Transnational Curriculum Studies: Reconceptualization Discourse in South Korea

Abstract

Creating transnational spaces of curriculum inquiry calls for dialogic encounters between East and West. This article makes visible, both for Western and non‐Western curriculum scholars, the historical development of curriculum studies in South Korea over the last 3 decades. Focusing on reconceptualist approaches to curriculum, the article argues for a reconfiguration of Western discourses in terms of local and regional knowledges. Beginning with the initial translation of Western texts in the 1980s and moving into the contemporary production of Korean texts on Korean practices of curriculum and schooling, the paper offers a case study in the creative challenges of merging global and local priorities. Writing “regional tales,” it is argued, sets a critical example for Western curriculum scholars while at the same time inviting links to curriculum studies and researchers in other non‐Western countries.

Notes

Notes

1 RD has been criticized by traditional curriculum researchers (Hlebowitsh, 1995; Jackson, 1992; Wraga, 1998). It should be pointed out here that although W. F. Pinar—the architect of reconceptualization—was included as a contributing author in Jackson’s (1992) Handbook of Research on Curriculum, a series of references related to reconceptualization (school culture, teachers’ and students’ experiences, class, and gender issues) were made in the handbook, including by Jackson himself (1992, 32ff.).

2 As a representative of South Korea in the International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, I have participated in international conferences since 2002, and especially at Shanghai (2003) and Finland (2006). Seventeen Korean curriculum scholars attended the Shanghai Conference. I recognized that knowing about curriculum studies in Asian, African, and European countries in addition to North America would be important for the future. Sharing my ideas with foreign scholars from around the world and listening to their research stories fueled me to realize that my future direction in curriculum studies was not to follow the path of Western curriculum scholars but to create a new path of curriculum theorizing based on my local experiences and indigenous knowledge. Since then, I have been engaged in studying local phenomena and practices of Korean schooling.

3 According to Giroux, Penna, and Pinar (1981, pp. 14–18), traditionalists ask what goals schools should seek to attain but not what goals specific socio‐economic classes should seek to attain and in what ways schools as presently organized block the attainment of class goals. The traditionalist framework raises questions about the best and most efficient way to obtain a specific kind of knowledge (e.g., “cultural heritage”), create moral consensus, and provide a curriculum that keeps the existing society functioning. The phrase curriculum development refers to developing plans for an educational program, including the identification and selection of educational objectives, the selection of learning experiences, the organization of learning experiences, and the evaluation of the educational program.

4 While Clandinin and Connelly have clearly contributed to the reconceptualization of curriculum, they not do see their work as similar to the reconceptualists described in Pinar (1975). The work of Clandinin and Connelly is understood in Korea as a major influence on RD due to their theorization of teachers’ experience based on narrative inquiry and curriculum as lived experience.

5 Journals that publish studies related to RD include The Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, The Korean Journal of Curriculum Studies, The Korean Journal of Open Education, and The Korean Journal of Elementary Education.