This article was downloaded by: [Universidad De Concepcion]On: 23 August 2012, At: 13:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Curriculum StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcus20

For whom do we write the curriculum?Morey Schwartz

Version of record first published: 20 Feb 2007

To cite this article: Morey Schwartz (2006): For whom do we write the curriculum?, Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 38:4, 449-457

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220270500296606

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

J. CURRICULUM STUDIES, 2006, VOL. 38, NO. 4, 449–457

Journal of Curriculum Studies ISSN 0022–0272 print/ISSN 1366–5839 online © 2006 Taylor & Francishttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/00220270500296606

For whom do we write the curriculum?

MOREY SCHWARTZ

Taylor and Francis LtdTCUS_A_129643.sgm10.1080/00220270500296606Journal of Curriculum Studies0022-0272 (print)/1366-5839 (online)Original Article2005Taylor & Francis0000000002005MoreySchwartzmschwartz@fmams.org.il The classroom experience contains an infinite number of variables that cannot realisticallybe related to in any manageable teacher’s manual. When manuals aim at being ‘practical’,what is produced is often something that looks like practicality, but is not. Curriculum-writing needs a new approach, intended to educate teacher rather than students. Suchcurriculum-writing can be described as ‘rehearsal curriculum’. A rehearsal curriculumallows the teacher to work through a process of learning, as a ‘rehearsal’ for directing his orher students through that same process. A rehearsal curriculum is written in a way that alsomotivates the teacher to learn.

Keywords: adult learning; curriculum design; curriculum organization; curriculum theory.

Those who have engaged in the written articulation of courses of studyhave pondered whether or not it is possible to convey directives for ‘action-oriented’ teaching via the ‘static conventions’ of a written curriculum(Westbury 1983: 2). There are countless variables associated with studentpopulations, and many differing educational milieus. All curricular materi-als are subject to the interpretation and individual application of theteacher. As McCutcheon (1988: 198) reminds us:

Teachers are the filters through which the mandated curriculum passes. Theirunderstanding of it, and their enthusiasm, or boredom, with various aspects ofit, colours its nature. Hence, the curriculum enacted in classrooms differs fromthe one mandated by administrators or developed by experts.

Is there an effective model for a written curriculum? I contend here that neworientations to the task of curriculum-writing must be considered, especiallygiven the widespread conviction that at best, and despite the concertedefforts of curriculum writers, most teachers use curriculum guides as only alimited resource for their work. They do not readily accept the directionsoffered in curriculum guides, sensing a real gap between the suggestions ofthe guides and classroom realities (Shkedi 1998). The curriculum fieldneeds to consider ways to address this situation.

Curriculum users, curriculum receivers

The crux of the problem around the role and use of curriculum guides liesin a failure to distinguish between two distinct target groups for the guides:

Morey Schwartz is the Curriculum Co-ordinator for the Florence Melton Adult Mini-SchoolInstitute (FMAMSI), a project of the Melton Centre, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,Jerusalem, Israel 91905; e-mail: mschwartz@fmams.org.il. FMAMSI has developed a 2-yeartext-based curriculum that is studied by adults in more than 60 cities worldwide.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

De

Con

cepc

ion]

at 1

3:15

23

Aug

ust 2

012

450 M. SCHWARTZ

curriculum users and curriculum receivers. Curriculum writers, with all goodintentions, have compiled volumes of well-conceived educational actionplans, choosing specific materials and activities for their pre-conceivedtarget, curriculum receivers, students, only to find that the curriculum users,teachers, choose differently.

The solution to this challenge lies in rethinking the target group forcurriculum-writing, and revising the classic conception of a written curricu-lum guide. Thus, Bobbitt (1918), for example, the pioneer of the US under-standing of curriculum work, understood the curriculum to represent thosethings that children must do and experience in order to adequately performas adults. It was the curriculum writer’s task to envision the typical student,who is in need of education. With the goal of conveying his or her conclusionsin a systematic way, the curriculum writer formulates a checklist of short-term and long-term goals and objectives that can potentially be measured.This defines the path that the student must take.

For many years it was assumed that a ‘good’ teacher accepted theauthority of curriculum-developers, and was willing to faithfully follow theirinstructions. The developer needed to provide such teachers with clearmaterials and specific directives. However, as Schremer and Bailey (2001:23) note, ‘Today, this perception appears unsuited to the unique character-istics of a teacher’s work. The limited conceptualization of teaching as a job,rather than as a vocation, has influenced the image of the teacher in the eyesof curriculum planners and authors of learning material’.

New ideas and models for curriculum-writing begin to take shape whenwe consider a different approach to defining ‘curriculum’:

Currere is derived from the Latin infinitive verb that means ‘to run the race-course’. Curriculum is a verb, an activity, or ‘an inward journey’. The moderncurriculum development rationale has truncated the etymological meaningand reduced curriculum to a noun, the racecourse itself. Thus, generations ofeducators have been schooled to believe that the curriculum is a tangibleobject, the lesson plans we implement, or the course guides we follow, ratherthan the process of running the racecourse. (Slattery 1995: 56)

Too often curriculum writers are focused on the organization of the materi-als and their written instructions. They envision the learning experience as acloseted environment while in reality it is anything but. Teachers are seen astaking their materials and making them ‘practical’. However, curriculumwriters cannot expect to relate to the teacher’s classroom experience, or the‘inward journey’ that students experience as a result of their exposure to theideas and activities of any curriculum. What happens in the learning experi-ence is an outcome of the original, creative, thinking-on-your-feet efforts ofthe teacher—which often lead the class in directions far, far away from theanticipated goals of the curriculum writers.

Is the practical really practical?

In an effort to make curricula more useful, curriculum writers have begun todevelop manuals and teachers’ guides with numerous pedagogic-contentoptions for the teacher that are considered to be ‘more practical’. However,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

De

Con

cepc

ion]

at 1

3:15

23

Aug

ust 2

012

FOR WHOM DO WE WRITE THE CURRICULUM? 451

although they make every effort to be ‘practical’, to offer teachers a set ofoptions from which they can then choose to meet the needs of their specificcircumstances, most teacher guides still fail to achieve their stated goals:

One explanation for the failure of practical manuals is that the task they seekto do is enormously difficult. The practical world to which they try to adjusttheir methods and principles, and perspectives, is not only complex but,particularly in the field of education, has not been thought worth studying. Ithas too many uncontrolled variables; it will not sit still; it does not have definitespatial temporal boundaries; it is topically ‘confused’. With painstaking, ifunimaginative work one can simplify theoretical models for teachers. With alittle style and a clear head one can make difficult writers readable. With aminimal imagination one can fill a manual with familiar examples. But helpingwith practice by way of a book is a different matter. It calls for an awareness ofthe working context of the practitioner and an ability to translate that intuitiveawareness into an explicit description which captures the essence of whatteaching is. (Anderson 1983: 8)

This is the sore point in the curricular process. Over and over we find curric-ulum writers lamenting that the teacher is the weak link in the chain ofconveying the written wisdom of the curriculum to the ultimate recipient,the students.

[But] judgments in practical action are always based on what theoreticianswould see as inadequate evidence. They are made, so theoreticians would say,too hastily. Moreover, most of them are made during the circumstances towhich they apply. Decisions are made about pupils and topics in classrooms,at speed, based on a mixture of practical experience and the very immediatecircumstances of this pupil’s question, how much time is left and the noisecoming from next door. (Anderson 1983: 6; emphasis in original)

The developer is frustrated by the inability of the teacher to ‘stick to theprogramme’, and the teacher is frustrated by the curriculum writer’s inabil-ity to be ‘practical’, to be realistic about the goings-on of the classroom.When the developer attempts to offer a variety of options to address a rangeof imagined practical situations, the teacher finds the materials overwhelm-ing, and ‘impractical’. And so the cycle goes round and round.

A ‘novel’ idea

A curriculum writer may believe that ‘a curriculum guide should present aclear pedagogical-content approach while inviting teachers to autonomouslycorrelate the programme to his or her own needs and attitudes, through acontinuous deliberation between the teacher, the educational situation, andthe proposed curriculum’ (Shkedi 1998: 224). However, based on interviewswith many teachers, Shkedi concludes that ‘as far as teachers are concerned,these two fundamental elements cannot be combined in one curriculum guide,and seem to embody contradictory and incompatible rationales’ (p. 209).

Faced with this harsh reality, scholars have advocated the need todevelop different approaches to curriculum-writing. For instance, Overlyand Spalding (1993 : 140) have suggested using the novel as a metaphor forcurriculum-writing:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

De

Con

cepc

ion]

at 1

3:15

23

Aug

ust 2

012

452 M. SCHWARTZ

Novels invite fresh interpretations of new and old experiences. They areunpredictable, exciting, multi-layered creations, giving their readers diverseimages and new understanding. … ‘Why can’t the curriculum of schools belike that?’ Good novels, if we are ready for them, transform us. Good curriculashould have the same effect.

Overly and Spalding’s concept is intriguing. They are aware of the realitythat teachers continually interpret the curriculum and that the idea of‘teacher-proof’ curricula is a myth. They view the teacher’s voice as centralto the learning process. In fact, the teacher, like the reader of a good novel,should encounter and be empowered to consider multiple approaches toconceptualizing and presenting content, recognizing that just as there is nosingle correct interpretation of the novel, so too are there multiple ways tointerpret the content of the curriculum:

Curriculum that leads learners to believe in one perfect answer or meaningdoes them a disservice. If novels are open to multiple interpretations, they arealso open to ‘misinterpretations’. Too often curricula are designed to preventpossibilities for ‘misinterpretation’. That’s too bad. By eliminating possibilitiesfor ‘misinterpretation’, we eliminate opportunities for interpretation and,thereby, learning. (Overly and Spalding 1993: 148)

Using the novel as a metaphor for curriculum emphasizes the impor-tance of developing a curriculum that engages, challenges, and excites theteacher. The question that Overly and Spalding do not address, however, iswhat such a curriculum would actually look like?

The task of writing curriculum needs a new approach. It should not bewritten for the student, because students vary from class-to-class. It shouldnot be written in a way that attempts to address every practical situation—because there are just too many of these. The focus of curriculum-writingshould be shifted away from directing the students, and towards engaging,and even educating, teachers.

To educate is to emancipate

Eisner (1990) contends that ‘good curriculum materials both emancipateand educate teachers’. Eisner is offering a significant, very sound piece ofadvice for those involved in curriculum-writing. It relates to an observationhe (Eisner 1990: 67–68) made during a programme that prepared teachersto teach a new art-education course:

Among some unanticipated benefits of the programme is the feeling amongteachers that they too are learning much about art because of how theprogramme is designed. Besides the content of art, they are learning how arthistory, art criticism, and aesthetics relate to the activities of art-making, some-thing that they had rarely thought about before. The teachers are also thebeneficiaries of a curriculum designed for students, and as a result, they aregradually becoming independent of the curriculum they are learning from.Good curriculum materials both emancipate and educate teachers.

This observation is worth considering. He claims that when teachers sensethat a curriculum is interested in educating them, in giving them food for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

De

Con

cepc

ion]

at 1

3:15

23

Aug

ust 2

012

FOR WHOM DO WE WRITE THE CURRICULUM? 453

thought, in inspiring them to think about their own teaching in new ways, inoffering them opportunities to add their own voice to the discussion at hand,then they themselves will tend to internalize the new learning. Such a curric-ulum will actually transform the way the teacher thinks about the subjectmatter. This transformation, to use Eisner’s words, ‘emancipates’ themfrom the ‘static conventions’ of the written curriculum. Eisner is not relatingto the mere introduction of a pedagogic-content model that the teacher ismeant to replicate in the classroom, while simultaneously being given themessage that he has the autonomy to choose how to teach the materials.That is the mixed message to which Shkedi (1998) referred. Rather, Eisneris making an invaluable observation that he refers to as an ‘unanticipatedbenefit’.

When asked what was the most important attribute of the teacher, Harry Over-street once replied, ‘He must be a learner himself. If he has lost his capacity forlearning, he is not good enough to be in the company of those who havepreserved theirs.’

From our examination of attributes and motivation, it is quite apparent why ateacher must be a learner, must possess strong motives and attitudes towardlearning. It is this attitude which itself communicates forcibly, not the teacher’swords. Nothing is as transparent as the attitude of another to learning. And noone sets up such a block for others as he for whom learning seems so unimpor-tant that he is not bothering with it himself, even though he claims it might beuseful for others. (Kidd 1959: 303)

Education is the result not of the mastery of information but of an ongoingengagement in the act of reflecting, reconsidering, and revising one’s ownunderstanding on a regular basis. This calls not only for access to information,but also exposure to those who model the process of study. Curriculum needsto be written, therefore, in a way that will motivate the teacher to learn aswell, for when the teacher is learning, so too are the students. As Fox (1977:108) puts it:

We must not forget that curricular materials, even when accompanied byintensive in-service training, are themselves a method of teacher training. Thecurriculum writer will be communicating conceptions—as well as suggestingways of teaching this material.

That the curriculum must ‘educate’, then, relates to the learning which theteacher experiences.

The teacher experiences ‘disjuncture’ as he or she is challenged to thinkin a different way:

Only if there is disjuncture between the store of knowledge in the mind and theinformation being presented in discourse can the conditions exist for learning.By contrast, if the information being transmitted is already known, then thereneed be no disjuncture and no possibility of learning. (Jarvis 1992: 84)

Such disjunctures lead to learning, and a new way of thinking about educa-tion. Given this new way of thinking, the teachers are empowered to teachwith a whole new approach. They take on a new perspective: they view theirteaching differently, and begin to naturally teach the materials according tothe method presented in the curriculum, with a sense of allegiance to teaching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

De

Con

cepc

ion]

at 1

3:15

23

Aug

ust 2

012

454 M. SCHWARTZ

the curriculum. The teacher has in this sense been ‘emancipated’ from thecurriculum. That is to say, the teacher finds an exciting blueprint in the curric-ulum that enables her or him to teach from a new perspective—somethingthat could not have been possible without studying the curriculum. In otherwords, our ‘curriculum-users’ have become the actual ‘curriculum-receivers’.While the curriculum may be designed for students, it is the way that itengages and educates teachers that constitutes the key to its success.

Rehearsal curriculum

In practical terms, then, what might such a curricular conception look like?In the following I offer a model, or format, for the writing of curriculumfounded on the principle articulated by Eisner (1990): it is a model for curric-ula that both ‘educate and emancipate’ teachers. I call it a rehearsal curriculum.

A rehearsal curriculum is written in a way that prepares teachers for theteaching experience by prompting them to go through the same process oflearning that will be used in the classroom. In other words, a rehearsal curric-ulum allows the teacher to work through a three-part process of learning—as a ‘rehearsal’ for leading students through the same process (see table 1).In a sense, the lesson is viewed as a type of real-life performance, and ratherthan teachers seeing themselves only as the directors of that performance,they are what we might call actors–directors.

In the first stage, the teacher is confronted with materials that have beenwritten and organized in a manner that causes ‘disjuncture’ for the teacher.This experience is intended to peak interest, and motivate the teacher toexplore the issue further. The curriculum offers information or analyses thatcan serve as a basis for new and innovative understanding (see table 2).

Having experienced this process, the teacher is then ready to organize alesson plan. The groundwork for the lesson plan has already been laid duringthe first stage. In the second stage, the teacher considers how to recreate thatsame ‘disjuncture’ for the learners. After creating the ‘disjuncture’, thelesson will set off on a course of ‘discovery’, or ‘un-learning’,1 during whichthe students will be exposed to insights, as presented by the teacher, and befree to discuss and conjecture, exploring shifts in their own thinking.

Ideally, this ‘discovery’ period will lead the learners to learn or ‘re-learn’and obtain ‘resolution’ of their ‘disjuncture’, or at least leave them inspiredto continue to ‘discover’ in an attempt to achieve that sense of ‘resolution’.Thus, Belenky et al. (1986: 219), in describing Freire’s ‘problem-posing’method, write that:

Table 1. The teacher’s interaction with the curriculum.

Rehearsal curriculum

Stage 1: Teacher experiences: Disjuncture � Research � Innovation (new understanding)Stage 2: Teacher creates for students: Disjuncture (un-learning) � Discovery � Resolution

(re-learning)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

De

Con

cepc

ion]

at 1

3:15

23

Aug

ust 2

012

FOR WHOM DO WE WRITE THE CURRICULUM? 455

Table 2. A rehearsal curriculum.

I have been involved in the development of a curriculum written expressly for the Florence Melton Adult Mini-School (FMAMS), a project of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Fifteen years of writing and rewriting has produced a very specific consistent curricular format that has been recognized as an exceptional adult education curriculum, far different from any other adult education programme to which they have exposed. What has led teachers to not only use it as a ‘resource,’ but also to adhere very closely to its weekly lesson outline and make use of the majority of its texts? The FMAMS curriculum follows the format of a rehearsal curriculum.The following is a condensed sample from a lesson on the topic of ‘euthanasia’ found in the FMAMS faculty guide for the course entitled ‘The Ethics of Jewish Living’. It demonstrates how the juxtaposition of several texts can create Stage 1 disjuncture for the teacher, who will then use these texts to convey the same disjuncture experience for the students in Stage 2.

Text 1And he said; naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither; the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD (Job 1:21).Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months is with Thee, and Thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass (Job 14:5).To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up (Ecclesiastes 3:1–3).

Analysis—Text 1This selection of verses from Job and Ecclesiastes represent the common religious understanding of God as the decider of life and death. He gives life, He takes away life, and He does so according to His own schedule. There is an appointed time to die for all of us, and the decision is not in our hands. Do these texts preclude the possibility of passive or active euthanasia? What about in cases of withholding painful treatment of terminal illness? What about alleviating suffering through the use of life-threatening medications?

Text 2: Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma 85a [compilation of teachings of 3 rd–6th-century scholars in Babylonia; final redaction in the 6 th–7th centuries]If one finds him [i.e. one upon whom debris have fallen] alive on the Sabbath [one should remove the debris in order to rescue him]’—isn’t that self-evident! No, the law must be stated for the case in which he has only a short while to live.

Analysis—Text 2Because of the sanctity of human life, the Sabbath laws are set aside if life is in danger. The Talmud questions the need to state such an obvious law. The response is that the sages are instructing us that even the preservation of a life of short duration, such as the life of one who has been crushed by fallen debris, is valued enough to require the setting aside of Sabbath laws. Thus, not only is normal life to be preserved but terminal life as well. With this in mind, we consider the following rabbinic end-of-life story which seems to contradict this perspective.

Text 3: Yalkut Shimoni 2:943 [anthology of writings on all the books of the Bible

compiled by Shimon Kayyara, 12 th century]There is a story of a woman who grew very old. She came before Rabbi Yossi the son of Chalafta. She said to him ‘Rabbi, I have grown too old. Life is repugnant to me: I can taste neither food nor drink. I would like to depart from this world.’ He said to her ‘How is it that you have lived so long?’ She answered ‘Every day, I am accustomed to go early to the synagogue even if I must desist from something I like’. He said to her, ‘Refrain for three successive days from going to the synagogue’. She went and did this and on the third day she became ill and died.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

De

Con

cepc

ion]

at 1

3:15

23

Aug

ust 2

012

456 M. SCHWARTZ

Instead of the teacher thinking about the object privately and talking about itpublicly so that the students may store it, both teacher and students engage inthe process of thinking, and they talk out what they are thinking in publicdialogue.

Within the approach I am advocating, the teacher’s stage-one rehearsalexperience with the curriculum is the critical component in drawing thestudents into the lesson. During this stage, the teacher has been educated,not only in terms of the topic but also in terms of a way of thinking criticallyabout the details of the text. With more and more exposure to such a curricularformat, the teacher begins to integrate a way of thinking, and becomes ‘eman-cipated’ from the written curriculum. That is to say, upon being presentedwith the texts and sources, the teacher senses intuitively what needs to beaddressed, wherein lies the ‘disjuncture’, and how to go about researchingthe dilemma and formulating a resolution. The teacher begins to view thecurriculum as a study-partner, there to help him or her to focus on the issuesthat need to be addressed. The teacher is emancipated from the curriculum,no longer using it as a script, but instead as a guide or tool in his teaching.

Westbury (1983: 2) asked: ‘What communicative devices offer thegreatest hope of giving teachers some practical understanding of the ideas awriter or curriculum developer has in mind? … Can such ideas and curricu-lar practices be communicated using written materials alone?’ ‘Rehearsalcurriculum’ can serve as a model for accomplishing this task. Were curriculato be understood as the process of running the race, then the rehearsalcurriculum model would seem to provide an approach to appropriatecurriculum-writing. In other words, if what we are trying to do is not somuch to lay out the race-track—the lesson plans we implement, or thecourse guides to follow—but rather to affect the way the race is run, the waythe lesson transpires, then we must provide the teacher with stimulating,thought-provoking materials, which can challenge and educate the teacher.It is what transpires for the teacher in the process of preparing to teach, andhow that experience subsequently gets translated by the teacher into tasksfor the students, that will define the quality of the excitement and interestfound in the classroom, and the degree to which the teacher will actuallymake use of the curricular materials.

Curricula, and the professional support provided to teachers, should beaimed at educating teachers, both in terms of content and presentation.

Table 2. (Continued)

Analysis—Text 3Presented here is a story from rabbinic literature which might relate to the question of compassion and euthanasia. The story tells of a woman who seeks an end to her life because of the repugnance she feels in association with old age. She consults Rabbi Yossi. He devises a plan by which she might fulfil her desire. She reveals that synagogue attendance was sustaining her. Rabbi Yossi, therefore, suggested refraining from attendance for three consecutive days. This proved effective and she died. Here a rabbi is assisting a woman who seeks death! Doesn’t this contradict the value related in the previous source regarding the value of life? It would seem that this story illustrates the permissibility of euthanasia at least in certain circumstances. Or does it?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

De

Con

cepc

ion]

at 1

3:15

23

Aug

ust 2

012

FOR WHOM DO WE WRITE THE CURRICULUM? 457

With experience of such curricula, teachers will come to manifest signs oftransformation, indications that they are not only familiar with the materials,but are comfortable with teaching them. They will have then beenemancipated from the written curriculum because they will have internalizedits approach. They will organize their lessons accordingly, even withoutspecific pedagogic instructions, reading through and absorbing the curricu-lar materials with great enthusiasm. Ultimately, they themselves will be ableto pick up a new curriculum and intuitively tell the difference between acurriculum that meets these standards and a curriculum that does not.When a curriculum offers teachers the opportunity to rehearse the learningprocess themselves, prior to creating it, they in turn become a part of thatexperience as it transpires in the classroom, and their students are privilegedto experience learning in an inspiring and engaging fashion.

Note

1. ‘Adult learning differs from children’s learning, for while children learn, adults oftenre-learn. Relearning requires revision, and often, un-learning. So much of what we remem-ber learning … is actually a distortion of the truth and needs to be unlearned before wecan go on to relearn’ (Reimer 1987: 73).

References

Anderson, D. (1983) Educational Eldorado: the claim to have produced a practical curriculumtext. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(1), 5–16.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R. and Tarule, J. M. (1986) Women’s Waysof Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind (New York: Basic Books).

Bobbitt, F. (1918) The Curriculum (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).Eisner, E. W. (1990) Creative curriculum development and practice. Journal of Curriculum

and Supervision, 6(1), 62–73.Fox, S. (1977) The scholar, the educator, and the curriculum of the Jewish school. In S. Fox

and G. Rosenfield (eds), From The Scholar to the Classroom: Translating Jewish Traditioninto Curriculum (New York: Melton Research Center for Jewish Education, JewishTheological Seminary of America), 104–114.

Jarvis, P. (1992) Paradoxes of Learning: On Becoming an Individual in Society (San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass).

Kidd, J. R. (1959) How Adults Learn (New York: Association Press).McCutcheon, G. (1988) Curriculum and the work of the teacher. In L. E. Beyer and M. W.

Apple (eds), The Curriculum: Problems, Politics and Possibilities (Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press), 191–203.

Overly, N. and Spalding, E. (1993) The novel as metaphor for curriculum and tool forcurriculum development. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(2), 140–156.

Reimer, J. (1987) Adult Jewish education: continuing the learning experience, The ‘JewishAdult as Learner’ presentation at the Council of Jewish Federations General Assembly.

Schremer, O. E. and Bailey, S. (2001) Curriculum: Real Teachers in Focus: A Study In JewishEducation (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Lookstein School for Jewish Education in the Diaspora,Bar Ilan University).

Shkedi, A. (1998) Can the curriculum guide both emancipate and educate teachers?Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 209–229.

Slattery, P. (1995) Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era (New York: Garland).Westbury, I. (1983) How can curriculum guide teaching? Introduction to the Symposium.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(1), 1–3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

De

Con

cepc

ion]

at 1

3:15

23

Aug

ust 2

012