Compare and contrast two different views of curriculum thought and relate them to your own perception of curriculum practice.
Identify the underlying assumptions of these two views and your own assumptions of curriculum practice (i.e. What is considered
important knowledge and why? What are the purposes of curriculum? Why certain subject/ learning areas are chosen?)
Your essay should consider the following:
a. A critical examination of the literature covering both particular conceptions of curricula
b. Examples of where (i.e. which nations) these kinds of curricula are evident and an examination of the similarities and
differences and the possible reasons for them
c. A critical appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in these curriculum approaches particular focussing on which
students these kinds of curricula serve best and those they serve the least or even disadvantage.
d. Your conclusion on how you would incorporate these ideas, or parts of them, into your own curriculum practice.
the maximum word count is 2200
I need Table of contents
The referencing style is APA 6th Ed., I attached the guide of the referencing style.
Resources:
Essential texts
The required textbook(s) for this unit are:
l Marsh, C. J. (2009). Key concepts for understanding curriculum (4th Edition). New York, NY, USA:Routledge
Other resources:
Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2009). The unintended, pernicious consequences of “staying the course” on the United States’ No Child Left Behind
policy. International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership. 4 (6), 1 – 13.
Apple, M.(2013). Knowledge, power, and education: The selected works of Michael W. Apple. New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. (1980). Analysing determinations: Understanding and evaluating the production of social outcomes in schools. Curriculum
Inquiry, 10(1), 55-75.
Christie, C.A. & Fierro, L.A. (2010). Program Evaluation. In E.Baker, B.McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education
(3rd Ed.) (pp.706-712). Elsevier.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of the ‘No Child Left Behind’. Race, Ethnicity and
Education. 10 (3), 245 – 260.
Eisner, E. (1979). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. & Vallance, E. (eds). (1974). Conflicting conceptions of the curriculum. Berkley, California:
Fusarelli, L.D. (2004). The potential impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity and diversity in American education. Educational
Policy, 18 (1), 71 – 94.
Glatthorn, A.A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B.M. & Boschee, B.F. (2012) Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation,
(3rd Edition). SAGE.
Gorur. R. (2011). ANT on the PISA trail: Following the statistical pursuit of certainty. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 43 (1), 76- 93. DOI:
10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00612.x
Gorur, R. (2014). Towards a sociology of measurement in education policy. European Educational Research Journal. 13 (1). 58 – 72. DOI:
10.1177/0895904803260025
Gorur, R. (2014). Producing calculable worlds: Education at a glance. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Vol. ? (?),1 – 18.
DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2015.974942
Hopman, S. T. (2003). On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 17 (4), 459 – 478.
Kennedy, K.J. (2010). School-based curriculum development for new times:a comparative analysis. In E, Hau-fai Law & N. Nieveen
(Eds).Schools as curriculum agencies: Asian and European Perspectives on school-based curriculum development (Chapter 1, pp. 3 –
20).Rotterdam. Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [Available at – http://www.sensepublishers.com/media/907-schools-as-curriculumagencies.
pdf ]
Lee, V. & Zeldin, D. (1982). Planning in the curriculum. Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton and Open University.
Levin, B. (2012). System-wide improvement in education, Education Policy Series, 13, Paris/Brussels: International Academy of Education/
UNESCO.
Lundgren, U.P. (2009). Evaluation and educational policymaking. In K.E. Ryan & J. Bradley Cousins (Eds.), SAGE international handbook of
educational evaluation (Chap. 28, pp.501 -510). Thousand Oaks:SAGE Publications Inc.
Marsh, C.J. (2010). Re-examining the conceptual models for school-based curriculum development. Chapter 17, p. 287 – 290. In Hau-fai
Law, E. & Nieveen, N. (Eds).Schools as curriculum agencies: Asian and European Perspectives on school-based curriculum development.
Rotterdam. Netherlands: Sense Publishers. [Available at – http://www.sensepublishers.com/media/907-schools-as-curriculumagencies.
pdf ]
Mathison, S. (2009). Serving the public interest through educational evaluation: Salvaging democracy by rejecting neoliberalism. In K.E.
Ryan & J. Bradley Cousins (Eds.), SAGE international handbook of educational evaluation (Chap. 30, pp.525 -538). Thousand Oaks:SAGE
Publications Inc.
Moore, A. (2015). Understanding the school curriculum:Theory, politics and principles.London: Routledge.
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C. & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey & Company.
Pinar, W. et al. (Eds). (1981). Curriculum and instruction: Alternatives in education. Berkley, California: McCutchan.
Phelps, R. (2011). Improving practice through program evaluation, Centre for Children and Young People: Background Briefing Series, No.8.,
Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia.
Thomas, S. M. (2010). Assessment and the evaluation of institutional effectiveness. In B. McGaw, P. Peterson, & E. Baker (Eds.), International
Encyclopedia of Education (3rd edition). Elsevier
Ryan, J. E. (2004). The perverse incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. New York University Law Review, 79, 932 – 989.
Ryan, K.E. & Cousins, J. Bradley. (2009).The SAGE international handbook of educational evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
[This is available online through the Curtin library]
Ryan, K. E. & Feller, I. (2009). Evaluation, accountability, and performance measurement in national education systems:Trends, methods
and issues. In K.E. Ryan & J. Bradley Cousins (Eds.), SAGE international handbook of educational evaluation (Chap.10, pp.171 -191).
Thousand Oaks:SAGE Publications Inc.
Skilbeck, M. (1990). Curriculum reform: An overview of trends. Paris: OECD.
Smith, D. L. & Lovat, T.J. (1990). Curriculum: Action on reflection. Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt Brace and World.Torrance, H. (2009). Pursuing the
wrong indicators:The development and impact of test-based accountability. In K.E. Ryan & J. Bradley Cousins (Eds.), SAGE international
handbook of educational evaluation (Chap. 27, pp.483 -503). Thousand Oaks:SAGE Publications Inc.
Tyler, L.L. (1986). Meaning and schooling.Theory into Practice, 25(1),53-57.
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walker, D.F. (1975).Straining to lift ourselves: A critique of the foundations of the curriculum field. Curriculum Theory Network, 5(1), 3-26.
Walker, D. (1990). Fundamentals of curriculum. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Journals:
Educational Researcher
Educational Review Educational Theory
Curriculum Inquiry
Curriculum Perspectives
Curriculum Studies
Harvard Educational Review
Journal of Curriculum Studies
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing
For a custom paper to the above topic, place your Order Now!!
What We Offer:
• On-time delivery guarantee
• PhD-level professionals
• Automatic plagiarism check
• 100% money-back guarantee
• 100% Privacy and Confidentiality
• High Quality custom-written papers
