Curriculum Theory

The field of curriculum studies emerged in the nineteenth century, after the initial wave of administrative concerns of the open free schools of the eighteenth century had passed. Throughout the nineteenth century, the theory of mental discipline dominated curriculum thought. Because, at this time, the mind was thought of as a repository for facts, teaching methods were based on repetition and memorization. The beginning of the twentieth century saw the mental discipline theory replaced by two threads of thought that would dominate pedagogical debates for the next one hundred years. One thread, that of progressivism or child centeredness, was largely supported by Francis Parker and John Dewey; the other, the social efficiency model, was proposed by behaviorists interested in the mechanics of learning. In the twenty-first century, two new trends have emerged. One is an outgrowth of progressive ideas that displays sensitivity to environmental factors, and students' individual differences and learning styles; the other is founded in technological conceptions of curriculum and shifts many educational services, communications, and course offerings to the web and other new technologies.

Keywords Common School; Mental Discipline; Progressivism; Project Method; Social Efficiency; Vocational Education

History

Curriculum in Colonial America (17th Century)

The history of curriculum theory in America goes back to the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony who passed the country's first compulsory education laws during the 17th century. The Puritans, following the lead of John Calvin, believed that curriculum ought to prompt "the intensive, rigorous, even empirical process" of self-examination aimed at "identify[ing] a purpose and meaning in life" (McKnight, 2006, p. 175). Children were taught to read and write in English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew so that they would be able to study religious texts and classical literature as well as fully participate in civic life as adults (Wegenast, 2006).

Though at the time the Puritan model was somewhat progressive, by today's standards it appears limited. Education was directed toward religious ends with the primary school texts consisting of the Bible and Days of Doom, Or, A Poetical Description of the Great and Last Judgment (Wigglesworth, 1867; originally published in 1662). Furthermore, the critical theories associated with the social sciences had not yet been developed (Cremin, 1970).

John Locke & the Movement Toward Free Open Schools (18th Century)

John Locke (1632-1704), a British philosopher of the empiricist school, helped support a shift away from Puritan educational practices with his influential book Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1902; first published 1693). In contrast to the Puritan's conception of education as a means of strengthening religious beliefs, he introduced the idea of knowledge as pleasure, as an end unto itself. He also proposed that empirical experiences are central to learning (Cremin, 1970). For example, Locke wrote that the best teachers are people who have had many experiences, for if a person has not had an experience, he or she cannot convey its true meaning to others.

The driving force of Locke's philosophy was rooted in his belief that a child is born as a tabula rasa, or blank slate, and therefore free from any preconditions that may influence his or her behavior or nature. Locke thought a child's character, belief structures, and relationships were all developed through repetition. These ideas resurfaced in nineteenth century theories of mental discipline and in early twentieth century behaviorist approaches to learning. Yet Locke also influenced schools of thought opposing mental discipline and behaviorism through his emphasis on experience and student enjoyment of learning.

Horace Mann & the Common School (19th Century)

Horace Man (1875-1955) coined the term “common school” to reflect the new movement toward taxpayer funded, free school networks for white boys from any means. The movement began around the turn of the nineteenth century and waned around the turn of the twentieth century. Mann, considered the founder of American education, was primarily a policymaker who believed that free education for all would help dissolve strict class boundaries and eliminate poverty (Cremin, 1951). A secretary of education, congressman, and university president, Mann built upon Locke's ideas about holistic, empirically grounded education and critical thought to reconceptualize the field of pedagogy. For example, he proposed the whole-word method of teaching reading as an alternative to the a-b-c, phonetic approaches of the times.

Common schools, though meant for all, were in actuality only attended by "children of the poor" (Tanner & Tanner, 1990, p. 33). These precursors to modern public schools were crude by today's standards: Up to eighty students of all abilities and ages were gathered in small one-room schoolhouses, and teachers were generally untrained and quickly transitioned into other jobs (Tanner & Tanner, 1990). During the time of the common school movement, there were "no stud[ies] of pupil abilities, social needs, interests, capacities, or differential training" (Cubberly, quoted in Pinar et al., 2004, p. 75), in large part because curriculum was not conceived of as more than the repetition and memorization of facts. These teaching methods were only reinforced by the environmental conditions challenging the common school movement (Manzo, 1999).

The teaching methods suggested by the theories of mental discipline, or faculty psychology, which dominated schools throughout the eighteenth century, were based on repetition and memorization. During this time, the mind was conceived of as a large repository for facts that were seen as "furniture" of the mind (Pinar et al., 2004). The aim of teaching, it was believed, was to transmit facts to students, an approach that largely overlooked comprehension.

Throughout the 19th century various defenses of the mental discipline approach were made. In 1828, for example, the Yale Report on the Defense of the Classics staunchly defended the approach as most effective to pedagogy. Charles Eliot (1834-1926), the president of Harvard University, was also a major proponent and defender of mental discipline. The influence of these mechanical approaches to learning can be seen within later movements of the twentieth century, such as theories of scientific management and social efficiency and, in the twenty-first century, within the quantitative research movement (Cremin, 1976).

Progressivism vs. Social Efficiency (Early 20th Century through the 1970s)

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, increased regard for and study of the sciences led to the formation of the "field" of curriculum theory and development (Pinar et al., 2004). Two threads of thought came to dominate twentieth century pedagogical debates. One, that of progressivism, or "child centeredness," was largely propelled by Francis Parker (1837-1902); the other, social efficiency model, was put forth around the same time by behaviorists interested in the mechanics of learning.

Social Efficiency

In large part, Edward L. Thorndike (1874-1949) is credited with the turn toward social efficiency and with articulating the need for scientifically grounded theories of pedagogy. A behaviorist, Thorndike conceived education as a form of "human engineering" that can only "profit by measurements of human nature and achievement" (Thorndike, 1922, p. 1). Social efficiency models regarded schools as places for the production of useful, competent individuals who could effectively serve societal needs. Rooted in science, these models were inherently "technological," or systematized, linear processes. These models were much more amenable to scientific investigation than progressive models, and they were able to support an educational research movement based on behaviorist understandings and technological constructions (Pinar et al., 2004).

Franklin Bobbitt (1876-1952), an early exponent of scientifically grounded education, mobilized the field with his publication of The Curriculum: A Summary of the Development Concerning the Theory of Curriculum in 1918. Bobbitt believed that students should be trained in practical tasks that will prepare them for careers. The Curriculum proposed that task analysis be used to first determine what tasks workers commonly perform, and that the curriculum should be designed to efficiently teach students how to perform these tasks (1918). This theory led to an increase in vocational education programs, as these programs were designed to train students in the specific skills needed to perform specific jobs. Later in the century, as curriculum theory changed, this approach was criticized for perpetuating economic inequalities as well as racial and gender stereotypes (Pinar et al., 2004).

W. W. Charters (1875-1952) expanded upon Bobbitt's work and proposed a procedure for curriculum development published initially in 1923 as Curriculum Construction. Charters wrote that to develop curriculum, one must first observe daily "adult" tasks and derive educational objectives from these tasks. One must then create specific and appropriately sequenced activities and tasks to realize these objectives. Lastly, one must select the most important tasks that can realistically be taught in schools (1923).

Ralph Tyler (1902-1994) further solidified the systematization of curriculum development in his Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, first published in 1949. Tyler proposed the now commonly used method of planning lessons according to quantifiable, observable goals, objectives, activities, and evaluation techniques (1949). Tyler's legacy is reflected in the modern educational emphasis on standardization, efficiency, and accountability.

Progressivism

Countering this movement toward social efficiency was progressivism, which is commonly associated with Francis Parker, John Dewey (1859-1952), and William Heard Kilpatrick (1871-1965).

Francis Parker, a staunch critic of Charles Eliot and faculty psychology, regarded schools as "communities of scholars," an idea that later encouraged "the collaboration of teachers across grade levels" and discourse as a means to forming equitable, meaningful educational experiences (Pinar et al., 2004, p. 84). Parker wrote that the school should be "a model home, complete community, and embryonic democracy" (1894, p. 450), and paved the way for Dewey, whose most significant contribution to curriculum theory was his conception of the school as a democracy. Dewey believed students should be allowed to ask questions, guide conversations, and participate in decisions about curriculum topics and methods. His views on democracy in education grew to include issues of cultural diversity (Fallace, 2012). Dewey's democracy inspired Heard Kilpatrick's "project method" of curriculum development. The project method conceptualized curriculum as various communal, collaborative activities inspired by environmental and societal factors (Kilpatrick, 1918).

Progressivism was overshadowed by scientific conceptions of curriculum during most of the twentieth century because of the economic concerns, technological improvements, and scientific discoveries that supported the social efficiency model. Threads of both social efficiency and progressivism persisted throughout the twentieth century to form the basis of two more contemporary approaches to curriculum.

Further Insights

Curriculum Theory & Development Today (1970s to the Present)

The field of curriculum theory underwent a "crisis" as it was restructured during the 1970s (Wraga & Hlebowitsh, 2003; Pinar et al., 2004; Tanner & Tanner, 1990). Following the upheaval of the student protests, the civil and women's rights movements, and the resulting increase in federal oversight of education equality issues, the 1970s saw curriculum theory taking stock of itself (Manzo, 1999). These conversations led to the crystallization of two opposing theoretical movements that inform current curriculum theory discussions.

One movement displays sensitivity to environmental factors and to students' individual differences and learning styles; the other shows an increased reliance on new technologies like computer-based instruction, or online communications and course offerings.

Critical Theory

Many of today's educational researchers use critical theory to explore the power structures inherent to the political and social institutions within which schools, classrooms, and instructional methods are embedded. These researchers make use of various qualitative interpretive methods to explore students' and teachers' experiences in the classroom, and probe individuals' identities and the use of language in curriculum.

Critical theory is a method inspired by Karl Marx (1818-1883) and later expanded upon by thinkers such as Michel Foucault (1926-1984) and Jurgen Habermas (1929-). The method aims to change society by enabling individuals to recognize, critique, and overcome the various political and social institutions that inhibit their freedom; severing its ties with Marxism in favor of more democratic leanings, the theory maintains that all people should have the power to shape and change decisions that affect their lives. Critical theorists in education generally concern themselves with how racial, gender, religious, and political issues affect the creation of democratic classrooms, schools, and school districts (Held, 1980). Critical theorists tend not to propose methods of curriculum development, but rather point to ways of understanding classroom dynamics, power structures, and hierarchical organizations.

These interpretive theorists use a variety of qualitative methods to approach these experiences and relationships. These methods involve phenomenology, autobiographical and biographical analyses, and comparative studies. These approaches to understanding curriculum aim to appreciate individual differences and the dynamics between people and within groups, as well as recommend methods by which to foster communication, integrative and embodied learning, and holistic understandings (Sherman & Web, 1988). Critics of interpretive theory argue for a move in curriculum from a focus on the learner to the traditional object of education: knowledge (Young, 2013).

Technology-Based Instruction

An opposing movement, inspired by early efficiency theorists and by new technological developments, has also surfaced within the past few decades. The movement toward standardization and efficiency has supported a resurgence in linear, systematic approaches of instruction, most notably through technology-based instruction (Heck, 2004).

Federal oversight of education has dramatically increased since the early twentieth century. Initially, local teachers and schools were responsible for curriculum development and implementation. However, during the economically strenuous times of World War I and of the Great Depression, states were compelled to increase funding for education and oversee fund distribution. Correspondingly, schools were called on to demonstrate efficient and effective use of these funds. Since the start of the twenty-first century, federal oversight of states' educational systems has increased even more. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires students to demonstrate subject proficiency on standardized tests in order for their schools to receive federal funding. Though NCLB has been criticized by many scholars as detrimental to student integration of knowledge and to critical thinking ability, it has persisted at the federal policy level (Sunderman & Kim, 2007). Polikoff (2012) looked at data from thousands of teachers to see if their instruction has aligned with NCLB standards; findings indicated some alignment.

The researchers in this technological approach to education conceive knowledge as collections of discrete, quantifiable facts, and expect that students simply organize, process, and analyze data. From this viewpoint, the aim of education is to make students into large repositories of facts. Teaching methods are linear and strive for efficiency; they break down tasks into manageable parts and teach students to perform these tasks in a given order (Roosevelt, 2006). As such, scientific perspectives and technology have been instrumental in the development of curricula within this approach.

Programmed Instruction

This approach bears similarities to programmed instruction, which was developed by behaviorist psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904-1990). Skinner's method teaches material by first breaking it down into minute parts, determining the most important information, then sequentially ordering this information for maximal learning. Influenced later through the field of artificial intelligence, programmed instruction's effects can be noted in the "back to the basics" movement's reliance on the disassembling of material into manageable parts (Jardine et al., 2003), frequent quantitative testing, and linear approaches to pedagogy. Programmed instruction is the foundation upon which modern computer-based instruction schemas have been based (Pinar et al., 2004).

Computer-based instruction can loosely be sorted into three categories: administrative tasks (such as keeping records and posting assignments and class notes), teaching about computers, and teaching with computers (Pinar et al., 2004). Computers can teach through the use of drills, surveys, games, quizzes and other evaluations, and tutorials. In many cases, computers can be more efficient than pen-and-paper approaches for drills, practice, and tests.

Many for-profit computer- and web-based educational services and products have appeared on the market since the move toward technology-based learning. The numbers of vocational schools that offer online degrees and websites that charge for access to teaching plans, as well as the amount of gaming and educational software, have mushroomed since the late 1990s.

Educational theorists and policy makers are working to reconciling these two approaches to curriculum, but economic and political conditions make it likely that their interests will continue to conflict for some time (Pinar et al., 2004).

Terms & Concepts

Common School: A precursor to modern public schools, common schools were a phenomenon of the eighteenth century when children were first required to attend school and students flooded the educational system. There was no concern for curriculum development in the common school, as most of the effort dedicated to schools at the time was in the form of administrative support.

Mental Discipline: Also known as faculty psychology, mental discipline is a theory of education that conceptualizes the mind as a muscle that needs to be trained through repetition and memorization. These methods of teaching dominated the nineteenth century and formed the foundation for later theories of scientific management.

Progressivism: An educational movement born in early the twentieth century and developed by John Dewey and Francis Parker, among others. As a child-centered movement that emphasized experiential activities, the movement stood in contrast to the more popular social efficiency movement.

Project Method: A theory of teaching proposed by William Heard Kilpatrick and based on the idea that all major life episodes are "projects" on which students can work together to develop understanding.

Social Efficiency: An educational movement of the early twentieth century supported by W. W. Charters and Ralph Tyler. It aimed to develop curriculum that would be measurably useful to students and tended to focus on teaching students the practical skills they would need to function in their adult lives.

Vocational Education: "Formal preparation for semiskilled, skilled, technical, or paraprofessional occupations usually below the baccalaureate degree" (ERIC Thesaurus)

Bibliography

Beauchamp, G. (1957). Curriculum planning and development in historical perspective. Review of Educational Research, 27 , 241-249.

Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Bobbitt, F. (1924). The new technique curriculum making. Elementary School Journal, 25 , 45-54.

Bobbitt, F. (1924). What understanding of human society should education develop?. Elementary School Journal, 25 , 290-301.

Bobbitt, F. (1925). Difficulties to be met in local curriculum-making. Elementary School Journal, 25 , 653-663.

Charters, W. (1909). Methods of teaching developed from a functional standpoint. Chicago: Row, Peterson.

Charters, W. (1923). Curriculum construction. New York: Macmillan.

Cremin, L. (1951). The American common school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cremin, L. (1970). American education: The colonial experience, 1607-1783. New York: Harper & Row

Cremin, L. (1976). Public education. New York: Basic Books.

Crosser, P. (1940). Ideologies and the American school. Social Forces, 19 ,195-200. Retrieved November 8, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13582267&site=ehost-live

Consumers Union Education Series. (1995). Captive kids: Commercial pressures on kids at school. Yonkers: Consumers Union Education Services.

Cunningham, P. (2002). Progressivism, decentralisation and recentralisation: Local education authorities and the primary curriculum, 1902-2002. Oxford Review of Education, 28 (2/3), 217-233. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6895294&site=ehost-live

Dodson, D. (1957). Factors influencing curriculum development. Review of educational research, 27 , 262-269.

Edelman, M. W. (2005). The state of America's children. Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund. Eggleston, E. (1901). The transit of civilization from England to America in the seventeenth century. New York: D. Appleton.

ERIC Thesaurus. (1966). Vocational Education. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&portlet_thesaurus_1_actionOverride=%2Fcustom%2Fportlets%2Fthesaurus%2FgotoDetail&_windowLabel=portlet_thesaurus_1&portlet_thesaurus_1term=Vocational+Education&portlet_thesaurus_1pageNumber=1&_pageLabel=Thesaurus

Fallace, T. (2012). Race, culture, and pluralism: The evolution of Dewey’s vision for a democratic curriculum. Journal Of Curriculum Studies, 44, 13-35. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=71679422&site=ehost-live

Goodlad, J. (1981). Curriculum development beyond 1980. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 3 , 49-54.

Heck, R. (2004). Studying educational and social policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Henson, K. (2003). Foundations for learner-centered education: A knowledge base. Education, 124 , 5-16. Retrieved October 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11046646&site=ehost-live

Herbst, J. (2004). The Yale Report of 1828. International journal of the classical tradition, 11 , 213-231. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18518305&site=ehost-live

Jardine, W., Clifford, P., & Friesen, S. (2003). Back to the basics of teaching and learning: Thinking the world together. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Johnson, T. (Ed.). (2002). Historical documents in American education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19 , 319-335.

Kilpatrick, W. (1925). Foundations of method: Informal talks on teaching. New York: Macmillan.

Klein, M. (1992). A perspective on the gap between curriculum theory and practice. Theory Into Practice, 31 , 191-197. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5199684&site=ehost-live

Levinsen, K. (2007). Qualifying online teachers’ communicative skills and their impact on e-learning. Education & Information Technologies, 12 , 41-5.

Locke, J. (1902). Some thoughts concerning education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Manzo, K. (1999). The state of curriculum. Education Week, 18 , 21-27. Retrieved October 13, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2150386&site=ehost-live

Mason, R. & Steers, J. (2006). The impact of formal assessment procedures on teaching and learning in art and design in secondary schools. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 25 , 119-133. Retrieved November 8, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20588833&site=ehost-live

McKnight, D. (2006). The gift of a curriculum method. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 8 (1/2), 171-183. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23965550&site=ehost-live

Molnar, A., & Garcia, D. R. (2005). Empty calories: Commercializing activities in America's schools. Tempe: Arizona State University.

Null, W. (2004). Social efficiency splintered: Multiple meanings instead of the hegemony of one. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, 19 , 99-124. Retrieved October 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11801482&site=ehost-live

Oliver, M., & Conole, G. (2003) Evidence-based practice and e-learning in higher education: Can we and should we? Research Papers in Education, 18 , 385-397. Retrieved November 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11985091&site=ehost-live

Parker, F. W. (1883). Notes of talks on teaching. New York: E. L. Kellogg.

Parker, F. W. (1894). Talks on pedagogics. New York: E. L. Kellogg.

Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubam, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.

Polikoff, M. S. (2012). Instructional alignment under No Child Left Behind. American Journal of Education, 118, 341-368. Retrieved December 18, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=74207498&site=ehost-live

Quincy, J. (1860). The history of Harvard University. Boston: Crosby, Nichols, Lee.

Roosevelt, G. (2006). The triumph of the market and the decline of liberal education: Implications for civic life. Teachers' College Record, 108 , 1404-1423. Retrieved November 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=21194465&site=ehost-live

Saylor, J. (1954). The curriculum: Organization and development. Review of Educational Research, 24 , 204-213.

Sherman, R., & Webb, R. (1988). Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods. New York: Routledge.

Sunderman, G. & Kim, J. (2007). The expansion of federal power and the politics of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers College Record, 109 , 1057-1085.

Thorndike, E. (1904). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. New York: Teachers College Press.

Thorndike, E. (1923). Measurement in education. In G. M. Whipple (ed.), Twenty-first yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 1-9). Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wegenast, C. K. (2006). The practice of fear and trembling: Religious education for youth and children in the Congregational Way. International Congregational Journal, 6, 105-121. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23423110&site=ehost-live

Wigglesworth, M. (1867). The day of doom: Or, a poetical description of the great and last judgment with other poems. New York: American News.

Wraga, W., & Hlebowitsh, P. (2003).Toward a renaissance in curriculum theory and development in the USA. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35 , 425-437. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10466638&site=ehost-live

Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45, 101-118. Retrieved December 18, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86729155&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Beauchamp, G. (1957). Curriculum planning and development in historical perspective. Review of Educational Research, 27 , 241-249.

Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Charters, W. (1923). Curriculum construction. New York: Macmillan.

Cremin, L. (1951). The American common school. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cremin, L. (1976). Public education. New York: Basic Books.

Consumers Union Education Series. (1995). Captive kids: Commercial pressures on kids at school. Yonkers, NY: Consumers Union Education Services.

Herbst, J. (2004). The Yale report of 1828. International journal of the classical tradition, 11 , 213-231. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18518305&site=ehost-live

Johnson, T. (ed.). (2002). Historical documents in American education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19 , 319-335.

Locke, J. (1902). Some thoughts concerning education. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Manzo, K. (1999). The state of curriculum. Education Week, 18 , 21-27. Retrieved October 13, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=2150386&site=ehost-live

Molnar, A., & Garcia, D. R. (2005). Empty calories: Commercializing activities in America's schools. Tempe: Arizona State University.

Null, W. (2004). Social efficiency splintered: Multiple meanings instead of the hegemony of one. Journal of Curriculum & Supervision, 19 , 99-124. Retrieved October 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=11801482&site=ehost-live

Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubam, P. (1995) Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.

Roosevelt, G. (2006). The triumph of the market and the decline of liberal education: Implications for civic life. Teachers' College Record, 108 , 1404-1423. Retrieved November 9, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=21194465&site=ehost-live

Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1990). History of the school curriculum. New York: Macmillan.

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wraga, W., & Hlebowitsh, P. (2003). Toward a renaissance in curriculum theory and development in the USA. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35 , 425-437. Retrieved October 12, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10466638&site=ehost-live