Centripetal Thinking in Curriculum Studies

References

• Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Michael Holquist, Ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1930s)
   Google Scholar
• Berlin, I. (2008). The fox and the hedgehog. In H. Hardy & A. Kelly (Eds.), Russian thinkers (pp. 22–81). London: Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1953)
   Google Scholar
• Bobbitt, J. F. (1924). How to build a curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Bowers, C. A. (1991). Some questions about the anachronistic elements in the Giroux/McLaren Theory of critical pedagogy. Curriculum Inquiry, 21(2), 239–252.
   Google Scholar
• Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (1935). Curriculum development. New York: American Book.
   Google Scholar
• Chambliss, J. J. (1987). Educational theory as theory of conduct: From Aristotle to Dewey. Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, F. M. (2008). The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Cremin, L. A. (1961). The transformation of the school. New York: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1988). Human nature and conduct. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1922)
   Google Scholar
• Eisner, E. (2002). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hlebowitsh, P. (1993). Radical curriculum theory reconsidered: A historical approach. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hlebowitsh, P. (1999a). The burdens of the new curricularist. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 343–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hlebowitsh, P. (1999b). The common unity and the progressive restoration of the curriculum field. In L. Behar-Horenstein & J. Glantz (Eds.), Modern and postmodern perspectives in the curriculum field (pp. 54–69). New York: Greenwood.
   Google Scholar
• Hlebowitsh, P. (2005). Generational ideas in curriculum: A historical triangulation. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(1), 73–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, P. W. (1980). Curriculum and its discontents. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(2), 28–43.
   Google Scholar
• Jickling, B. (1988). Paradigms in curriculum development: Critical comments on the work of Tanner and Tanner; A tough nut: A rejoinder to Robin Barrow and to Daniel and Laurel Tanner. Interchange, 19(2), 41–67.
   Google Scholar
• Kliebard, H. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–1958. New York: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• LaFollette, H. (2000). The Blackwell guide to ethical theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Null, J. W. (2008). Curriculum development in historical perspective. In F. Michael Connelly, Ming Fang He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pinar, W. (2008). Intellectual advancement through disciplinarity: Verticality and horizontality in curriculum studies. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Pinar, W., & Grumet, M. (1981). Theory and practice and the reconceptualization of curriculum studiesIn M. Lawn & L. Barton (Eds.), Rethinking curriculum studies: A radical approach (pp. 20–42). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Plato (1956). Protagoras and Meno (W. K. C. Guthrie, Trans.). New York: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved December 18, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy
   Google Scholar
• Schubert, W. (2008, March 23). The AAACS curriculum canon project: Divergent and convergent possibilities and evolutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(1), 239–256.
   Google Scholar
• Slattery, P., Krasny, K., & O'Malley, M. P. (2007). Hermeneutics, aesthetics, and the quest for answerability: A dialogic possibility for reconceptualizing the interpretive process in curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(6), 537–558.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, B. O., Stanley, W. O., & Shores, J. H. (1950). Fundamentals of curriculum development. New York: Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt Brace.
   Google Scholar
• Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (1979). Emancipation from research: The reconceptualist prescription. Educational Researcher, 8, 8–12.
   Google Scholar
• Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (1988). The emergence of a paradigm in the curriculum field: A reply to Jickling. Interchange, 19(2), 41–67.
   Google Scholar
• Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice. New York: Macmillan. (Original work published 1975)
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wraga, W. G. (1999). Extracting sun-beams out of cucumbers: The retreat from practice in reconceptualized curriculum studies. Educational Researcher, 28, 4–13.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, H. (2005). Does Hlebowitsh improve on curriculum history? Reading a rereading for its political purpose and implications. Curriculum Inquiry, 35(1), 103–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar