Materi Developing of Curriculum (Peter F. Oliva) Kelompok 1 Topik Curriculum and Instruction Defined
Materi Developing of Curriculum (Peter F. Oliva) Kelompok 1 Topik Curriculum and Instruction Defined
Materi Developing of Curriculum (Peter F. Oliva) Kelompok 1 Topik Curriculum and Instruction Defined
Untilthe development and various implementations ofthe Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) in the United States (US), curriculum was thoughtto be the written plan provided by the
local education agency (LEA) or even by thestate education agency (SEA). In 2010 the CCSS or
a variation had been implementedin 45 states making curriculum across the US more alike than
previously (Common Core State StandardsInitiative, 2010). However, as an observer ofteachers the
authorsnote that in every school and in individual classrooms (virtualortraditional), the real curriculum is the
interpretation of the curriculum through instruction. What an observer immedi- ately perceives is that the
interactions between the teachers and students(instructional learning
experiences) actually provides evidence of the real curriculum. Because of the practical imple-
mentationsor interpretationsoftheofficial curriculum bythe teachersthroughtheirinstruction with
students, curriculum andinstruction cannot be completely separated. Officially, curriculum
is the what and instructionis the how.
Interpretations of Curriculum
The amorphous nature ofthe word curriculum has given rise over the years to many interpreta-
tions. Depending on their philosophical beliefs, persons have conveyed these interpretations
* Curriculum is that which is taught in school.
* Curriculum is a set ofsubjects or content areas.
4 Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions
of services, and (4) the hidden curriculum,” (p. 8). The programs of studies, experiences, and
services arereadily apparent. To these elements Oliver added the concept of a hidden curriculum,
which encompasses values promotedby theschool, differing emphases givenby different teachers within
the samesubject areas, the degree of enthusiasm of teachers, and the physical and social
climate ofthe school.
J. Galen Saylor, William M. Alexander, and ArthurJ. Lewis (1981) offered this definition:
“We define curriculumas a plan for providing sets of learning opportunities for personsto be
educated,” (p. 8-9).
Asthe years progress you will notice a broadening of some conceptionsof the school cur- riculum.
Geneva Gay (1990), writing on desegregating the curriculum, offered a more expansive interpretation of
curriculum: “If we are to achieve equally, we must broaden our conception to includethe entire culture
ofthe school—not just subject matter content” (pp. 61-62).
Expressingthe view that the word “curriculum” has cometo meanonly a course of study,”
D. Jean Clandinin and F. Michael Connelly (1992) held curriculum to be noless than “a course
oflife” led by teachersas curriculum makers (p. 393).
Ronald C. Doll (1996) defined the curriculum of a school as: “the formal and informal con-
tent and process by which learnersgain knowledge and understanding, develop skills, andalter
attitudes, appreciations, and values underthe auspices of that school” (p. 15).
Departing from a definition of curriculum as “school materials,” William F. Pina
M. Reynolds, Patrick Slattery, and Peter M. Taubman (1996) described curriculum
representation,” (p. 16). These authorssaid:
Curriculum understood as symbolic representation refers to those institutional and discursive practices,
structures, images. and experiencesthat can be identified and analyzed in various ways, i.e.,
politically,racially, autobiographically. phenomenological. theologically, interna- tionally, and in
terms of gender and deconstruction. (Pinar et al., 1996, p. 16)
Have definitions changed in writings of the early twenty-first century? Examine a few. Allan C.
Ornstein and Francis P. Hunkins (2004) considered curriculum a planfor action or written document that
includes strategies for achieving desired goals or ends,”(p. 10).
Emphasizingthe role of curriculum in the continuing growth of learning andlearners, Dan-
iel Tanner and Laurel N. Tanner (2007) proposedthe followingdefinition: “The authors regard curriculum
asthat reconstruction of knowledge and experience that enables the learner to grow in exercising
intelligent control ofsubsequent knowledge and experience” (p. 99).
Jon Wiles and Joseph Bondi (2007) also saw “the curriculum as a desired goal or set ofvalues that can
be activated through a development process culminating in experiencesforstudents” (p. 5). James McKiernan
(2008) saw curriculum “concerned with whatis planned, implemented,
learned, evaluated, and researched in schoolsat all levels ofeducation” (p. 4).
Regarding the various interpretations of curriculum, Peter Hlebowitsh (2005) commented, “When we
begin tothink about the curriculum as strictly professional and school-based term, a number ofdifferent
interpretive slants on what comprises the curriculum comes into play” (p. 1).
curriculum in (a) purposes or goals ofthe curriculum, (b) contexts within which the curriculum is
found,(c) instructional strategies used,or(d) standardsto be learned.
PURPOSES. The search for a definition of curriculum is clouded when the theoretician responds to the
term, notin the context of what curriculum is, but in whatit does or should do—thatis, its
purpose. On the purposesof the curriculum varying statements can be found and confusing. An
example is when curriculum is conceptualized. The statement: Curriculum is the development of
reflective thinking on the partofthe learner, is not concrete. The same statement could bestated
morespecifically: The purposeof the curriculum is the developmentofreflective thinking on the
part of the learner. A statement of what the curriculum is meant to achieve does little to help us
sharpena definition ofcurriculum andclarifying and specifying the purpose of the curriculum is a
wise move for curriculum developers.
CONTEXTS. Definitions ofcurriculum sometimesstatethe settings within which it takes shape. When
theoreticians speak of an essentialist curriculum, a student-centered curriculum, ora re- constructionist
curriculum, they are invoking two characteristics of the curriculum at the same
time—purpose and context. For example, an essentialistic curriculum is designed to transmit the
culturalheritage to studentsin the organizeddisciplines, and to prepare them for the future. This
curriculum arisesfrom a special philosophical context of the essentialist school of philosophy.
A learner-centered curriculum clearly reveals its orientation: the learner, whois the primary focus
ofthe progressive school of philosophy. The development ofthe individual learner in all aspects of
growth may be inferred, but the plans for that developmentvary considerably from school to school. The
curriculum of a school following re-constructionist philosophical beliefs
aims to educatein such a waythatlearners will be capableof solving someof society's pressing
problems and,therefore, change society forthe better.
STRATEGIES. While purpose and context are sometimesoffered as definitions of curriculum, an additional
complexity arises when the theoretician equates curriculum with instructionalstrategy. Some theoreticians
isolate certain instructional variables, such as processes, strategies, ortech-
niques, and then proceed to equate themwith curriculum. The curriculum asa problem-solving
process illustrates an attempt to define curriculum in termsof an instructional process—problem-
solving techniques, the scientific method, orreflective thinking. The curriculum as personalized
learning, perhaps delivered digitally or onlineis a system by which learnersencounter curricular
content through a mode ofinstruction. Neither purpose, nor context, norstrategy provides a clear basis for
defining curriculum.
The behavioral objectives may also be called performance or operational objectives and in effect
are instructional objectives. According to the proponents of behavioral objectives, a compilation of all the
behavioral objectives of all the programs and learning experiences of the
school would constitute the curriculum. The curriculum would then be the sum ofall instructional
objectives. You will encounter in this text an approachthat distinguishes curriculum goals (over- arching
ideas) and curriculumobjectives(standards) from instructional goals (essential questions, big ideas) and
objectives(learning targets). You will see laterthat standardsare derived from overarchingideas and
aimsofeducation (mission or purpose), and learning targets are derived
from essential questions orbig ideas and from overarching ideas and standards. Both standards
andlearning targets can bestatedin behavioral terms. To assist you with the multiple and chang-
ing terms related to the curriculum system that includes curriculum, instruction, and assessment, Table 1.1 is
provided. Table 1.1, Traditional versus Standards Based Academic Language, shows
the alignment between the more traditional terms and terms that apply in the standards based
environment. These terms may be helpful as you continueto read this text.
Some advocates of behavioral objectives seem comfortable with the notion that once the
expected learning outcomes (learning targets) are clearly specified, the curriculum has been
defined. From that point on instruction takes over. This view of curriculum as specification of
standardsorobjectives is quite different from the big concept ofthe curriculum as a plan, a pro-
gram, or a seguenceofcourses.
Inthistext,the official curriculumis perceived as a plan or programforall the experiences that the
learner encounters undertheinstructional leadership ofthe school or school district. This official curriculum
includes the curriculum objectives or standards that students are expected 10 master within a specific
grade level or content area, andare often those for which educators are held accountable through
various metrics. As curriculumis presented within the text, think
about the official curriculum and notall the extensionsor experiencesthat students mayhave
while moving throughtheir schooling or education. In practice, the official curriculum consists of a
number ofplans, in written form and of varying scope, that delineate the intended student learning outcomes.
The curriculum, therefore, may be a unit, a course, a sequence ofcourses, the
school’s or schooldistricts entire programofstudies—and maybe encounteredinside or outside
ofclass or school whenled bythe personnel of the school.
Mission or purpose
Curriculum goals Overarching idea
Curriculum objectives Standards
Instructional goals Essential question (big idea)
Instructional objectives Learning targets(short-term measurable outcomes)
Measures Successcriteria (evidence)
Assessments/tests Formative assessments(informalor formal check on progress towards
standard, goal, orlearning targetto inform instruction)
Summative assessment (measure of progress toward proficiency on a
standard, goal, orlearning target)
8 Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions
FIGURE 1.1
The Dualistic Model
Curriculum Instruction
Instruction |
Chapter 1 + Curriculum and Instruction Defined 9
o
B FIGURE 1.2
The Interlocking
Model
INTERLOCKING MODEL. When curriculum and instruction are shown as systems entwined, an
interlocking relationship exists. No particular significance is given to the position of instruction
or curriculum in either of the versions of this model presented in Figure 1.2. The samerelation-
ship is implied no matter which element appears on the left or the right. These models clearly
demonstrate an integratedrelationship between these two entities. The separation of one from the other would
impacteffectiveness of both.
Curriculum developers would findit difficult to regard instruction as paramount to curricu-
lum and to determineteaching methodsbefore program development. Nevertheless, someinstruc- tors may
proceedasif instruction is primary by dispensing with advanceplanningofinstruction based on the
curriculum and byletting curriculum develop aslearning proceeds in theclassroom.
‘CONCENTRIC MODELS. The preceding models of the relationship between curriculum and
instruction reveal varying degreesof independence, from complete detachment to an interlock-
ing relationship. Mutual dependenceis the key feature of concentric models. Two conceptions of the
curriculum-instruction relationship that show one as the subsystem ofthe other can be seen
in Figure 1.3. Variations A and B both convey theideathat one ofthe entities occupies a super-
ordinate position while the otheris subordinate.
Concentric model A makes instruction a subsystem of curriculum, whichis itself a sub- system
of the whole system of education. Concentric model B subsumes curriculum within the subsystem
instruction. A clear hierarchical relationship is in both these models. Curriculum ranks aboveinstruction in
model A and instructionis predominant in model B. In model A,instruction
A B FIGURE 1.3
The Concentric Model
10 Part 1 + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions
FIGURE 1.4
The Cyclical Model
COMMONBELIEFS. As research findings add new insights onteaching and learning and as new
ideas are developed, beliefs about curriculum and instruction also undergotransformation. The
jghtness” or “wrongness” of concepts such as curriculum and instruction cannotbe established by an
individual or even by à group. Oneindex of “correctness”might bethe prevailing informed opinionat a
particular stage in history—a rather pragmatic but nevertheless a viable and defensible
position. Mosttheoreticians today appearto agree with the following comments.
+ Curriculum and instruction are related but different.
+ Curriculum andinstruction are interlocking and interdependent.
+ Curriculum andinstruction may be studied and analyzed as separate entities but cannot function in
isolation from one another.
Problems may be posedbythe dualistic conceptual modelof therelationship between cur-
riculum andinstruction, withits separation of the twoentities. With creation ofthe CCSS and each state's
specific implementation orvariation in standards, there is a trend towards the concentric model that
makes instruction a subsystem ofcurriculum with the curriculum standards being the driver. This the
case in many public school districts. Some curriculumdevelopers and design- ers are comfortable with an
interlocking model becauseit showsa closerelationship betweenthe twoentities with the feedback loop
that includes metrics ofstudent learning outcomesto inform revisions. Given the accountability for
student learning outcomes ofteachers and administrators
it may be that the cyclical modelhas advantages. With simplicity and clarity ofthe importance
uction |
Chapter 1 + Curriculum and Instruction Defined ⑪
of continuous improvementofboth curriculum and instruction informed byfeedback (data and evidence),
this model may hold the most promise for practitioners in roles that include orrelate to curriculum
development and design.
CURRICULUM AS A DISCIPLINE
In spite ofits elusive character, curriculumis a discipline or a majorfield ofstudy in higher
education and curriculum is then both a field within which people work and a discipline to be
taught. Graduate and undergraduate students may take courses in curriculum development,
curriculum theory, curriculumevaluation, secondary schoolcurriculum, elementary school cur-
riculum, middle school curriculum, community college curriculum, and—on fewer occasions—
university curriculum.
The Characteristics of a Discipline
To arrive at a decision as to whetheran area ofstudyis a discipline, the question might be raised,
“Whatarethe characteristics ofa discipline?” If the characteristics of a discipline can be spelled out, it
can be determined whetheror not curriculum is a discipline.
Discipline | Page 11
⑫ Part] + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions
FIGURE 1.5
Sources of the Curriculum Field
Technology
Communica-
tion
Philosophy Psychology
Subject =
Management
leadership. The fields of communications, supervision, systems, instructional technology, and digital design
are called on in the process of curriculum development. Knowledge from many
fields is selected and adapted by the professionals within the curriculum field.
The learner-centered curriculumas a concept draws heavily on whatis known about learn-
ing, growth, and development (psychology and biology), on philosophy (particularly from one
school of philosophy, progressivism), and on sociology. The essentialist curriculumborrows from
the areasof philosophy, psychology, and sociology, as well as the academic disciplines.
You might ask whether the field of curriculum contributes any knowledge of its own to
that borrowed from otherdisciplines. Certainly, a good dealofthinking and researchis going on in the
nameofcurriculum. New curricular ideas are being generated continuously, such asthose
emerging from social and political theories related to multi-culturalism and culturally relevant curriculum
and pedagogy (Wright, 2000). New ideas, whetherthey be character education, techni-
cal education, or Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, borrow
heavily from other disciplines.
Asthose who study educational leadership you will be familiar with an example from the field
ofsocial psychology. Generally accepted is the notionthat a curriculum changes only when
the people affected have changed. This principle, drawn from the field ofsocial psychology and
aD
Chapter 1 + Curriculum and Instruction Defined 13
applied in the field of curriculum development, was perhaps most dramatically demonstrated by
the Western Electric research studies conducted in the 1930s (Popham & Baker, 1970). In the
Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric in Chicago researchers discovered that factory employees assembling
telephonerelays were more productive whenthey were consulted and made to feel of value to the organization.
Making the employees feel important resulted in greater productivity than manipulating the physical
environment (e.g., lightingin the factory). Thefeeling of being
important to the research studies also created its ownaura, the so-called Hawthorne Effect, named for the
Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric. Because the feeling of being valued can in itself contribute to
motivation and productivity, this effectis one that researchers may discount, for it
can obscurethe hypothesized or realcausesfor change. However, the educational leader who is
aware of the HawthorneEffect may take advantage ofit to motivate students to engagein learning
andteachers to engage in collaboration to improveeffectiveness.
Aninstructional leaderis the person whoactsas a catalyst or agent for bringing about change
in effectiveness ofteachers and improvement in student learning outcomes by focusing on the creation of
an environment with the priority of learning (Hattie, 2009). How does the instructional leaderdo this? He or
she makes use of knowledge andskills from a number offields:
communicationtheory, leadership theory, organizational theory, psychology of groups, research,
and other areas. How does theinstructional leader help teachersto carry out the change once they have
subscribed to it? He or she applies principles and skills from leadership, professional
learning, knowledge of thestructure of disciplines, and from otherareas.
Consequently, the field of curriculum requires the use of an amalgamation of knowledge andskills from
many disciplines. That curriculum theory andpracticeare derived from other dis-
ciplines does notin any way diminish the importance ofthe field. The observation ofits derived
nature simply characterizesits essence. Curriculum’s synthesis of elements from many fields in some ways
makes it both a demanding and an exciting arena in which to work.
In a cyclical fashion, the derived discipline of curriculumin turn makesits own potent
impact onthe disciplines from which it is derived. Through curricular research, experimenta-
tion, and application, content areas are modified; learning theoriesare corroborated, revised, or rejected;
leadership and supervisory techniques are implemented or changed: and philosophical positions are
examined.
THEORETICIANS AND PRACTITIONERS. À discipline has its theoreticians and its practiti Certainly,
the field of curriculum has an array of people laboring in its name. Mention hasalready been made of
someofthe titlesthey go by: developers, digital designers, consultants, coordina-
tors, directors, and professors of curriculum, to name but a few. This text will include them under
the generic title of curriculumspecialist.
Curriculum specialists make a number ofdistinctive contributionsto their field. Specialists
know the typesofcurricula that have workedin the past, under what conditions, and with whom
successresulted. Since continuousimprovementis expected, specialists must be well grounded in
thehistorical development ofthe curriculum and must possess the capacity to use that knowledge
to help practitioners avoid historical pitfalls.
Curriculum specialists generate or help to generate new curriculum concept
capacity specialists draw on the past and conceive new arrangements, adaptationsof existing
approaches, or completely new approaches. Alternative forms ofschools, for example, are newer arrangements and
approaches for the same general goal of education.
While curriculum specialists are engaging in the process ofthinking beyond what
known, hoping to bring to light new theories; perhaps more curriculum specialists are morelikely
Discipline | Pag
14 PartI + The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions
to be experts in application oftheory and research. These experts know the techniques of cur- riculum
development that are mostlikely to result in higher achievement on the part of learners. They are familiar
with variations in the organizational patterns. Such experts must be not only
knowledgeable but also open to research-based innovationsthat give promise ofbringing about
higher achievement in learners.
CURRICULUM SPECIALISTS
Curriculum specialists often make a unique contribution bycreatively transforming theory and
knowledgeinto practice. Through their efforts a new approach, at first experimental, gradually becomes a
widespread practice after data gathering, analysis, and revision until the approach yields satisfactory
results. As students ofthe discipline of curriculum, they also examine and reexamine theory and knowledge
fromtheir field and related fields. Awareness of past successes
and failures elsewhere helps those who work in thefield of curriculum to chart directions for their
own curricula.
Curriculum specialists are in the best position to stimulate research on curricular problems.
Specialists carry out and encouragestudy of curricular problems, comparisonsof plans and pro- grams,
results of new patterns of curriculum organization, and the histories of curriculum experi- ments, to indicate
but a fewareas ofresearch. Specialists encourage the use ofresultsofresearch to continueefforts to
improve the curriculum.
While classroom teachers daily concern themselves with problems of curriculum and
instruction, the curriculum specialist is charged with thetask of providing leadership to adminis- trators
andteachers. Sincethere are manydifferenttypes of specialists in manydifferent locations, you will find it
difficult to generalize on their roles. Some curriculum specialists are generalists whose roles may
belimited to leadership in curricular or programmatic planning or whose roles may also encompass
instructional planning and decision making.
Somecurriculum specialists confine themselves to certain grade levels or contentareas, such as
elementary, middle, or secondary school; community college; special education; reading, science; early
childhood; and any contentarea that may be taught. What can be observed is that the rolesthe curriculum
leader plays are shaped by the supervising administrator,the school or school district needs, and by the
specialist himself or herself. At varying times,the curriculum specialist must be:
+ a digital designer,
* a humanrelations expert,
* atheoretician,
* adata analyst,
subject matter expert,
+ an evaluator,
* aresearcher, and
+ an instructor.
Curriculum Supervisors
Anadditional clarification should be made atthis point thatis, the relationship betweenthe roles
ofpersons designated as curriculum specialists and those persons who are called curriculum supervisors.
Depending upon the context the titles may be synonymous.
Chapter 1 + Curriculum and Instruction Defined 15
In this text, a curriculum supervisor is perceived as a specialist who worksin three domains:
instructional development; curriculum development: and teacherprofessional learning (Macdon- ald &
Leeper, 1965). When the supervisor works in thefirst two domains, he orsheis an instruc-
tional/curriculum specialist oris often referred to as an “instructional supervisor or coordinator”
(Macdonald & Leeper, 1965, pp. 5-6). Thus,the curriculum specialist is a supervisor, one with
morelimited responsibilities than a general supervisor, like a principal. Both the curriculum specialist and
the supervisor fulfill similar roles when they work with teachers in curriculum development and
instructional development, butthe curriculum specialist is not primarily con-
cerned with such activitiesas evaluatingteachers, which are more properly responsibilitiesofthe
generalsupervisors.
Role Variations
As with so many jobsin the field of education,difficulty arisesin attempting to draw firm lines that
apply under all conditions and in all situations. To understand morefully the roles and
functions ofeducational personnel, examine local practice. Teachers, curriculum specialists, and supervisors
all engage in activities to improve both curriculum and instruction. At times, their rolesare different and at
othertimestheirrolesare similar. These personnel, all specialistsin their own right, frequently trade
places to accomplish the task of improvementin learning outcomes.
Sometimesthey are one and the same person—theteacher who is hisor her own curriculum spe-
cialist and supervisor. Whatever the structure of leadership for the improvement of curriculum
and instruction, all teachers and all specialists must ultimately participate in this challenging task.
Because curriculum and instruction are the heart of schooling, all personnel participate in the
improvement ofcurricular offerings and how these offerings are implemented.
Chapter 3 will describe roles ofpersonnel involved in curriculum development, including
teachers, students, department chairs, lead teachers, team leaders, grade coordinators, administra-
tors, curriculum specialists, digital designers, supervisors, and stakeholders.
Summary
Curriculum and instruction are viewed as separate discussed. While all models havetheir strengths and
but dependent concepts. Curriculumis defined in a weaknesses, the cyclical model seems to have partic-
variety of ways by theoreticians. This text follows ular merit forits emphasis on the reciprocity between
the conceptof curriculum plan or program for the learning curriculum and instruction.
experiences thatthe learner encounters under thedirection of Planning should begin with the programmatic,
the school. Curriculum is guided by thatis, with curriculum decisions, rather than with
theobjectives and standards adopted by the school, instructional decisions. Appropriate planning begins
school district, or educational organization.
with the broad aims of education and proceeds through a
Instructionis perceived in these pages as the continuum thatleads to the most detailed
means for making the curriculum operational, thatis. the objectivesofinstruction.
techniquesthat teachers use to make the curricu- lum Curriculum is perceived as a discipline, albeit
accessibleto the learners. In short, curriculum is program a derived one that borrows concepts and principles from
andinstruction is method. many disciplines.
A number of models showing the relation- ship Many practitioners work in the field of cur-
between curriculum and instruction have been riculum, including specialists who make a career
16 Part! The Curriculum: Theoretical Dimensions
Application
1. Identify the foundations upon which your state, learning, there is not a national curriculum.
schooldistrict, or organization basedits curricu- Ascertain how one ofthe highly achieving coun- tries
lum. Investigate the influencesofthis curriculum globally develops and implements a unified
and their expertise in education, leadership, and curriculum. Compare the variables involved in the
learning. US and the country of your selection.
2. Unlike many entitiesthat are held up as exam-
ples for the US to emulate in terms of student
Websites
National Association of Secondary School Principals:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: principals.org
ascd.org
National Ass ciation of Elementary SchoolPrincipals: National Governors Association: nga.org Association for
naesp.org Middle Level Education: amle.org
References
Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin CommonCore State Standards Initiative. (2010). Supplemental
Company. information for Appendix A of commoncore state stan- dardsfor
Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (1935). Curriculum English language arts andliteracy: Newresearch ontext
development. New York, NY: American Book. complexity. Washington, DC: National Governors Association,
Clandinin, В. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher cur- riculum Council ofChief State School Officers.
maker. In P. W. Jackson, Handbook of research on curriculum: Рой, В. С. (1996). Instructor's manual with testsfor: Cur- riculum
project of the American Educational improvement: Decision making andprocess. (9th ed.).
Research Association. New York, NY: Macmillan. Boston, MA: Allyn €: Bacon.
Chapter 1 * Curriculum and Instruction Defined ⑰
Foshay, A. W. (2000). The curriculum: Purpose, substance, practice Oliver, A.L (1977). Curriculum improvement: À guide to problems,
(p. xv). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. principles, and process. New York. NY: Harper & Row.
Gagné. R. M. (1967). Curriculum research and the promo- tion of Ornstein, A. C.. & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum:
learning. in AERA Monograph Series on Evalu- ation: Foundations, principles, andissues (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Perspectives ofCurriculumEvaluation. No.1. p. Allyn & Bacon.
21. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Pinar, W. E. Reynolds, W. M.. Slattery. P., & Taubman. P.M. (1996).
Gay. G. (1990). Achieving educational equality through Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the studyof
curriculum desegregation. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(1). 61- historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New
62. York, NY: P. Lang.
Grumet, M. R. (1988). Bitter milk: Womenandteaching. Popham, W. J., & Baker, E. L. (1970). Systematic instruc- tion.
Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 Saylor, J. G., Alexander, W. M., & Lewis, A. J. (1981).
meta-analyses relating 10 achievement. New York, NY: Curriculumplanning forbetter teaching andlearning.
Routledge. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hicbowitsh, P. S. (2005). Designing the curriculum. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Huebner, D. (1976). The moribund curriculum field: Its wake Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (2007). Curriculumdevelop- ment:
and our work. CurriculumInquiry, 6(2), 156. Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NI:
Johnson, Jr. M. (1967 April). Definitions and modelsin cur- MerrilV/Prentice Hall.
riculum theory. Educational Theory, 17(2), 127-141. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and
Macdonald, J. B.. & Leeper, R. R. (1965). Theories of instruction. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress. Wiles, J..
instruction. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and & Bondi, J. (2007). Curriculum development: A guide to
Curriculum Development. practice. (Tth ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
McKiernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and imagination: Pro- cess Merill/Prentice Hall.
theory, pedagogy and actionresearch. London, England: Wright, H. K. (2000, June-July). Nailing Jell-O to the wall:
Routledge. Pinpointing aspects ofstate-of-the-art curricu- lum
theorizing. Educational Researcher, 29(5), 4-13.