Development of Curriculum Theories after the Late 60s in the United States
The Introduction to the History of ﾒCriticalﾓ Curriculum Studies(1)
ﾑThe Development of Curriculum Theories after the Late Sixties in the United States, and the Genesis of the Critical Curriculum Fieldﾑ An ideological theme is always socially accentuated. ﾑMihail Bakhtin
Minoru Sawada(Doctoral Student of Dep. of C&I, UW-Madison)
1. Introduction
2. The Specific Procedure of Analysis
3. The Conditions for the Genesis of the Critical Curriculum Field
(1)The Emergence of the Curriculum Field and The Curriculum Theory Field
(2)The Situations of and around the Curriculum Theory Field from the Late 1960s to the Mid-1970s a. ﾒScientificﾓ Curriculum Approach as a Traditional/Dominant Model b. The Symbolic Struggles in the Curriculum Theory Field: Various Position-Takings and the Embryonic Form of the Critical Curriculum Field
4. The Genesis of the Critical Curriculum Field
5. Conclusion: To be Continued
Notes
References
1. Introduction
This essay is a preliminary work for a historical study of the contemporary curriculum theories in the United States.What I attempt at analyzing here is that series of curriculum studies to whose name the adjective ﾒcriticalﾓ has been often prefixed. My questions are quite simple: where did the critical curriculum studies come from, where are they, and where will and should they go? But to answer these questions, I would like to introduce as an analytical tool or viewpoint a certain theoretical framework which seems to be useful for the analysis.(2)
The framework concerns Bourdieuﾕs sociological concept of ﾒfield(=champ).ﾓ(3) So I should say that it is the purpose of this paper to discuss the issues involved with the genesis and development of what might be called ﾒthe critical curriculum study field,ﾓ that is to say, to consider the critical curriculum studies from the viewpoint of ﾒfield.ﾓ(4) Then, what does this concept mean? I would like to refer to this as far as it is necessary here.
ﾑThe Development of Curriculum Theories after the Late Sixties in the United States, and the Genesis of the Critical Curriculum Fieldﾑ An ideological theme is always socially accentuated. ﾑMihail Bakhtin
Minoru Sawada(Doctoral Student of Dep. of C&I, UW-Madison)
1. Introduction
2. The Specific Procedure of Analysis
3. The Conditions for the Genesis of the Critical Curriculum Field
(1)The Emergence of the Curriculum Field and The Curriculum Theory Field
(2)The Situations of and around the Curriculum Theory Field from the Late 1960s to the Mid-1970s a. ﾒScientificﾓ Curriculum Approach as a Traditional/Dominant Model b. The Symbolic Struggles in the Curriculum Theory Field: Various Position-Takings and the Embryonic Form of the Critical Curriculum Field
4. The Genesis of the Critical Curriculum Field
5. Conclusion: To be Continued
Notes
References
1. Introduction
This essay is a preliminary work for a historical study of the contemporary curriculum theories in the United States.What I attempt at analyzing here is that series of curriculum studies to whose name the adjective ﾒcriticalﾓ has been often prefixed. My questions are quite simple: where did the critical curriculum studies come from, where are they, and where will and should they go? But to answer these questions, I would like to introduce as an analytical tool or viewpoint a certain theoretical framework which seems to be useful for the analysis.(2)
The framework concerns Bourdieuﾕs sociological concept of ﾒfield(=champ).ﾓ(3) So I should say that it is the purpose of this paper to discuss the issues involved with the genesis and development of what might be called ﾒthe critical curriculum study field,ﾓ that is to say, to consider the critical curriculum studies from the viewpoint of ﾒfield.ﾓ(4) Then, what does this concept mean? I would like to refer to this as far as it is necessary here.
References: (11) A major curriculum conference held in 1967 at Ohio State University is noteworthy, but I cannot discuss this because of the lack of the space here. See Pinar etal.(1995: 179). (13) For the relationship between Eight-Year Study and Tylerﾕs behavioristic approach, see Klieabrd(1995: 182-190), for example. (17) This first appeared in The Journal of Educational Research, LXVI (September,1972). (18) This first appeared in Interchange, II (no.4, 1971). ------. 1985: Education and Power. New York: Routledge, rev. ARK ed.. ------. 1993: Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age. New York and London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. ------. 1988: Teachers & Texts: A Political Economy of Class & Gender Relations in Education. New York and London: Routledge. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1971: Intellectual Field and Creative Project. In Michael F.D. Young (ed.), Knowledge and Control : New Directions for the Sociology of Education, London: Collier-Macmilllan, 161-88. ------. 1990: In Other Words: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ------. 1993: The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press. ------ and Wacquant, Loic J. D. 1992: An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.