03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Curriculum Leadership in Special Education: Navigating Horizontal and Vertical Power Channels in Individual and Collaborative Endeavours
Barry Morrissey, Fiona King, Seline Keating
Dublin City University, Ireland
Presenting Author: Morrissey, Barry
School leadership is regarded as fundamental in ensuring that children with special educational needs (SEN) experience success in school (Mac Ruairc, Ottesen and Precey, 2013). While there are many different facets to leadership in the school context, in the SEN field the literature predominantly focuses on the centrality of leadership for bringing about ‘inclusion’ broadly (Morrissey, 2021). The emphasis on how leadership can be leveraged specifically towards ‘universalizing curricula’ (Norwich and Lewis 2007, p. 127) or at the very least making curricula more accessible for children with SEN is almost negligible. This dearth of data on curriculum leadership in the SEN sphere is reflective of the wider research landscape in education with Harris, Jones and Crick (2020, p.1) finding that curriculum leadership is ‘less well developed’ than other conceptualisations of educational leadership. This paper aims to address this gap in the scholarship, with a particular emphasis on special schools as a context for practice.
Norwich’s (2010) theoretical framework for curriculum design underpinned this study, which formed part of a broader doctoral inquiry. As part of this framework, Norwich (2010, p.133) posits four basic ‘aspects’ as a structure for curricula:
- General principles and aims;
- Areas of learning (for example subject areas);
- Specific programmes of study;
- Teaching practices.
Modification to one or more of these aspects changes the accessibility level of the curriculum, in particular for those with SEN. Stemming from this, this paper aims to address the core question:
- What role does leadership play in complex curricular modification processes and how does this manifest itself to increase curricular accessibility?
A mandatory Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) curricular programme in Ireland is used as the vehicle to probe this area. While focused specifically on leadership, the paper explores curriculum enactment in a lateral way, with Shawer’s (2010) curriculum approaches interrogated for their relevance in the SEN sphere. Essentially, the paper examines whether special education teachers are curriculum transmitters, curriculum developers or curriculum makers and scrutinises the mediating function that leadership plays in each of these different curricular roles.
Although rooted in Ireland, this paper will interest scholars in other European jurisdictions given the dearth of data on curriculum leadership and its importance in making curricula accessible for those with SEN. Schools across the continent are embracing inclusive schooling – curriculum leadership is fundamental towards ensuring that curricula are accessible to all learners (Norwich, 2010). Furthermore, this paper will showcase how external inspection, as a key influencer, can impinge on how curriculum leadership is enacted. This adds significantly to the paper’s relevance from a European perspective, as teachers and schools across Europe are subject to greater levels of regulation in order to operationalise, at the micro level, curricula that are introduced at the macro level (Priestley et al., 2021). This paper offers insights into how that operationalisation process takes place at classroom level in relation to one particular curricular programme in Irish special schools.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis inquiry was situated in the qualitative domain and took the form of a multi-site embedded case study, with three special schools selected as cases – a Mild General Learning Disability School, a Moderate General Learning Disability School and a Severe-Profound General Learning Disability School. A non-probability, purposive sampling technique was utilised. There were four units within each case:
Documentary analysis of the school’s SPHE policy;
Interview with the principal teacher;
Interview with the Health and Wellbeing Coordinator (part of the In-School Management Team of the school);
Focus group of three or four teachers.
SPHE policies went through a rigorous linguistic and content analysis process, so that comparison could be made with the lived experiences of teachers in classroom-level curricular enactment. The recorded interviews with a cross-section of the teaching personnel (those who were in formal management positions and those who were not in formal management positions) facilitated an exploration of the extant ‘layers of positional leadership’ (MacBeath et al., 2018, p. 105) and their influence and interplay in relation to the curricular approach utilised. This enabled a probing of how curriculum leadership operated and how management and non-management leadership levels operated and dialogued within a broad framework. To enhance the trustworthiness of interview data, member-checking took place, with participants re-reading their interview transcripts to ensure that they accurately reflected their views (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011)
Data collected from the different units in each case were inputted to Nvivo data analysis software. Braun and Clarke’s (2021) updated step-by-step guide for thematic analysis was used to structure the qualitative analytical procedure. Data coding was used to ascribe category labels to each piece of data. The resulting codes were then separated on the basis of their substance. Some codes were removed from the dataset because they ultimately proved either irrelevant or insignificant to the research objective. Other codes were combined and/or renamed on the basis of the fully coded dataset that emerged. When the codes were reaggregated according to the key points they addressed, six themes emerged, which were developed and further refined to two overarching themes:
1. Curriculum Enactment
2. Curriculum Leadership
The predominant focus of this paper is on exploring the latter theme, although there is some overlap given the nature of the inquiry.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThis paper refines the definition of what curriculum leadership is in a special education context. The findings illustrate the fault lines and ‘interactions’ (Harris and DeFlaminis, 2016, p. 143) that exist between the ‘levels of leadership’ (Gronn, 2009, p. 381) when curriculum leadership is exercised through a distributed leadership framework. Two ‘premia’ are deduced from the data that inflate the curriculum leadership potential of those in possession of one or both:
1. The Principal Premium
The data illustrated that the formal positional status of the principals enabled them to exercise more influence over how the curriculum was enacted, in line with what the broader body of scholarship has established in respect of the power attached to the role (Lumby, 2016; King and Stevenson, 2017; Bush, 2018; Harris and Jones, 2018; MacBeath et al., 2018). The principal had the power to both cultivate and curtail teacher leadership depending on the organisational culture that he / she promoted in the school.
2. The Experience Premium
The more years’ experience that teachers had in special education, the more credibility it
provided them with in terms of the best curriculum approaches to adopt. This credibility brought influence among colleagues in terms of leading curriculum enactment at school-level. The data underscored how experienced teachers in the SEN sphere could utilise ‘horizontal’ relationships in school to channel their leadership potential over the curriculum (York‐Barr et al., 2005, p. 211), by adopting a dialogic approach (Nazareno, 2013).
It is clear that both promoted and unpromoted teachers have a key role to play in curriculum leadership and this research showcases how the promoted-unpromoted leadership balance is different in each school. The case schools here offer signposts as to the benefits and challenges that different balances effectuate, in terms of curriculum innovation.
ReferencesBraun, V. and Clarke, V. (2021) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage
Publications.
Bush, T. (2018) ‘Prescribing distributed leadership: is this a contradiction?’, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(4), pp. 535–537.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (2011) ‘Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE, pp. 1–20.
Gronn, P. (2009) ‘Leadership configurations’, Leadership, 5(3), pp. 381–394.
Harris, A. and DeFlaminis, J. (2016) ‘Distributed leadership in practice: evidence, misconceptions and possibilities’, Management in Education, 30(4), pp. 141–146.
Harris, A. and Jones, M. (2018) ‘The dark side of leadership and management’, School
Leadership & Management, 38(5), pp. 475–477.
Harris, A., Jones, M. and Crick, T. (2020) ‘Curriculum leadership: a critical contributor
to school and system improvement’, School Leadership & Management, 40(1), pp. 1–4.
King, F. and Stevenson, H. (2017) ‘Generating change from below: what role for leadership from above?’, Journal of Educational Administration, 55(6), pp. 657–670.
Lumby, J. (2016) ‘Distributed leadership as fashion or fad’, Management in Education, 30(4), pp. 161–167.
MacBeath, J., Johnson, G., Swaffield, S., Frost, D. and Dempster, N. (2018) Strengthening the Connections Between Leadership and Learning: Challenges to Policy, School and Classroom Practice. London: Routledge.
Mac Ruairc, G., Ottesen, E. and Precey, R. (2013) Leadership for Inclusive Education: Values, Vision and Voices. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Nazareno, L. (2013) ‘Portrait of a teacher-led school’, Educational Leadership, 71(2), pp. 50–54.
Norwich, B. (2010) ‘Dilemmas of difference, curriculum and disability: international perspectives’, Comparative Education, 46(2), pp. 113–135.
Norwich, B. and Lewis, A. (2007) ‘How specialized is teaching children with disabilities and difficulties?’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), pp. 127–150.
Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S. and Soini, T. (2021) Curriculum Making in Europe: Policy and Practice Within and Across Diverse Contexts. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
Shawer, S. (2010a) ‘Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), pp. 173–184.
York‐Barr, J., Sommerness, J., Duke, K. and Ghere, G. (2005) ‘Special educators in inclusive education programmes: reframing their work as teacher leadership’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(2), pp. 193–215.
03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Perspectives on Curriculum Change: An Overview Study for the Dutch Context
Nienke Nieveen1, Susan McKenney2, Adrie Visscher2, Susanne Spiele2, Ryan Wakamiya2
1Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e); 2University of Twente (UT)
Presenting Author: Nieveen, Nienke
This overview study has been commissioned by the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO) with the overall aim of collecting evidence for the design of a curriculum change strategy that aligns with the current review of the Dutch curriculum frameworks. This comprehensive review is taking place of all curriculum frameworks for all subjects and learning areas in Dutch primary and secondary education. The review has a twofold aim: (i) to provide a substantive update of and more coherence in and among the curriculum frameworks, and (ii) to offer clearer guidance and better support to teachers, school leaders and other stakeholders for curriculum enactment efforts in schools and classrooms.
To support the review process, our study sought answers to the following overarching research question: What fundamental tensions and trade-offs should be taken into account when designing a theory of change for the upcoming Dutch curriculum review? In order to answer this overall question, the following sub-questions have been posed:
SQ1: What are, in general, potentially effective (elements of) large-scale curriculum change processes in basic education (age 4-18 years)?
SQ2: How do, in general, large-scale curriculum change processes (in particular regarding integrated curriculum revisions) develop in basic education (age 4-18 years), both at the national level and at the school level?
SQ3: For the Netherlands, what are potentially effective interventions to promote and realize curriculum change in schools and classrooms?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe overview study consisted of a systematic literature review (SQ 1 and SQ 2) and (international) expert panels (SQ 3).
For the literature review- a search query was drafted based on the most important concepts of the research question, using a thesaurus to find synonyms in both English and Dutch. In total, 917 articles were identified. It was decided that the unit of analysis would be the curriculum reform. The final corpus included 86 studies that could be included in the systematic literature review, on nine reforms in nine countries: Australia, China, England, Finland, Indonesia, South Africa, Taiwan, Turkey, USA.
Each reform was first analyzed by two researchers and, upon consensus, summarized in poster format and a three-page snapshot of the context of the reform, the intentions, processes and outcomes of the reform and what the studies reveal about the reform.
Based on the country briefs, a list of overarching themes were identified has been developed. This was done by the full team of researchers together. All researchers read the materials and thought about any salient similarities or differences between two or more reforms. The team members first worked individually, followed by a share-out in which each team member wrote observations on the whiteboard, followed by an explanation. This led to a plenary discussion and a review of the themes.
The six themes that were identified based on the literature study and the cross case analysis, were presented to the experts in three expert panels. All experts were invited based on their track record and expertise regarding large-scale curriculum change. We explicitly asked the experts to give advice for the Dutch context.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsData analysis showed that most articles reported on small-scale mainly qualitative studies. As a main finding, we concluded that curriculum change as a social practice implies that all actors in the system need to take their responsibilities and achieve agency in the change process. This notion has several implications. In short: 1. Sense-making (need for system/holistic approach and time to build common vision and language); 2. Teacher professional development (teachers are creating, not implementing; need for a differentiated approach and teacher networks); 3. School leader professional development (facilitate curriculum making in schools, including vision-building and coherence-making); 4. Address (mis-)alignment (do not produce complexity by mis-aligned (support) initiatives; too much detail will take away responsibility); 5. Address (in-)equity (collect data in all schools and allocate resources according to needs); 6. Cyclical approach during the curriculum change process (invest in research program and feedback system that is responsive to problems).
The tentative theory of change needs to be understood against the background of the Dutch (policy) context and the comprehensive review of the curriculum frameworks for primary and secondary education.
ReferencesClarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967.
Coburn, C.E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335-397.
Goodlad, J.I., Klein, M.F., and Tye, K.A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their study. In J.I. Goodlad and Associates (Eds.), Curriculum Inquiry: The study of curriculum practice (pp. 43-76). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Greene, J. C. (2018). Logic models. In B.B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 990-994). SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781506326139
Jones, N. D. & Rosenberg, B.D. (2018). Program theory of change. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 990-994). SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781506326139
Kuiper, W., Nieveen, N., & Berkvens, J. (2013). Curriculum regulation and freedom in the Netherlands: A puzzling paradox. In W. Kuiper & J. Berkvens (Eds.), Balancing curriculum regulation and freedom across Europe. CIDREE Yearbook 2013 (pp. 139-162). Enschede: SLO.
Leat, D., Livingston, K. & Priestley, M. (2013). Curriculum deregulation in England and Scotland - Different directions of travel? In: W. Kuiper & J. Berkvens (Eds.), Balancing Curriculum Regulation and Freedom across Europe. CIDREE Yearbook, 2013 (229-248). Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
McKenney, S. (2017). Een infrastructuur voor de professionele groei van docenten. (Oratie). Enschede: Universiteit Twente.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D.A. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. The PRISMA Group.
Nieveen, N., Sluijsmans, L., & Van den Akker, J. (2014). Encouraging curriculum change in the Netherlands: The next episode. In F. Nyhamn & T.N. Hopfenbeck (Eds.), From political decisions to change in the classroom. CIDREE Yearbook 2014 (162-183). Oslo: The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World
Van den Akker, J. (2003). Curriculum perspectives: An introduction. In J. van den Akker, W. Kuiper, and U. Hameyer (Eds.), Curriculum landscapes and trends(pp. 1-10). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Curricular Narratives among Diverse Groups of Educators (Promoted Teachers, Unpromoted Teachers, Head Teachers) in a Scottish Local Authority
Qudsia Kalsoom, Carrie McLennan
University of Dundee, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Kalsoom, Qudsia;
McLennan, Carrie
The paper has tried to answer the following questions.
1) Do different groups of educators in a Scottish local authority differ in their curricular narratives?
2) Which factors influence educators’ curricular narratives?
The answers to these questions are important in order to understand the conditions (global, local, institutional, personal) that shape curricular narratives among different groups of teachers. Since teachers are the key players in curricular enactment (Alvunger et al., 2017), it is important to study their curricular narratives. The findings of this study have implications for teachers’ professional development in Scotland as well as other countries, especially where curricular standards focus on developing students’ competencies (abilities, skills, dispositions).
The past two decades witness an increased focus on learning skills in schools. This can be seen internationally, for example in OECD concept notes ‘OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 (OECD, 2019), ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ (2010) and ‘The Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities and Tertiary Education Strategy’, New Zealand (Ministry of Education, 2020). This new focus has led to a renewed discussion, in many parts of the world, on the purpose and content of curriculum (Priestley, 2011; Wheelahan, 2015; Young, 2008).
There is no consensus among curriculum scholars on the purpose of curriculum. Cheung and Wong (2002) argue that the purpose of the school curriculum is to “provide each student with intrinsically rewarding experiences that contribute to personal liberation and development. Integration of students’ affective domain (emotions, attitudes, values) with the cognitive domain (intellectual knowledge and abilities) is the top priority” (Cheung & Wong, 2002, p.227). On the other hand, Young (2014) sees the role of school curriculum beyond promoting well-being and human flourishing. He believes that well-being and human-flourishing can be promoted by the institutions of family and businesses (that do not have a curriculum). To him, the purpose of school curriculum is to provide all students access to powerful knowledge (Young, 2014), a knowledge that brings intellectual power to those who have access to it (Young, 2008).
Powerful knowledge has emerged as a key debate in curriculum theory in recent years. Contradictory to the knowledge of the powerful which is ahistorical and decontextualized, ‘social realism’ recognizes that knowledge is historical and “is produced within forms of sociality that are enduring and extensive in time and space and have their own distinctive structures, powers and limitations” (Moore, 2013, p.346). Knowledge-based curriculum impacts the content of school subjects whereas the curriculum rooted in student interests, or social demands (work skills, safety, values) involve content-free process (Yates & Miller, 2016). Subject-based curriculum is pivotal in generating powerful knowledge. Unlike everyday concepts, the concepts associated with a subject-based curriculum are not tied to specific contexts; rather they are linked to each other and the subject related theories (Young, 2013). Rooted in ‘social realist’ school within the sociology of education (Moore, 2013; Muller, 2022; Wheelahan, 2015; Young, 2013, 2014), this study explores narratives about curriculum purpose among different groups of educators.
Biesta et al. (2017) note that teachers’ talk of curriculum and pedagogy is influenced by a number of factors such as generation effect, responsibilities/ roles and trends in educational discourse. Our study further tries to understand the diversity of factors that shape educators’ curricular narratives. The study particularly explores if role diversity (headship role, principal teacher role, primary teacher role, secondary teacher role) and educators’ personal practical or professional knowledge shape curricular narratives. Biesta et al. (2017) label teachers’ personal practical knowledge as teachers’ ‘stock of knowledge’ and argue is “gained from a range of sources and experiences, including teachers’ ongoing engagement with the practice of teaching itself” (p. 38).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis qualitative study is a part of a larger project that intends to develop a framework to support schools in a Scottish local authority to engage with professional learning around curriculum. The study comprised 49 participants altogether. The findings presented at this stage of the bigger research project have come from the analysis of the interview transcripts of six head teachers, seven promoted teachers and seven unpromoted teachers. The participants professional experience varied from six months to 32 years in primary or secondary schools.
Instrumentation
The interview protocol was developed by the research team in the light of literature (Biesta et al., 2017; Priestley, 2011; Young, 2013) to explore participants’ curriculum narratives. “Narrative refers to thinking, knowledge, and finding meaning” (Shkedi, 2009). The protocol included questions about participants’ conceptions of curriculum, their understating of the relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, and influences on their understanding of curriculum. The interview also included questions about the role of the participant in the school, years of experience, and the school context (urban or rural) because teachers’ curriculum narratives are concerned with a teacher’s life-experiences (Shkedi, 2009). The interview protocol was finalized by the research team after detailed discussions. Interviewers asked prompting questions where needed.
Data Collection
The data collection started after the ethics approval from the University of Dundee. The names of the participants were suggested by the educational administration of the local authority (where the study was done). The participants were sent a participation request form to complete and a research information sheet. Participant interviews were scheduled in May 2022 and June 2022. On average, each interview lasted for 45 minutes. All interviews were held using secure Teams link. All interviews were transcribed for analysis.
Data Analysis
The data were analysed in four stages. In stage one, the research team collectively analysed two interview scripts and identified broad categories and sub-categories. In stage 2, the analysis further examined categories with the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to see if the data were supporting the category labels. Some changes in the sub-categories were made at this stage. In stage 3, more transcripts were analysed in the light of the identified categories. Some new categories also emerged over the course of the data analysis. All new categories were also included in the analysis. In stage four, a theoretical explanation about educators’ curricular narratives was constructed.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study shows that there are no clear differences in curricular narratives among educators (school heads, promoted teachers and unpromoted teachers) relating to the concept of a knowledge-based curriculum (Young, 2013). All groups talked about the importance of subject knowledge in some way. Some of them thought that more focus on subject-knowledge in secondary schools make the curriculum crowded and it is difficult to plan more student-centred activities. This finding resonates with Adolfsson’s (2018) finding with Swedish teachers. Only one head teacher explicitly talked about the importance of subject knowledge as ‘powerful knowledge’ and showed concern over dilution of knowledge in ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ (CfE).
Although all groups talked about development of skills as an important educational aim, unpromoted, early career teachers referred to skill development more as compared to experienced teachers. This finding is in line with Biesta et al.'s (2017) thoughts that lack of opportunity to experience and work through a series of policy- and practice-shifts lead to less opportunity to develop discursive ‘resources’. The experienced teachers, on the other hand, talked about developing students’ subject-knowledge as well as skills. Moreover, they compared CfE with the previous curriculum and inferred that although CfE has provided more flexibility and allowed more students’ choice, it is not always helpful in increasing students’ subject-knowledge and understanding.
The study further indicated that school context (urban or rural) also affects educators’ curricular narratives. The educators working in rural schools talked about local versus global knowledge and wider participation of the community. Professional dialogue with other colleagues has also emerged as an influential factor in developing curricular narratives among different groups of educators.
The study suggests a need for curriculum-focused professional learning opportunities for all the teachers, especially for the early career teachers to help them enhance their knowledge of curriculum and curriculum making.
ReferencesAdolfsson, C. H. (2018). Upgraded curriculum? An analysis of knowledge boundaries in teaching under the Swedish subject-based curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 29(3), 424-440.
Alvunger, D., Sundberg, D., & Wahlström, N. (2017). Teachers matter–but how?. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(1), 1-6.
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). Talking about education: Exploring the significance of teachers’ talk for teacher agency. Journal of curriculum studies, 49(1), 38-54.
Cheung, D., & Wong, H. W. (2002). Measuring teacher beliefs about alternative curriculum designs. The Curriculum journal, 13(2), 225-248.
Ministry of Education (2020). The Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP) & Tertiary Education Strategy (TES). https://assets.education.govt.nz/public/Documents/NELP-TES-documents/NELP-2020-Schools-and-kura.pdf
Muller, J. (2022). Powerful knowledge, disciplinary knowledge, curriculum knowledge: Educational knowledge in question. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 1-15.
OECD (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030: A Series of Concept Notes. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/OECD_Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf
Moore, R. (2013). Social realism and the problem of the problem of knowledge in the sociology of education. British journal of sociology of education, 34(3), 333-353.
Priestley, M. (2011). Whatever happened to curriculum theory? Critical realism and curriculum change. Pedagogy, culture & society, 19(2), 221-237.
Shkedi, A. (2009). From curriculum guide to classroom practice: Teachers’ narratives of curriculum application. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(6), 833-854.
Sottish Government (2010). Curriculum for Excellence. https://education.gov.scot/documents/All-experiencesoutcomes18.pdf
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Qualitative research. Grounded Theory; SAGE Publications Ltd.: New York, NY, USA.
Wheelahan, L. (2015). Not just skills: What a focus on knowledge means for vocational education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 750-762.
Yates, L., & Millar, V. (2016). ‘Powerful knowledge’ curriculum theories and the case of physics. The Curriculum Journal, 27(3), 298-312.
Young, M. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 32, 1–32
Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of curriculum studies, 45(2), 101-118.
Young, M. (2014). What is a curriculum and what can it do?. Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 7-13.
|
