- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
This paper investigates the problem of ‘curriculum’ in subjectfocused inquiry. It explores, what appears to be, the ambivalent relationship between curriculum inquiry as a distinct field of research, and the study of school subjects (Englund 2015). The paper will focus on studies into school History education as its case. If the existence of a special interest group (SIG) in the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE)—Australia’s peak ‘general’ body for educational research—represents a meaningful organisational unit for educational research in Australia, then the absence of a generic SIG for curriculum inquiry at AARE presents a clear justification for exploring curriculum scholarship within specific subject-area domains (which do exist as SIGs). It is acknowledged, of course, that the historical formation of the Australian Curriculum Studies Association (ACSA) may be the reason for there being no generic curriculum SIG in AARE. The reason for selection here of the case of History education research specifically is mostly autobiographic, given that this is the academic subject domain in which I have pursued my own curriculum inquiries. Though one might also expect History educators to be sensitive to the historical development of their research field/s, and thus have something to say about the field of curriculum inquiry. Certainly, the concerns expressed in this paper, and the vignettes I share, are part of my autobiographical journey as a ‘curriculum scholar’ (including the ambivalences I have experienced) writing, supervising, and examining in the field of (History) curriculum studies. These autobiographical examples are deliberate, signalling my own sympathies for the reconceptualist agenda in curriculum inquiry, and its well-known ‘definition’ of curriculum as the course of one’s educational experience.
disciplining curriculum inquiry Engagement with curriculum studies, curriculum inquiry or curriculum theory, as a research field with its own history and disciplinarity was uneven in the theses examined. While the majority comfortably located themselves in the domainspecific literature of History education (or an allied field), the engagement with the curriculum inquiry field varied, and was absent at the Masters and Professional Doctorate level. If disciplinarity is important to the advancement of curriculum studies, as Pinar (2007) argues, then this is something to be addressed. As a snapshot of contemporary History curriculum studies in Australia, this study suggests an ambivalent relationship between the subject-discipline and curriculum inquiry, at least until the PhD level. In Pinar’s (2007) terms, this revealed an over-emphasis on ‘horizontality’ or the analysis of ‘present circumstances’ including ‘the social and political millieus’ (p. xiv), and a neglect of ‘verticality’ or the ‘intellectual history of the discipline’ through which its disciplinarity is/was formed (p. xiii). This raises the question about what we understand as curriculum inquiry or curriculum theorising. If pedagogy can be thought of as the process of knowledge production (Lusted 1986), and curriculum is concerned with problems of reproduction and representation (Green 2018), then a major function of curriculum inquiry is to theorise processes of knowledge production and organisation, or disciplinarity itself, and without this dimension, it might be better to be described by some other signifier.