- Professor Dwayne Huebner has spoken about “critiquing” the curriculum; it is from his remarks that the idea for this paper developed. His thinking has helped me in this paper in ways that cannot be acknowledged by footnotes alone.
- See, for example, Professor Huebner's “Curriculum Language and Classroom Meaning,” in Language and Meaning, ed. by Macdonald and Leeper (Washington: A.S.C.D., 1966).
- Mark Schorer, The Story (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1950).
- Ibid., p.3.
- Cited by Schorer, ibid., p.4.
- Foreward to IS 5, in E. E. Cummings, Poems, 1923–1954 (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co., 1954).
- Brewster Gheselin, ed., The Creative Process (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952).
- Albert Einstein, Relativity, trans. by Robert W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961).
- see Abrams' discussion of the transition from the classical to the romantic attitude in poetry, in M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1958).
- Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958).
- Writing from a psychoanalytic point of view, Lawrence Kubie arrives at a very similar conclusion. He too, sees the creative process as ubiquitous in its general characteristics; creative work in science and art is subtended by the same psychological operations. See Lawrence S. Kubie, Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process (New York: Noonday Press, 1961).
- Huebner has (quite correctly I think) referred to research as “a vehicle of empirical criticism.” Dwayne Huebner, “The Tasks of the Curricular Theorist.” (Mimeographed).
- The reason for “ethical” reality is developed in the next section. Briefly, it has to do with the fact that curriculum is an environment for persons (Dewey, Macdonald), and the curriculum critic is responsible to these persons.
- More will be said to this point in the next section.
- Stephen Toulmin. The Philosophy of Science. An Introduction (New York: Harper and Row, 1960).
- The different purposes served by school talk are analyzed by Dwayne Huebner in “The Tasks of the Curricular Theorist,” mimeographed.
- This should not be taken to imply that the teachers “intend” these meanings. The question of intent is complicated, and beyond the scope of this paper. For arguments on the question in the context of literary criticism, see the following: Rene Welleck and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1963); William K. Wimsatt, “The Intentional Fallacy,” The Verbal Icon, Kentucky Paperbacks (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1967), pp. 3–21.
- Toulmin, op. cit. p. 42.
- Ibid., p. 64.
- Ian Ramsey, Models and Mystery (London: Oxford University Press, 1964).
- “Influence” need not be understood technologically, that is, as a means to an end. Rather it is to be taken here in the sense of “under the influence of,” to describe a present relationship. The example below in the text of a magnet and filings illustrates the usage intended.
- Gerard Manley Hopkins, “As kingfishers catch fire…”, Poems by Gerard Manley Hopkins (New York: Oxford University Press, 1948).
Curriculum Theory Network
Volume 1, 1969 - Issue 2