Revisiting Curriculum Potential

Abstract

This article analyzes the notion of curriculum potential by revisiting the ideas of Miriam Ben‐Peretz and Joseph Schwab. Invoking the German Didaktik tradition and by way of a curriculum‐making framework, the paper argues that interpreting curriculum materials for curriculum potential requires a careful analysis and unpacking of the meanings and significance of the content contained in materials. This analysis and unpacking need to be informed by an understanding of the “curriculum” embodied in materials. More specifically, it needs to take account of its theory of content—a special way of selecting, arranging, and framing content for educational and pedagogical purposes.

Notes

Notes

1 Question 1 can be seen as a question concerning Schwab’s three faces of content (purport, originating discipline, and access disciplines) discussed earlier—if “fundamental principle,”“law,”“criterion,”“method,”“technique,” or “attitude” can be derived from multiple disciplines that can be brought to bear on the content.

2 I need to point out that Klafki, informed by critical social theory, has developed what is called critical‐constructive Didaktik, which is a revision and extension of the earlier version of Didaktik. To a certain extent, critical‐constructive Didaktik takes into account social, cultural, and political expectations on schooling, with an emphasis on the development of self‐determination (autonomy), co‐determination (participation), and solidarity (see Klafki, 1998). However, it has not fully addressed how those demands or expectations are translated into curriculum content.

3 See, for example, Apple (1979), Bernstein (1971), Goodson, Anstead, and Mangan (1998), Goodson and Marsh (1996), Popkewitz (1987), and Young (1971).

4 The transmissive stance of PCK is also evident in its definition: for the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations—in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others.…[It] also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons. (Shulman, 1986, pp. 9–10)