Abstract
Doctoral curriculum seminars are important contexts to engage educators in reflective practice for transformation of thought and practice. Thus, a semester-long curriculum and instruction doctoral seminar course in an urban mid-western university was used to study a group of educators’ qualitatively differing conceptions of curriculum. As part of the assignment, all twelve educators maintained a self-reflective journal to explore their and their peers’ evolving conceptions of curriculum. Based on journal recordings, they submitted two reflective papers, each five pages long. Thus, for this research study, twenty-four papers were collected and subjected to phenomenographic analysis. Phenomenography is a qualitative approach which depicts what and how people within the same community of practice experience, perceive, conceptualize, and understand a particular phenomenon. Based on educators’ reflections, three descriptive categories of curriculum were depicted, all focusing on student learning. The study implied that twenty-first-century curriculum theorists, as part of their task, should engage educators to reflect on curriculum related to student learning; document, interpret, and represent educators’ voices on curricular issues; and become part of their curricular lives as they explore and question curriculum for their professional growth.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Akerlind, G. (2008). A phenomenographic approach to developing academics’ understanding of the nature of teaching and learning. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,13(6), 633–644.
Aoki, T. (2003). Postscript c. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 453–457). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new taylorism: Standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies,43(1), 25–45.
Bellack, A. A. (1969). History of curriculum thought and practice. Review of Educational Research,39(3), 283–292.
Berger, P. L., & Luekmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NJ: Anchor.
Bradbeer, J. (2004). Undergraduate geographers’ understandings of geography learning and teaching: A phenomenographic study. Journal of Geography in Higher Education,28(1), 17–34.
Caswell, H. L. (1966). Emergence of the curriculum as a field of professional work and study: Precedents and promises in the curriculum field. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cornbleth, C. (2008). Climates of opinion and curriculum practices. Journal of Curriculum Studies,40(2), 143–168.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cunningham, T., Gannon, J., Kavanagh, M., Greene, J., Reddy, L., & Whitson, L. (2007). Theories of learning and curriculum design key positionalities and their relationships. Dublin Institute of Technology [Online]. Available at http://level3.dit.ie/html/issue5/tony_cunningham/cunningham.pdf.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. J. (2000). Curriculum forms: On assumed shapes of knowing and knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies,32(6), 821–845.
Dillon, J. T. (2009). The questions of curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies,41(3), 343–359.
Doll, W. E. (1972). A methodology of experience. In D. Trueit (Ed.). (2012), Pragmatism, post-modernism, and complexity theory: The “fascinating imaginative realm” of William E. Doll, Jr. (pp. 49–65). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Doll, W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Doll, W. E. (2002). Beyond methods. In D. Trueit (Ed.). (2012), Pragmatism, post-modernism, and complexity theory: The “fascinating imaginative realm” of William E. Doll, Jr. (pp. 81–97). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Doll, W. E. (2003). Modes of thought. In D. Trueit (Ed.). (2012), Pragmatism, post-modernism, and complexity theory: The “fascinating imaginative realm” of William E. Doll, Jr. (pp. 103–110). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Doll, W. E. (2005). Keeping knowledge alive. In D. Trueit (Ed.). (2012), Pragmatism, post-modernism, and complexity theory: The “fascinating imaginative realm” of William E. Doll, Jr. (pp. 111–119). New York: Taylor and Francis.
Ebenezer, J. V., & Fraser, D. (2001). First year chemical engineering students’ conceptions of energy in solution process: Phenomenographic categories for common knowledge construction. Science Education,85, 509–535.
Hlebowitsh, P. (2005). Generational ideas in curriculum: A historical triangulation. Curriculum Inquiry,35(1), 73–87.
Hurren, W. (2003). Auto’-geo’-carto’-graphia’ (a curricular collage). In W. Hurren & E. Hasebe-Ludt (Eds.), Curriculum inter-text: Place/language/pedagogy (pp. 111–121). New York: Peter Lang.
Kliebard, H. (1968). The curriculum field in retrospect. In P. W. F. Witt (Ed.), Technology and the curriculum (pp. 68–84). New York: Teachers College Press.
Krull, E. (2003). Hilda Taba (1902–1967). Prospects,33(4), 481–491.
Latta, M., & Kim, J. (2011). Investing in the curricular lives of educators: Narrative inquiry as pedagogical medium. Journal of Curriculum Studies,43(5), 679–695.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2012). Towards transformation of knowledge and subjectivity in curriculum inquiry: Insights from Chen Kuan-Hsing’s “Asia as method”. Curriculum Inquiry, 42(1), 153–178.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Macdonald, J. B. (1971). Curriculum theory. Journal of Educational Research,64(5), 196–200.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marton, F., & Tsui, A. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory,40(1), 4–18.
Norman, R. (2003). Whispers among places: Teaching and writing in-between past, present and future. In W. Hurren & E. Hasebe-Ludt (Eds.), Curriculum inter-text: Place/language/pedagogy (pp. 243–258). New York: Peter Lang.
Patary-Ching, J., & Roberson, M. (2002). Misconceptions about a curriculum-as-inquiry Framework. Language Arts,79(6), 498–505.
Petrina, S. (2004). The politics of curriculum and instruction design/theory/form: Critical problems, projects, units, and modules. Interchange,35(1), 81–126.
Pinar, W. F. (1977). The re-conceptualization of curriculum studies. A paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York City.
Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (2014). International handbook of curriculum research (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Pinar, W. F., & Grumet, M. R. (1976). Toward a poor curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction. New York: Peter Lang.
Rasmussen, H. (2012). Wrestling with data. Instructional Leadership,33(5), 46–49.
Ropo, E., & Autio, T. (2009). International conversations on curriculum studies: Subject, society, and curriculum. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishing.
Schecter, B. (2011). “Development as an aim for education”: A reconsideration of Dewey’s vision. Curriculum Inquiry,41(2), 250–266.
Schwab, J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry,13(3), 239–265.
Schwab, J. J. (2013). The practical: A language of the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 591–621. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.809152.
Sears, J. T., & Marshall, D. (2000). Generational influences on contemporary curriculum thought. Journal of Curriculum Studies,32(2), 199–214.
Sohoni, D., & Petrovic, M. (2010). Teaching a global sociology: Suggestions for globalizing the U.S. curriculum. Teaching Sociology,38(4), 287–300.
Trueit, D. (Ed.). (2012). Pragmatism, post-modernism, and complexity theory: The “fascinating imaginative realm” of William E. Doll, Jr. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Tyler, R. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weenie, A. (2008). Curricular theorizing from the periphery. Curriculum Inquiry,38(5), 545–557.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Westbury, I. (2005). Reconsidering Schwab’s “practicals”: A response to Peter Hlebowitsh’s “generational ideas in curriculum: A historical triangulation”. Curriculum Inquiry,35(1), 89–101.
Whitehead, A. N. (1967). The aims of education and other essays. New York: The Free Press (Original publication, 1929).
Wood, L., Ebenezer, J., & Boone, R. (2013). Effects of an intellectually caring model on urban African American alternative high school students’ conceptual change and achievement. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00021d.
Wraga, W., & Hlebowitsh, P. (2013). Toward a renaissance in curriculum theory and development in the USA. Journal of Curriculum Studies,35(4), 425–437.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ebenezer, J., Harden, S., Sseggobe-Kiruma, N., Pickell, R., Hamdan, S.M. (2019). A Phenomenography of Educators’ Conceptions of Curriculum: Implications for Next Generation Curriculum Theorists’ Contemplation and Action. In: Hébert, C., Ng-A-Fook, N., Ibrahim, A., Smith, B. (eds) Internationalizing Curriculum Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01352-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01352-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01351-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)