education. New York:
Routledge.
McCarthy, C., Crichlow, W., Dimitriadis, G., & Dolby, N. (Eds.). (2005).Race, identity, and representation in
education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
McCutcheon, G. (1995).Developing the curriculum. New York: Longman.
McKnight, D. (2003).Schooling, the Puritan imperative, and the molding of the American national identity.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McLaren, P. (1994).Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (2nd
ed.). New York: Longman.
McLaren, P. (1997).Revolutionary multiculturalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
McLaren, P. (2000).Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the pedagogy of the revolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield.
McLaren, P., & Leonard, P. (Eds.). (1993).Paulo Freire. New York: Routledge.http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/
9780203420263
McNeil, L. (2000).Contradictions of school reform. New York: Routledge.
Meath-Lang, B. (1990).The dialogue journal. In J. Kreeft-Peton (Ed.), Students and teachers writing together
(pp. 3–16). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Miller, J. (1990).Creating spaces and finding voice. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Miller, J. L. (1998).Autobiography as a queer curriculum practice. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer Theory in
Education (pp. 349–364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Miller, J. (2005).The sounds of silence breaking: Women, autobiography, curriculum (complicated
Page 20 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
conversation). New York: Peter Lang.

Miller, J. P., Karsten, S., & Denton, D. (2005).Holistic learning and spirituality in education: Breaking new
ground. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mirochnik, E., & Sherman, D. (Eds.). (2002).Passion and pedagogy. New York: Peter Lang.
Moreira, A. F. B. (2003).The curriculum field in Brazil: Emergence and consolidation. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.),
International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 171–184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Moreno, J., & Morenco, J. (1998).The elusive quest for equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational
Review.
Morris, M. (2001).Holocaust and curriculum. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Morris, M., & Weaver, J. (Eds.). (2002).Difficult memories. New YorkPeter Lang.
Munro, P. (1998).Subject to fiction. Open University Press.
Nakanishi, D., & Nishida, T. (Eds.). (2002).The Asian American educational experience. New York: Routledge.
Neumann, A., & Peterson, P. (Eds.). (1997).Women, research, and autobiography in education. New York:
Noddings, N. (1991).Women and evil. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (1992).The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York:
Oberg, A. Using construct theory as a basis for research into teacher professional development. Journal of
Curriculum Studies19(1)(1987). 55–65.
Oberg, A. (2003).Paying attention and not knowing. In E. Hasebe-Ludt & W. Hurren (Eds.) Curriculum
intertext: Place/language/pedagogy (pp. 123–129). New York: Peter Lang.
Oldenski, T., & Carlson, D. (Eds.). (2002).Educational yearning. New York: Peter Lang.
Oliver, D., & Gersham, K. (1989).Education, modernity, and fractured meaning. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Pagano, J. (1990).Exiles and communities. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pagano, J. Dolan, L. Foundations for a unified approach to evaluation research. Curriculum
Inquiry10(4)(1980). 367–381.
Park, C., & Chi, M. (Eds.). (1999).Asian-American education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Phelan, A. (in press). Changing the (female) subject in teacher education. In F. Columbus (Ed.),
Contemporary teaching and teacher issues. New York: Nova Science.
Phenix, P. Transcendence and the curriculum. Teachers College Record73(2)(1971). 271–283.
Pinar, W. F. (1994).Autobiography, politics, and sexuality: Essays in curriculum theory, 1972–1992. New York:
Peter Lang.
Pinar, W. (Ed.). (1998a).The passionate mind of Maxine Greene. London: Falmer.
Pinar, W. (Ed.). (1998b).Queer theory in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pinar, W. (Ed.). (1999).Contemporary curriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang.
Pinar, W. (2001).The gender of racial politics and violence in America. New York: Peter Lang.
Pinar, W. (Ed.). (2003).International handbook of curriculum research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pinar, W. (2004).What is curriculum theory?Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pinar, W. (2006a).Race, religion, and a curriculum of reparation. New York: Palgrave.http://dx.doi.org/
10.1057/9781403984739
Pinar, W. (2006b).The synoptic text today and other essays. New York: Peter Lang.
Pinar, W. & Grumet, M. (1976).Toward a poor curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Pinar, W., & Irwin, R. (Eds.). (2005).Curriculum in a new key. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995).Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the
study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang.
Pitt, A. (2003).The play of the personal. New York: Peter Lang.
Pope, D. (2001).Doing school. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Popkewitz, T. S. (1998).Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the construction of the teacher.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Popkewitz, T., Franklin, B., & Pereyra, M. (Eds.). (2001).Cultural history and education. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Popkin, J. (2005).History, historians, and autobiography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Purpel, D. (1989).The moral and spiritual crisis in education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Quinn, M. (2001).Going out, not knowing whither. New York: Peter Lang.
Rasmussen, M. Heterosexuality and gender melancholy. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum
Page 21 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Studies21(2)(2005). 25–44.
Rasmussen, M. (2006).Becoming subjects. New York: Routledge.
Ravitch, D. (2000).Left back: A century of battles over school reform. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Reid, W. (1999).Curriculum as institution and practice: Essays in the deliberative tradition. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reynolds, W. (2003).Curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
Reynolds, W., & Webber, J. (Eds.). (2004).Dis/positions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Richardson, G., & Blades, D. (Eds.). (2005).Troubling the canon of citizenship education. New York: Peter
Lang.
Rickover, H. (1959).Education and freedom. New York: E. Dutton.
Riley-Taylor, E. (2002).Ecology, spirituality and education. New York: Peter Lang.
Rodriguez, A., & Kitchen, R. (Eds.). (2005).Preparing mathematics and science teachers for diverse
classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rogan, J. M. Luckowski, J. Curriculum texts: The portrayal of the field. (Pt. 1). Journal of Curriculum
Studies22(1)(1990). 17–39.
Rogan, J. M. Curriculum texts: The portrayal of the field (Pt. 2). Journal of Curriculum Studies23(1)(1991).
55–70.
Ropers-Huilman, B. (1998).Feminist teaching in theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ropers-Huilman, B. (Ed.). (2003).Gendered futures in higher education. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Roy, K. (2003).Teachers in nomadic spaces. New York: Peter Lang.
Rugg, H. (1963).Imagination. New York: Harper & Row.
Sabar, N., & Mathias, Y. (2003).Curriculum planning at the threshold of the third millennium: The Israeli case.
In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 381–400). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Sadovnik, A., & Semel, S. (Eds.). (2002).Founding mothers. New York: Palgrave.
Saettler, P. (1990).The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Salvio, P. (1998).On using the literacy portfolio to prepare teachers for “willful world traveling.” In W. F. Pinar
(Ed.), Curriculum: Toward new identities (pp. 41–74). New York: Garland.
Saylor, J., Alexander, W., & Lewis, A. (1981).Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning (4th ed.).
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Schubert, W. H. (1986).Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan.
Schubert, W. H., & Ayers, W. C. (Eds.). (1992).Teacher lore. New York: Longman.
Schubert, W. H., Lopez Schubert, A. L., Thomas, T. P., & Carroll, W. M. (2002).Curriculum books: The first
hundred years (2nd ed.). New York: Peter Lang.
Schwab, J. J. (1978).Science, curriculum and liberal education (I. Westbury & N. Wilkof, Eds.). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Schwab, J. J. The practical 4. Curriculum Inquiry13(3)(1983). 239–265.
Sears, J. T. (1990).Growing up gay in the south. New York: Haworth Press.
Sears, J. T. (Ed.). (1992).Sexuality and the curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sears, J. (1997).Lonely hunters. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Sears, J. (Ed.). (1998).Curriculum, religion, and public education. New YorkTeachers College Press.
Sears, J. (2001).Rebels, rubyfruit, and rhinestones. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Seixas, P. (Ed.). (2004).Theorizing historical consciousness. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto
Press.
Selden, S. (1999).Inheriting shame: The story of eugenics and racism in America. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Sergiovanni, T., & Starratt, R. (1971).Emerging patterns of supervision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shapiro, S., & Shapiro, S. (Eds.). (2002).Body movements. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Shor, I. (1980).Critical teaching and everyday life. Boston: South End Press.
Silin, J. (1995).Sex, death, and the education of children. New York: Teachers College Press.
Silva, E. (1993).Trends and challenges on curriculum decentralization in Latin America. Santiago, Chile:
Regional Office for Education in Latin America and the Caribbean, United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization.
Simon, R., Rosenberg, S., & Eppert, C. (Eds.). (2000).Between hope and despair. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Page 22 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Skrtic, T. (Ed.). (1995).Disability and democracy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Slattery, P. (2003).Hermeneutics, subjectivity, and aesthetics. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of
Slattery, P. (2006).Curriculum development in the postmodern era (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Slattery, P., Krasny, K., & O'Malley, M. (in press). Hermeneutics, aesthetics, and the quest for answerability: A
dialogic possibility for reconceptualizing the interpretive process in curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum
Studies.
Slattery, P., & Rapp, D. (2002).Ethics and the foundations of education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sleeter, C. E., & McLaren, P. L. (Eds.). (1995).Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of
difference. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Sloan, D. (Ed.). (1985).The computer in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sloan, K., & Sears, J. (Eds.). (2001).Democratic curriculum theory & practice. Troy, NY: Educator's
International Press.
Smith, D. (2003).Curriculum and teaching face globalization. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992).Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of
research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 402–435). New
York: Macmillan.
Spring, J. (1989).The sorting machine revisited. New York: Longman.
Spring, J. (1996).The cultural transformation of a Native American family and its tribe, 1763–1995. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Spring, J. (2003).The intersection of cultures. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stanley, W. (1992).Curriculum for utopia: Social reconstructionism and critical pedagogy in the postmodern
era. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Strickland, D., & Ascher, C. (1992).Low-income African American children and public schooling. In P. W.
Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research
Association (pp. 609–625). New York: Macmillan.
Sumara, D. (1996).Private readings in public. New York: Peter Lang.
Sumara, D. Davis, B. Interrupting heteronormativity. Curriculum Inquiry29(2)(1999). 191–208.
Talburt, S., & Steinberg, S. (Eds.). (2002).Thinking queer. New York: Peter Lang.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1975).Curriculum development: Theory into practice. New York: Macmillan.
Tanner, D. Tanner, L. Emancipation from research. Educational Researcher8(6)(1979). 8–12.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1980).Curriculum development. New York: Macmillan.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1990).History of the school curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
Taubman, P. Gender and curriculum. JCT: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Curriculum Studies4(1)(1982).
12–87.
Taubman, P. Achieving the right distance. Educational Theory40(1)(1990). 121–133.
Taubman, P. (1993).Separate identities, separate lives. In L. Castenell & W. Pinar (Eds.), Understanding
curriculum as racial text (pp. 287–306). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Teitelbaum, K. (1995).Schooling for “good rebels.”New York: Teachers College Press.
Tejeda, C., & Martinez, C. (Ed.). (2000).Charting new terrains of Latino and Chicano education. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Tierney, W. (1997).Academic outlaws. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tierney, W., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (1997).Representation and the text. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Todd, S. (Ed.). (1997).Learning desire. New York: Routledge.
Todd, S. (2003).Learning from the other. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Tom, A. (1984).Teaching as a moral craft. New York: Longman.
Torres, C. (1998).Education, power, and personal biography. New York: Routledge.
Trifonas, P. (2000a).The ethics of writing. Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Trifonas, P. (Ed.). (2000b).Revolutionary pedagogies. New York: Routledge.
Trifonas, P. (Ed.). (2003).Pedagogies of difference. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Trueit, D., Wang, H., Doll, W. E., Jr., & Pinar, W. F. (Eds.). (2003).The internationalization of curriculum
studies. New York: Peter Lang.
Tyack, D., & Hansot, E. (1990).Learning together: A history of coeducation in American public schools. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Page 23 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
Tyler, R. (1949).Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Valencia, R. (Ed.). (2002).Chicano school failure and success. London: Falmer.
Valenzuela, A. (1999).Substractive schooling. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Vallance, E. (1991).Aesthetic inquiry. In E. C. Short (Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry (pp. 155–172). Albany:
State University of New York Press.
van Manen, M. (1991).The tact of teaching. Albany: State University of New York Press.
van Manen, M. (Ed.). (2002).Writing in the dark. London, Ontario, Canada: Althouse Press.
van Manen, M., & Levering, B. (1996).Childhood's secrets: Intimacy, privacy and the self reconsidered. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Venezky, R. (1992).Textbooks in school and society. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on
curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 436–461). New York: Macmillan.
Wang, H. (2004).The call from a stranger on the journey home. New York: Peter Lang.
Watkins, W. Black curriculum orientations. Harvard Educational Review63(3)(1993). 321–338.
Watkins, W. (2001).The White architects of Black education: Ideology and power in America, 1865–1954.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Wear, D. (Ed.). (1993).The center of the web. Albany: State University of New York at Albany.
Weaver, J., Appelbaum, P., & Morris, M. (Eds.). (2001).(Post) modern science (education). New York: Peter
Lang.
Weber, S., & Mitchell, C. (1995).That's funny, you don't look like a teacher. London: Falmer.http://dx.doi.org/
10.4324/9780203453568
Webber, J. A. (2003).Failure to hold. Landham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Weis, L. (2004).Class reunion. New York: Routledge.
Welton, M. (Ed.). (1995).In defense of the lifeworld. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (Eds.). (2000).Teaching as reflective practice. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wexler, P. (1987).Social analysis of education. Boston: Routledge.
Wexler, P. (1992).Becoming somebody. London: Falmer Press.
Wexler, P. (1996).Holy sparks. New York: St. Martin's.
Whitlock, R. U. (2007).This corner of Canaan: Curriculum studies of place and the reconstruction of the South.
New York: Peter Lang.
Willinsky, J. The seldom-spoken roots of the curriculum: Romanticism and the new literacy. Curriculum
Inquiry17(3)(1987). 267–291.
Willinsky, J. (1992).Learning to divide the world: Education at empire's end. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Willinsky, J. (1999).Technologies of knowing. Boston: Beacon Press.
Willinsky, J. (2006).The access principle. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Willis, G., & Schubert, W. (Eds.). (1991).Reflections from the heart of educational inquiry: Understanding
curriculum and teaching through the arts. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Willis, G. H., Schubert, W H., Bullough, R., Jr., Kridel, C., & Holton, J. (Eds.). (1994).The American curriculum:
A documentary history. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Willis, P. (1981).Learning to labour. Hampshire, UK: Gower.
Winfield, A. (2006).Eugenics and memory. New York: Peter Lang.
Wraga, W. Extracting sun-beams out of cucumbers. Educational Researcher28(1)(1999). 4–13.
Wright, H. (2004).A prescience of African cultural studies. New York: Peter Lang.
Yu, T. (2004).In the name of morality. New York: Peter Lang.
Zhang, H., & Zhong, Q. (2003).Curriculum studies in China. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of
Zimmerman, J. (2002).Whose America? Culture wars in the public schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
• curriculum theory
• curriculum
• curriculum development
• curriculum studies
• reconceptualization
• autobiographical theory
Page 24 of 25
SAGE SAGE Reference
• poststructuralism
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412976572.n25

Page 25 of 25

Curriculum Theory Since 1950 Crisis, Reconceptualización and Internalization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Curriculum Theory Since 1950 Crisis, Reconceptualización and Internalization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Curriculum Theory Since 1950 Crisis, Reconceptualización and Internalization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and

Contributors: Author:William F. Pinar

Curriculum Theory Since 1950: Crisis, Reconceptualization, Internationalization

Curriculum theory since 1950: Crisis, reconceptualization, internationalization

The Crisis of Curriculum Development

From Curriculum Development to Understanding Curriculum

The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction

It is time to place historical study at the center of the curriculum enterprise.

Political Curriculum Theory

The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction

Multicultural Curriculum Theory

Curriculum Theory and Gender

In schools we become civilized by denying attachment.

Phenomenological Curriculum Theory

Curriculum is to be thought of… as meaning and as lived in.

Postmodernism and Poststructuralism in Curriculum Theory

Autobiographical Curriculum Theory

There is no better way to study curriculum than to study ourselves.

The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction

Aesthetic Curriculum Theory

Theological Curriculum Theory

Understanding Curriculum Institutionally

Teaching itself is a victim of bureaucra-tization.

The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction

and popular culture. New York: Routledge.

Goodlad, J. (1990).The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

conversation). New York: Peter Lang.

The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction

You might also like