Abstract
This paper offers a critique of a paper by Wraga and Hlebowitsh in the Journal of Curriculum Studies (2003) for narrowness of vision, repetition of already‐familiar material, irrelevance, a retreat into the academy, reductionism, and ultimate sterility as an approach to moving forward the fields of curriculum theory and development. Curriculum discourse should be marked by richness, diversity, discordant voices, fecundity, multiple rationalities, and theories, and should be touched by humanity and practicality in a hundred thousand contexts. To replace outworn but convenient labels and to advance the field, curriculum theory must catch the untidy but authentic lived experiences of curricularists of every hue, draw on emergent disciplines outside education, and touch major issues in everyday life.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
