03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Curriculum Making across Sites of Activity in VET: a Review of the Research in Sweden
Daniel Alvunger
Linnaeus University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Alvunger, Daniel
This paper introduces and offers an analytical framework for systematic research reviews and analyses of curriculum in policy and practice, applied on Swedish research on vocational education and training (VET) over the last 20 years. VET is a sprawling, interdisciplinary and eclectic research field. Following the debates on the ‘curricular turn’ towards what is referred to as 21st century skills curricula (Priestley & Sinnema, 2014), VET has been a recurring theme in discussions within the field of curriculum studies over the last decades (Bathmaker, 2013; Boutseleng-Allais & Shalem, 2018; Hordern, 2014; Kemmis & Green, 2013; Muller & Young, 2019; Wheelahan, 2015).
In recent years, scholars of curriculum – myself included – have explored constructive ways of grappling with questions regarding curriculum in policy and practice by viewing curriculum as multi-layered social practices. From that point of view teachers are considered as makers—and not deliverers—of curriculum together with other actors in their contexts (Doyle, 1992; Priestley et al. 2021). The analytical framework for the research review in this paper draws from an understanding of curriculum making across intertwined ‘sites of activity’, which seeks to expand beyond institutional models and conceptions of curriculum (Priestley et al, 2021):
- On the supra site of activity, curriculum making occurs through transnational curricular discourse generation, policy borrowing and lending, policy learning mediated through actors like the OECD, World Bank, UNESCO and the EU.
- National governments and curriculum agencies develop curriculum policy frameworks and legislation to establish agencies and infrastructure on the macro site of activity. These processes of interpretation and formulation of curriculum might be influenced by, for example, actors on the supra site or the micro site.
- Depending on the character of the education system, national governments and curriculum agencies might act on the meso site of activity. However, on this site we commonly find actors such as district authorities, textbook publishers, curriculum brokers, subject-area counsellors, and expert teachers. Common activities comprise production of guidance, leadership of and support for curriculum making and production of resources.
- Official curriculum documents are products of interpretation and translation. When adapted to local contexts in schools on the micro site of activity, they are again transformed and recontextualised in cycles of interpretation through school level curriculum making, programme design and lesson-planning by principals, senior leaders, middle leaders and teachers.
- In classrooms – the nano site of activity – teachers and students negotiate and produce curriculum events via daily pedagogic transactions.
The metaphor of curriculum making as what actors do is helpful in many ways. Firstly, it embraces perspectives and conceptual distinctions between the Anglo-American curriculum tradition and the northern and continental European tradition of Bildung-centred didactics (Hopmann, 2007; Klette, 2007). Secondly, it allows for seeing beyond institutional levels and instead focusing on the specific texture and granularity of processes and actors on sites of social activity across education systems (Alvunger et al., 2021). Thirdly, with the focus on practices associated with the curriculum, it provides an analytical tool for studying the complexity of VET. Against this backdrop, I will use curriculum making as social practice as developed by Priestley et al (2021) to explore and discuss potential gaps in Swedish VET curriculum research.Three sets of questions are asked: Which dominating sites of activity, actors and processes emerge in Swedish research on VET curriculum making? What are main themes and emphases in the research? What potential gaps can be identified and how may these inform future research?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe methodological approach is a qualitative systematic research review with an integrative and interpretative purpose and research design (Gough et al, 2017). The process followed four steps, starting with a broad sample of empirical data regarding Swedish VET curriculum research through searches for relevant publications in national and international research data bases SwePub, JStor and Google scholar using for example the search words (both in Swedish and English) ‘vocational education and training’ (yrkesutbildning/yrkesundervisning), ‘vocational didactics’ (yrkesdidaktik), ‘VET curriculum’, ‘vocational learning’, ‘vocational students’, and ‘vocational teachers’. The first open search resulted in over 1800 posts. Besides the search words, relevance criteria were set up to limit the number of publications. This implied that publications focusing on socio-economic factors and conditions, labour market and financial matters, class, gender and ethnicity without any connection to education policy, teaching, learning and assessment were ruled out. Publications before the year of 2000 were removed (these were few) and this narrowed down the sample to 405 publications. In the second step, relevant publications were selected based on a review of title, abstract and a limitation to Sweden as context. In this phase, comparative publications and where one or more countries other than Sweden were mentioned were included. This rendered a total of 73 publications. The third step in the process consisted by further readings of publication abstracts to sort the publications based on their focus on sites of activity. The final step was a close reading and content analysis (Bryman, 2018) of the publications, consisting of a clustering of themes. By applying the framework of sites of activity, the literature on VET curriculum making in Swedish research over the past 20 years was mapped and categorised. In this phase, I employed the research questions for this paper, searching for dominating sites of activity, actors and processes, significant relationships between sites of activity, main themes and emphases in the research and the potential gaps that could be identified.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe sites of activity emerging as the most common in Swedish research on VET curriculum making over the entire period are the macro and micro sites of activity. It is possible to see that considerable attention has been placed on the nano site of activity, not least during the last five to seven years. An important observation is that the sites of activity and their associated processes, actors and ideas in no way exclusively are limited but rather merge and relate to one another. This shows the sometimes fluent and porous boundaries between the sites and the multi-layered social practices through which education is structured, enacted and evaluated, regardless of we are talking about policymaking arenas and national agencies or schools and teachers. Frequent connections are between the macro and micro sites, exploring themes such as work-based learning in policy and practice, apprenticeship, a strong actor-focus on VET teachers and their meaning-making of the national curriculum, employability, and school – work transitions, policy implications for social stratification and access to knowledge. The relationships between the macro and supra sites of activity are generally focused on comparative studies and institutional and policy/content-related issues rather than actor-oriented perspectives. At the micro site of activity, VET teachers’ beliefs, practices, and school and workplace learning are highlighted. The nano site comprises of classroom and ethnographic studies, student (vocational) identity and ‘becoming’, norms on gender, strategies for learning, experiences of teaching and assessment, and subject-integrated teaching. It becomes evident that ideas, actors, and processes on the meso site of activity only comprise a very small part of the research. In this respect, there is a potential gap to be explored, not least regarding how local curricula is made concerning the influence of representatives from companies, trade organisations and other associations.
ReferencesAlvunger, D., Soini, T., Philippou, S., & Priestley, M. (2021). Conclusions: Patterns and trends in curriculum making in Europe. In M. Priestley, D. Alvunger, S. Philippou, & T. Soini (Eds.), Curriculum making in Europe: Policy and practice within and across diverse contexts (pp. 273–293). Emerald.
Bathmaker, A.M. (2013) Defining ‘knowledge’ in vocational education
qualifications in England: an analysis of key stakeholders and their constructions of knowledge, purposes and content, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 65:1, 87-107, DOI: 10.1080/13636820.2012.755210
Boutseleng-Allais & Shalem, Y. (2018) (Eds) Knowledge, curriculum and preparation for work. Brill.
Bryman, A. (2018). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. [Social Research Methods] (3rded). Liber: Stockholm.
Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum, pp. 486–516. New York: Macmillan.
Gough, D.; Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. 2nd ed. Sage.
Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109–124.
Hordern, J. (2014). How is vocational knowledge recontextualised?, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 66:1, 22-38.
Kemmis, R.B., & Green, A. (2013). Vocational education and training teachers’
conceptions of their pedagogy. International Journal of Training Research, 11(2),
101–121.
Klette, K. (2007). Trends in research on teaching and learning in schools: Didactics meets classroom studies. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 147–160.
Muller, J. and Young, M. (2019) ‘Knowledge, power and powerful knowledge re-visited’. Curriculum Journal, 30 (2), 196–214.
Priestley, M., Alvunger, D., Philippou, S., & Soini, T. (2021). Curriuclum Making: A Conceptual Framing. In M. Priestley, D. Alvunger, S. Philippou, & T. Soini (Eds.), Curriculum making in Europe: Policy and practice within and across diverse contexts (pp. 1–27). Emerald.
Wheelahan, L. (2015). Not just skills: What a focus on knowledge means for vocational education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 750–762.
03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Negotiating a Life Skills Curriculum with Vocational Education Students and their Teachers
Esther Geurts1,2, Rianne P. Reijs1,2, Hélène H. M. Leenders3, Maria W. J. Jansen1,2, Christian J. P. A. Hoebe1,2
1Maastricht University, The Netherlands; 2Public Health Service South Limburg, The Netherlands; 3Fontys University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands
Presenting Author: Geurts, Esther
Introduction – Although the concept of ‘student voice’ has gained in popularity in recent years, the majority of studies continue to position students as passive recipients of education developed by others (Pinter, Mathew & Smith, 2016). Indeed, “while the curriculum supposedly exists to serve the interests of learners, their preferences, if sought at all, are marginalised and their voices are mostly silent in curriculum making” (Brooker & Macdonald, 1999, p.84). Rather, the curriculum should be created through a systematic and purposeful collaboration between teachers and students, in which the latter are afforded opportunities to shape and develop the aims and content of their education (Brooker & Macdonald, 1999; Enright & O’Sullivan, 2010; Guadalupe & Curtner-Smith, 2020; Oliver & Kirk, 2015). Our objective is to better meet the needs and wishes of (vulnerable) vocational education students by including these students and their teachers in planning, acting/observing and reflecting on the life skills curriculum. The following questions will be answered: (1) How and when do (vulnerable) vocational education students participate in curriculum negotiation?, (2) What are relevant factors that influence the implementation of curriculum negotiation activities in this context? and (3) What is the impact of participating in curriculum negotiation activities on (vulnerable) vocational education students’ personal development and school connectedness?
Methods – Participatory Action Research was selected as the methodological and theoretical framework. This study was conducted with two classes of a large vocational education institution in the south of the Netherlands. Class 1 consisted of 12 students (17-20 years old) and their teacher. Class 2 consisted of 15 Syrian students (17-19 years old) and their teacher. The first round of data collection took place between June 2022 and January 2023. A second round will start in February 2023 in which the number of participating classes will be expanded. Students were asked to devise, develop and carry out a lesson for their peers. The following methods were used: participant observation, taking field notes, researcher journal entries, critical reflections and focus group discussions with students and interviews with teachers. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used for thematic content analysis (Davis, Campbell, Hildon, Hobbs & Michie, 2015; Michie et al., 2005). In our case, the TDF contributed to establishing those factors that influence the implementation of curriculum negotiation activities as well as reflecting on the impact on students’ development and their school connectedness.
Results – As we are still in the process of collecting data, the results and conclusions are preliminary. We expect to have the final results and conclusions ready this Summer. The methodology allowed students to be the driving force during the planning and acting/observing phase. Each group of students co-created and made decisions about for example content, activities, location and speakers for their own lesson. Some relevant factors that influenced implementation were teacher competences, knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities and relationship between teacher and students. Students gained knowledge and practised skills while planning, developing and carrying out their own lesson, Moreover, while participating in the lessons developed by their peers, they got into contact with topics that interested them. Also, students’ motivation, participation and engagement increased. They also gained more insights into what it entails to design an informative lesson. Students found it difficult to come up with activities which were interactive and engaging as many of them only had previous experience with lessons which are predominantly instructional and one-directional.
Conclusions – Future research should assess whether this methodology would also be suitable for other subjects as well as in different school contexts. Also, more insight is needed which examines if such methodologies can fit within existing educational structures.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedStudy design – Participatory Action Research was selected as the methodological and theoretical framework. It can be described as an iterative process of planning, acting/observing and reflecting (Rodríguez & Brown, 2009). Its objectives are “to produce knowledge and action directly useful to a group of people” as well as “to empower people at a deeper level through the process of constructing and using their knowledge” (Nieuwenhuys, 2004, p.210).
Participants and setting – This study was conducted with two classes of a large vocational education institution in the south of the Netherlands. Class 1 consisted of 12 students (17-20 years old) and their teacher. Class 2 consisted of 15 Syrian students (17-19 years old) and their teacher.
Data collection – The first round of data collection took place between June 2022 and January 2023. A second round will start in February 2023 in which the number of participating classes will be expanded. The planning phase started with brainstorm session to come up with topics. After dividing these topics among groups of two or three students, they received the following assignment: to devise, develop and organise a lesson for their peers. A further three to four sessions were spent on this task. During the acting/observing phase each group carried out their own lesson for their peers. Numerous methods were used in the reflecting phase. Participant observation involved the first author writing field notes describing the activities and content that occurred during each session as well as classroom interactions. These were complemented with researcher journal entries. Each student-led lesson was concluded with a critical reflection together with the students. Both the planning and acting/observing phase ended with a focus group with each class as well as interviews with both teachers.
Data analysis – The transcripts and notes were coded and analysed using Atlas.ti. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used for thematic content analysis (Davis, Campbell, Hildon, Hobbs & Michie, 2015; Michie et al., 2005). It consists of 14 domains: knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities, optimism, emotions, social/professional role and identity, social influences, beliefs about consequences, reinforcement, intentions, goals, memory, environmental context and resources, and behavioural regulation. In our case, the TDF contributed to establishing those factors that influence the implementation of curriculum negotiation activities as well as reflecting on the impact on students’ development and their school connectedness.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAs we are still in the process of collecting data, these conclusions are preliminary. We expect to have the final results ready this Summer. We developed a methodology based on lessons learnt from previous literature as well as from our own experiences with working with vocational education students. This methodology allowed students to be the driving force during the planning and acting/observing phase. Each group of students co-created and made decisions about for example content, activities, location and speakers for their own lesson. Some relevant factors that influenced implementation were teacher competences, knowledge, skills, beliefs about capabilities and relationship between teacher and students. The students positively looked back on participating in curriculum negotiation activities concerning the life skills program. They gained knowledge and practised skills while planning, developing and carrying out their own lesson. Moreover, while participating in the lessons developed by their peers, they got into contact with topics that interested them. Also, students’ motivation, participation and engagement increased. They also gained more insights into what it entails to design an informative lesson. Students found it difficult to come up with activities which were interactive and engaging as many of them only had previous experience with lessons which are predominantly instructional and one-directional.
Future research should assess whether this methodology would also be suitable for other subjects as well as in different school contexts. Also, more insight is needed which examine if such methodologies can fit within existing educational structures. Lastly, the impact of such curriculum negotation initiatives on citizenship should be examined.
ReferencesBrooker, R., & Macdonald, D. (1999). Did we hear you?: Issues of student voice in a curriculum innovation. Journal of curriculum studies, 31(1), 83-97.
Davis, R., Campbell, R., Hildon, Z., Hobbs, L., & Michie, S. (2015). Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health psychology review, 9(3), 323-344.
Enright, E., & O'Sullivan, M. (2010). ‘Can I do it in my pyjamas?’Negotiating a physical education curriculum with teenage girls. European Physical Education Review, 16(3), 203-222.
Guadalupe, T., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2020). ‘It’s nice to have choices:'influence of purposefully negotiating the curriculum on the students in one mixed-gender middle school class and their teacher. Sport, education and society, 25(8), 904-916.
Michie, S., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Lawton, R., Parker, D., & Walker, A. (2005). Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. BMJ Quality & Safety, 14(1), 26-33.
Nieuwenhuys, O. (2004). Participatory action research in the majority world. In: Frase S, Lewis V, Ding S, Kellett M, and Robinson S (eds): London: SAGE.
Oliver, K. L., & Kirk, D. (2015). Girls, gender and physical education: An activist approach: Routledge.
Pinter, A., Mathew, R., & Smith, R. (2016). Children and teachers as co-researchers in Indian primary English classrooms. ELT Research papers, 16(03).
Rodríguez, L. F., & Brown, T. M. (2009). From voice to agency: Guiding principles for participatory action research with youth. New directions for youth development, 2009 (123), 19-34.
03. Curriculum Innovation
Paper
Knowledge-Based Curriculum Integration: Potentials and Challenges for Teaching and Curriculum Design
Mikko Niemelä
University of Helsinki, Finland
Presenting Author: Niemelä, Mikko
This presentation explores what it means to adopt a knowledge-based approach to curriculum integration and examines the kinds of conditions set by knowledge integration with respect to teaching and curriculum design. The research question is: What kind of conditions knowledge sets for curriculum integration and how these conditions can be acknowledged in curriculum making? The presentation is based on Niemelä’s (2022a) doctoral thesis but looks beyond the thesis to outline concrete ideas for curriculum innovation.
In this presentation, curriculum integration refers to the integration of educational knowledge or to the building of an interdisciplinary curriculum with the objective of making learning more holistic. Key questions pertaining to curriculum integration include how to differentiate between and integrate knowledge within and across the boundaries of school subjects. However, school subjects have often been claimed to contradict curriculum integration because the subjects seemingly fragment the curriculum. Certain approaches to inquiry learning or project-based learning aim at transdisciplinary curriculum integration in which the boundaries of school subjects are considered as boundaries for holistic learning. In turn, this presentation aims to reason why the disciplines of knowledge matter for curriculum integration and how the disciplines are vital for building an interdisciplinary curriculum.
The argumentation of the presentation leans on three published papers (Niemelä, 2021, 2022b; Niemelä & Tirri, 2018) and makes an overarching conclusion based on them. Two of the research papers are theoretical, while the other applies quantitative empirical methods. The studies identify three major conditions affecting curriculum integration. The first study presents curriculum integration as a challenge for teachers because it expands the demands of teacher knowledge. The second study points to the subject-matter specific character of curriculum integration, meaning that not all subjects can be equally integrated with one another. Given that curriculum integration creates challenges for teachers and is subject-matter specific, the third study suggests that it needs to be addressed more clearly as an issue concerning the organisation of educational knowledge in the written curriculum.
Two theoretical frameworks are used to examine the conditions of knowledge-based curriculum integration. First, to study the requirements of teacher knowledge and how they change when curriculum is integrated, Lee Shulman’s (1986, 2015) construct of pedagogical content knowledge is applied. Then, to examine why knowledge matters at the level of written curriculum, the presentation draws on discussions about powerful knowledge in education initiated by Michael F.D. Young and Johan Muller (2016). These two theoretical frameworks serve in a mutually complementary way to assess both the level of teaching and that of curriculum design.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis presentation contributes to developing curriculum theory from the perspective of curriculum integration. It formulates an argument for expanding the focus of the questions concerning integration of knowledge from the classroom to the level of the intended curriculum. This presentation joins the discussion initiated by Young and Muller (2016) on the role of boundaries in curriculum making. Young and Muller have described in length why the boundaries between disciplinary knowledge and everyday knowledge and between the school subjects are essential. They have been open for the idea of boundary-crossing but have not developed this idea fully. This presentation elaborates why boundary maintenance and curriculum integration do not necessarily contradict.
Young and Muller’s thinking is much influenced by Bernstein’s (2000) sociology of knowledge. Bernstein has analysed boundary maintenance and boundary-crossing especially with the concepts of classification and framing of educational knowledge. Other important theoretical sources of the presentation include the previous knowledge-based conceptions of curriculum integration developed by Hirst (1974) and Pring (1976) as parts of the so-called forms of knowledge discussion in Britain. Both expressed curriculum integration as an important aim in curriculum making, but explored the conditions different forms of knowledge put to boundary-crossing. Hirst stressed the role of well-structured coherent curriculum. Pring, in addition to that, underlined how disciplinary modes of thinking can be made pedagogically accessible from the viewpoint of the everyday life of the students.
Many scholars have recently called that curriculum theory is in crisis, because its focus on the issues of power, identity and culture has distanced it from the concrete questions of curriculum design (Apple, 2018; Connelly & Xu, 2010; Deng, 2018; Priestley, 2011; Young & Muller, 2016). In addition, the recent focus on the development of skills or competences has not paid enough attention to the role of knowledge in teaching and learning. The discussion on curriculum integration is a good example of this tendency. It has often been presented as a way to deconstruct power relations reconstructed by the school subjects and their specific interest groups (see e.g. Young, 1971). To address the lack of attention on curricular knowledge and on the questions of its organisation, this presentation redevelops the theory of knowledge-based curriculum integration.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe major claim of this presentation is that separate school subjects and curriculum integration are not opposing poles, but rather comprise the basic elements of teaching and curriculum design. The knowledge-based approach reveals that integrating educational knowledge is essential to the formation of school subjects and to the design of the curriculum as a coherent whole. Because curriculum integration increases the demands on teachers’ work and integration is subject-matter specific, it needs to be grasped more explicitly as an issue concerning the organization of knowledge on the level of the written curriculum.
Many alternatives to organize knowledge in curricula have been presented during the history of modern schooling. The models are attempts to handle the dynamics of drawing and crossing the boundaries of educational knowledge (see Tanner & Tanner, 2007). Klafki (1991) has presented a prospective curriculum model that is built around discipline-based subjects and epoch-typical key problems that integrate approaches from different subjects. This presentation concludes with an updated form of Klafki’s model that is connected with the United Nations (2015) current goals for sustainable development. The proposal is tentative and its chances for success would be improved if the curriculum design process were actualized in the form of interdisciplinary work that enables disciplinary experts to map the most powerful boundary-crossing points (see Schwab, 1978).
ReferencesApple, M. W. (2018). Critical curriculum studies and the concrete problems of curriculum policy and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 685–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1537373
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Connelly, F. M., & Xu, S. (2010). An overview of research in curriculum inquiry. In B. McGraw, E. Baker, & P. Peterson (Eds.), Elsevier International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed., pp. 324–334). Elsevier.
Deng, Z. (2018). Contemporary curriculum theorizing: crisis and resolution. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1537376
Hirst, P. H. (1974). Knowledge and the curriculum. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Klafki, W. (1991). Grundzüge eines neuen Allgemeinbildungskonzepts. Im Zentrum: Epochaltypische Schlüsselprobleme. In Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik: Zeitgemäẞe Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik (2nd ed., pp. 43–81). Beltz Verlag.
Niemelä, M. A. (2021). Crossing curricular boundaries for powerful knowledge. Curriculum Journal, 32(2), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.77
Niemelä, M. A. (2022a). Knowledge-Based Curriculum Integration: Potentials and Challenges for Teaching and Curriculum Design. University of Helsinki.
Niemelä, M. A. (2022b). Subject Matter Specific Curriculum Integration: A Quantitative Study of Finnish Student Teachers’ Integrative Content Knowledge. Journal of Education for Teaching, 48(2), 228–240. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1989288
Niemelä, M. A., & Tirri, K. (2018). Teachers’ Knowledge of Curriculum Integration: A Current Challenge for Finnish Subject Teachers. In Y. Weinberger & Z. Libman (Eds.), Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development (pp. 119–132). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75870
Priestley, M. (2011). Whatever happened to curriculum theory? critical realism and curriculum change. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 19(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2011.582258
Pring, R. (1976). Knowledge and Schooling. Open Books.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). The Practical: Translation into Curriculum. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education: Selected Essays (pp. 365–383). University of Chicago Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (2015). PCK: Its genesis and exodus. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (pp. 3–13). Routledge.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice (4th ed.). Pearson.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826190123.ap02
Young, M. F. D. (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education. Collier-Macmillan.
Young, M. F. D., & Muller, J. (2016). Curriculum and the Specialization of Knowledge. Routledge.
|
