Looking Backward to Go Forward: Toward a Kliebardian Approach to Curriculum Theory

IF 0.3 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Berkeley Review of Education Pub Date : 2019-01-04 DOI:10.5070/b88134612
Zachary A. Casey, Michael McCanless
{"title":"Looking Backward to Go Forward: Toward a Kliebardian Approach to Curriculum Theory","authors":"Zachary A. Casey, Michael McCanless","doi":"10.5070/b88134612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Author(s): Casey, Zachary A; McCanless, Michael J | Abstract: This paper analyzes the work of Herbert M. Kliebard, not only as a curricular historian, but also as a curricular theorist. We focus on his approach to studying the history of education and curriculum as a methodological framework for understanding the purpose of education. Next, we explore two important curricular events in the 1930s: The Eight-Year Study and the social studies textbooks of Harold Rugg. While the 1930s were markedly different from today, most notably in terms of the demographic and educational contexts of the United States, our analysis points to ways that educational scholars in the 21st century might mobilize more Kliebardian insights in their work. In both sections, we build from Kliebard’s discussion to explore ways in which massive poverty and economic precarity did not lead to the federal centralization of curriculum and school policy, but rather to a range of localized and radical curricular interventions and practices. We then draw from the sense of possibility at the core of Kliebard’s work to show that even in the face of seemingly commonsense responses to the growing poverty of school-aged youth, multiple opportunities for resistance remain. We conclude with future directions for curriculum theory and curriculum studies to carve out critical spaces where transgressional and transformational scholarship remain inherently possible.","PeriodicalId":42751,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5070/b88134612","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Berkeley Review of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5070/b88134612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Author(s): Casey, Zachary A; McCanless, Michael J | Abstract: This paper analyzes the work of Herbert M. Kliebard, not only as a curricular historian, but also as a curricular theorist. We focus on his approach to studying the history of education and curriculum as a methodological framework for understanding the purpose of education. Next, we explore two important curricular events in the 1930s: The Eight-Year Study and the social studies textbooks of Harold Rugg. While the 1930s were markedly different from today, most notably in terms of the demographic and educational contexts of the United States, our analysis points to ways that educational scholars in the 21st century might mobilize more Kliebardian insights in their work. In both sections, we build from Kliebard’s discussion to explore ways in which massive poverty and economic precarity did not lead to the federal centralization of curriculum and school policy, but rather to a range of localized and radical curricular interventions and practices. We then draw from the sense of possibility at the core of Kliebard’s work to show that even in the face of seemingly commonsense responses to the growing poverty of school-aged youth, multiple opportunities for resistance remain. We conclude with future directions for curriculum theory and curriculum studies to carve out critical spaces where transgressional and transformational scholarship remain inherently possible.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
回顾前进:克里巴德式的课程理论研究
作者:Casey,Zachary A;摘要:本文分析了赫伯特·克里巴德作为课程历史学家和课程理论家的工作。我们关注的是他研究教育史和课程的方法,以此作为理解教育目的的方法框架。接下来,我们将探讨20世纪30年代的两个重要课程事件:《八年学习》和哈罗德·鲁格的社会研究教科书。虽然20世纪30年代与今天有着明显的不同,尤其是在美国的人口和教育背景方面,但我们的分析指出,21世纪的教育学者可能会在他们的工作中调动更多克里巴尔式的见解。在这两节中,我们都以克里巴德的讨论为基础,探讨了大规模贫困和经济不稳定如何不会导致联邦课程和学校政策的集中,而是导致一系列本地化和激进的课程干预和实践。然后,我们从克里巴德作品的核心可能性感中得出结论,表明即使面对对学龄青年日益贫困的看似常识性的回应,抵抗的多重机会仍然存在。最后,我们为课程理论和课程研究开辟了未来的方向,在这些方向上,越轨和转型学术仍然是可能的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Berkeley Review of Education
Berkeley Review of Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊最新文献
A tale of two projects: YPAR in and out of school – bounded versus open inquiry A Revised GTCrit Framework: A Broadened Critical Lens for Gifted and Advanced Education Settings Nice to Whom?: How Midwestern Niceness Undermines Educational Equity Racial Control and Student Labor From Youth Activism to Youth-Powered Curriculum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1