View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by University of Southern Queensland ePrints

Chapter 3: Understanding the Curriculum

Tony Dowden (University of Southern Queensland)

Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will:

 Be able to identify the main stakeholders in the curriculum

 Understand the purpose of national/state curriculum documents
 Gain insights into the design and construction of the local curriculum
 Understand why the curriculum always changes
 Appreciate the importance of meeting student needs within curriculum design

Terms
<Curriculum = the planned learning in a school or other educational setting >
< Stakeholder = a person or persons, a group, an organisation or a government body with an
interest in the content and/or the philosophical direction of the curriculum >

Introduction
The curriculum is crucial to every educational setting. At first glance the official
curriculum, which usually comes packaged in a formidable array of official documents,
might seem dry or boring but in reality it is a springboard to powerful and effective
classroom teaching. Understanding the basic principles of curriculum design is an
important first step, for a preservice teacher, towards making sense of curriculum
documents and creating engaging units and lessons for children and young people. This
chapter is limited to the discussion of a handful of key topics with a view to equipping
you for further specialised reading at a later stage. These topics are: the curriculum
stakeholders, national and state curricula, constructing local curricula at the level of the
school and the classroom, understanding that the curriculum constantly changes, and
examining student-centred approaches to curriculum design and construction.

Theoretical Framework
The term curriculum, with the plural form of “curricula” and the adjectival form of
“curricular”, is derived from Latin. It is easy to become mired in discussion and debate about
meanings and definitions for curriculum but, in simplified form, this term refers to the course
of study students undertake in a learning context. For instance, Marsh refers to curriculum as
the “planned learnings” in a school (2004, p. 5). Yet, as this chapter shows, a broader
definition of the curriculum not only includes the subject matter within each discipline, but
also planned and unplanned learning outcomes due to complex interactions between teachers,
students, local communities, various interest groups, the global society and digital
technologies.
For hundreds of years schooling in Western countries was a privilege reserved for
royalty, the very wealthy or aspiring monks. Schools barely existed, so most students had

1
private tutors. The classical curriculum – inherited from the Greek and Roman civilisations –
consisted of the Trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric), the Quadrivium (arithmetic,
geometry, music, and astronomy), and for the most talented students, advanced studies in
philosophy and theology at university. The advent of the Industrial Revolution and the
subsequent rise of schooling for the masses during the nineteenth century led to a major
rethink about the nature and purpose of the curriculum. In 1854 British philosopher Herbert
Spencer asked, “What knowledge is of most worth?” (1896, p. 21). Ever since then, educators
have engaged in on-going discussions and debate concerning the content and philosophical
direction of the curriculum.
Modern curriculum theory often traces its roots back to American educator Ralph Tyler’s
(1949) rationale for curriculum design. Although Tyler believed individual student needs
should be met, his curriculum rationale emphasised the primacy of subject matter and, more
particularly, specific learning outcomes. His rationale became synonymous with educational
policies in the USA during the latter half of the twentieth century because it suited perfectly
the outcomes-focused politics of the Cold War where technical and military superiority over
the Soviet Union was a national imperative. Many curriculum documents since that period
have had a strong technical emphasis. Indeed, a common but naïve understanding of the
curriculum is that it is synonymous with a syllabus – consisting of various levels and subject
area divisions with carefully organised lists of subject matter pre-sorted into particular
pigeonholes ready to be turned into classroom lessons. However, curriculum construction is
much more than a technical exercise. At its best, classroom learning is a deep, profound and
life-altering experience for children and young people but this outcome is highly unlikely
when classroom pedagogy is informed by a technical, dull and uninspiring curriculum.
The primary goal of curriculum design at the level of the school community, therefore,
should be the development of deep understandings about subject matter that are relevant and
meaningful to children’s and young people’s lives (McKernan, 2008). Contemporary
curriculum documents go well beyond merely categorising subject matter and nearly always
include focused comment on a range of matters pertaining to effective learning and teaching
but, as this chapter will show, anything that gains entry to the curriculum must first pass
through a political process. As a result, the official curriculum is generally the result of
extensive negotiation and careful compromise.

Stakeholders in the Curriculum

One key curricular concept is the stakeholders, the people who have vested interests in the
content and direction of the curriculum. Curriculum stakeholders may include any or all of
teachers, parents, principals, subject area experts, academics, businesses, religious and
cultural representatives, politicians, members of the wider community and governments
(Brady & Kennedy, 2010). Stakeholders all have slightly different interests, thus they use
their power and status to try and obtain the kind of curriculum they want. For this reason
curriculum is always political and involves an on-going struggle between competing interests.
Curriculum construction involves a balancing act because every curriculum stakeholder
will have a slightly different answer to Spencer’s question about the knowledge of most
worth and then jockey for position to try to make sure the knowledge they most value finds
its way into the curriculum. Schubert (1995) suggested that the combined influence of
curriculum stakeholders usually results in tensions between three competing factors: (1) the
needs of the individual student, (2) the demands of wider society, and (3) the vested interests
of subject areas. Parents want to ensure the needs of their children are met. Employers are
keen to ensure that students learn valuable knowledge that can be applied in the work place.
Universities and other tertiary institutions generally want to ensure that the selection of

2
subject matter and set of learning skills in particular subject areas are thorough and rigorous.
In addition, as society becomes increasingly reliant on sophisticated technologies, politicians
and other leaders demand that the bundle of essential technical knowledge needed by the next
generation to maintain and improve technologies is included in the curriculum.
A soundly constructed curriculum includes input from advocates who assume the role of
curriculum stakeholders on behalf of children and young people. While in practice advocates
are often teachers or parents or members of the local community, experts with specialised
knowledge and understanding about the educational and developmental needs of children and
young people are often in a position to represent children and young people more effectively
and, therefore, have a greater impact on the curriculum. One example of an advocacy group is
the Australian middle schooling movement which supports the reform of education for young
adolescents (10-15 years old). Much of the focus and energy of the movement is expended
trying to convince other curriculum stakeholders to recognise young people have specific
developmental and educational needs (Middle Years of Schooling Association, 2008).
Indeed, in recent years many Australian independent schools have acknowledged that middle
schooling philosophy is effective and meets the needs of their students. As a result, several
independent schools in Australia have reconfigured their traditional primary and secondary
organisations to form junior, middle and senior schools (Dowden, 2012).
The following Applied Learning Experience shows that even a single but highly
committed person can influence the curriculum that children and young people experience.

Applied Learning Experience 3.1: Making a difference as a community stakeholder

The story of cook and restaurateur Stephanie Alexander is a remarkable example of how a
single curriculum stakeholder from the wider community can influence many schools.

Ten years ago Alexander realised she wanted to do her bit to help tackle the problem of
children eating poorly and the related concern of burgeoning obesity within Australian
society. Commencing a ‘kitchen garden’ program at Collingwood College in inner
Melbourne, she believed that if children could discover and explore the natural world and
enjoy the experience of growing, preparing and sharing fresh produce with their local
community, she would be able to positively influence the next generation. A decade later,
over 30,000 children, predominantly in Grades 3-6, have experienced the satisfaction
connected to the holistic process of growing, cooking and eating fresh food. In the process,
many have developed important life skills, learned about the principles of sustainability, and
dramatically improved their eating habits. As educational philosopher John Dewey explained
over a century ago, children in programs like this learn in a simple yet profound manner —
‘by doing’ (1900, p. 120). The not-for-profit Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden
Foundation currently has a presence in hundreds of schools across Australia. It supports
teachers by providing a range of relevant and interesting curriculum material catering to four
different year levels with references to relevant curriculum documents. Thanks to one
passionate curriculum stakeholder, along with enthusiastic support from classroom teachers,
whole communities are being impacted and children’s lives are changing for the better
(Alexander, 2012).

1. In what ways has Stephanie Alexander been able to influence the curriculum?

National and State Curricula

The primary purpose of national and state curriculum documents is to officially mandate the
subject matter that will be taught. In addition most documents include a range of other factors

3
that teachers and schools are expected to take into account when they construct school and
classroom curricula.
At the national level curricula are often relatively broad in their scope. The Australian
curriculum which is still under construction (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority, 2011) provides direction to the Australian states and territories. It is
guided by the 2008 Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians
(involving all the Australian state as signatories) which aims to promote “equity and
excellence” in Australian schools and supports all young Australians to become “successful
learners, confident and creative individuals, active and informed citizens” (Ministerial
Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008, p. 8). In New
Zealand (NZ), state schools are responsible for their own governance. Accordingly, the NZ
curriculum document describes its principle function as setting “the direction for student
learning” and providing “guidance to schools as they design and review their curricula”
(Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 6).
In Australia and New Zealand political parties of every persuasion appear to be
committed to developing and maintaining world-class education systems. For instance, both
countries performed very well – significantly above the OECD average – in the 2009
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests for mathematics, science and
reading. Nonetheless, data from international testing and national testing in both countries
shows that children and young people in impoverished and/or isolated communities
persistently underachieve. This indicates that in certain regions and localities in Australia and
NZ there is a pressing need for expertly designed, custom-made curricula that will help
alleviate difficult problems caused by poverty and/or remote location.
Sometimes the official curriculum may be incomplete, especially since curricula can be
progressively published online over a period of time. For this reason when the local
curriculum is designed, teachers and schools should be alert to the possibility that official
curriculum documents may not fully address all relevant aspects of learning and teaching.
A useful trend in contemporary national and state curriculum documents is to show
teachers and schools how curriculum construction should include attention to all aspects of
learning and teaching, including classroom pedagogies that stretch children and young people
and appropriate assessment that authentically measures growth and development of skills and
understanding. The forward-looking Queensland curriculum framework, which places a
particular emphasis on aligning curriculum construction with student learning, is worthy of
close study in this regard (Department of Education Training and the Arts, 2008). The next
Applied Learning Experience (3.2) highlights the importance of addressing developmental
needs within the curriculum.

4
Applied Learning Experience 3.2: Addressing students’ developmental needs
The NZ curriculum document mandates a requirement for teachers and school communities
to accommodate students’ developmental needs (Ministry of Education, 2007). Although,
knowledge of children’s and young people’s developmental needs is generally assumed to be
part of teachers’ professional knowledge, this is not always a safe assumption in the case of
teachers in the middle years (Dowden, 2012). The NZ document identifies three ‘Learning
pathways’ during the thirteen years of formal schooling. These are: “Learning in Years 1-6”,
“Learning in Years 7-10”, and “Learning in Years 11-13” (p. 41). The creation of these three
distinct pathways diverges from the traditional split between primary and secondary
schooling to more accurately reflect contemporary understandings about human development.
Accordingly, the curriculum document highlights the stage-specific developmental needs of
children, young adolescents, and older adolescents. In particular, the inclusion of the
Learning in Years 7-10 pathway, which straddles the last two primary and first two secondary
years, emphasises that young adolescents need a “responsive curriculum” with a “clear sense
of continuity and direction” as they negotiate transition (p. 41). The document goes on to
explain that “positive relationships with adults, opportunities to be involved in the
community, and authentic learning experiences … (are) particularly important” for young
people in Years 7-10 (p. 41). Indeed, research in middle schooling contexts in the USA shows
that young adolescents respond especially well to student-centred curriculum designs that
encourage them to explore real-life issues and make meaningful connections in social
contexts beyond the classroom (Beane, 2005).

1. What kinds of curriculum design might respond to the needs of young adolescents: in (a) a
primary school, and (b) a high school?

The Local Curriculum

Curriculum construction is a social and cultural process involving input from all the
curriculum stakeholders. Local curriculum is effective when it is contextualised to take into
account the culture of the surrounding community along with children’s and young people’s
personal interests and needs. In contrast, a one-size-fits-all curriculum design lifted from a
textbook or obtained from a commercial outlet is likely to alienate students because it is
unlikely acknowledge their particular cultural knowledge and understandings. When the local
curriculum fails to utilise relevant and meaningful contexts, students tend to become
disengaged and disruptive (Brady & Kennedy, 2010). This section discusses local curriculum
design in the school and the classroom.

The school curriculum

An effective school curriculum can do much to make schooling more meaningful and
relevant. For example, a school curriculum that focuses on shared values, caring for one
another and celebrating diversity may result in tangible outcomes such as a reduction in
levels of bullying and other unpleasant behaviours. The school curriculum also provides an
opportunity to align pedagogy and assessment. For instance, the potential of classroom
activities involving student collaboration at increasing levels of sophistication is unlikely to
be achieved unless the skill base of children and young people is developed over the long
term (Killen, 2009). The following Applied Learning Experience shows how a well thought-
out school curriculum can bring about a profound change in the social climate of a school and
improve students’ learning outcomes.

5
Applied Learning Experience 3.3: A responsive school curriculum
The Clover Park community in the suburb of Otara in Auckland, New Zealand is a testimony
to the power of a student-centred approach to the school curriculum. Clover Park
Intermediate School (Years 7-8) opened in 1981 but within a decade was characterised by
academic under-performance, violence and vandalism. Following the implementation of a
new school curriculum that was underpinned by a commitment to the cultural backgrounds
represented in the school community, the school experienced a remarkable turnaround that
gained the attention of national media (Neville-Tisdall, 2002). The educational philosophy at
Clover Park is based on an inclusive curriculum design where young people have a voice
because the local curriculum is collaboratively constructed by teachers and students (Beane,
2005). The key principles in the school’s curriculum are critical pedagogy, where young
people learn to ask questions about the world around them, and whanaungatanga, a Māori
term for social connection, where the idea of the extended family is applied to all aspects of
school life. This local curriculum values and respects young people’s personal and cultural
knowledge, meets their learning needs, and equips them with a framework for making sense
of their world. The Clover Park school community is poor compared to most other NZ
communities but its curriculum continues to promote positive learning outcomes for many
young people (Dowden, 2010).

1. Why do you think young people in this school community responded so positively to the
new curriculum design?

The classroom curriculum

The classroom context is where teachers as curriculum stakeholders are able to have a major
impact on curriculum construction. Teachers also often assume the curriculum stakeholder
role of advocate for children and young people. Teachers become truly effective stakeholders
in the classroom curriculum when they genuinely know children at the personal relationship
level, know their communities, know about student diversity, and understand children and
young people according to the principles of human development.
Ideally, construction of the classroom curriculum involves getting every curricular
component perfectly organised and aligned. In real life, teaching practice is never perfect, but
classroom planning is generally effective when the basic principles of curriculum planning
are addressed. An effective approach to curriculum design is firstly, to check that each
curricular component has been appropriately considered, and secondly, to ensure that the
curricular components are logically aligned so that learning experiences are genuinely
engaging for children and young people.

Change in the Curriculum is Guaranteed

Technology and change
During the second half the 20th century, Western societies experienced a change in the
workplace that has had deep implications for curriculum design construction and brings into
question the kind of schooling that society now needs. In the industrial revolution of the 19th
and early 20th century, employers expected employees to have basic skills in reading, writing
and arithmetic along with virtues such as diligence, punctuality and obedience. A single
industry would typically employ much of the workforce in a town or city and employees
could be assured of a job until they retired.
In the globalised context of the 21st century, employers often assume that job-seekers
have highly developed communication skills and expertise in the use of technology. Many
other people are self employed and most people will have several jobs and accompanying

6
work descriptions before they retire. It is quite likely that the majority of children in school
today will have job descriptions for kinds of work that haven’t been invented yet. New
workplace virtues include flexibility, independence, and the ability to problem-solve or
question things.
As the advancement of technology accelerates, so does the need to change curriculum
content concerned with technologies. Digital technology is both local and global in its reach
and it is probably difficult to underestimate its profound impact in the classrooms of the near
future. Although this sub-topic is new to education textbooks, many children in today’s world
already routinely harness the immense power of digital technology to enhance their learning
because they are “digital natives”, that is, they have been surrounded by digital technology
their whole life, so they don’t know any other reality (Prensky, 2001, p. 1).

7
Politics and change
The curriculum is always political because information is a key to accessing power. As such,
the content of the curriculum is continually contested and, therefore, the curriculum
frequently changes. At election time this may happen literally overnight.
US American critical theorist Michael Apple (1990) recast Spencer’s question of “What
knowledge is of the most worth?” to ask “Whose knowledge is most worth?” (p. vii). He
explained that politics has a major influence on curriculum content, thus the subject matter
that is accepted into official curriculum documents consists of carefully chosen high culture
knowledge which reflects the politics of the dominant group. Apple’s question implies that
politics plays a decisive role in deciding whose knowledge is of most worth (and is therefore
allowed to enter the curriculum) and whose knowledge is marginalised (and is therefore
prevented from entering the curriculum).
Indeed, the curriculum often becomes a political ‘football’ and a convenient scapegoat
for economic underperformance. For example, every so often the media fields calls for
education to ‘get back to basics’ from critics who, harking back to the kind of education
needed during the industrial revolution, often want more emphasis on reading, writing and
arithmetic. Fullan (1993) explained that innovative change in education is nearly always
resisted, thus one important aspect in the process of any curriculum design is to convince the
curriculum stakeholders about the need for change.
A political consensus on education by the dominant political parties in a state or nation is
a rare and wonderful thing. It provides stability and allows high quality and forward-looking
curriculum to be constructed without having to accommodate extremist demands. Curriculum
change will always remain a certainty but when the curriculum framework is underpinned by
principles of good design rather than a political agenda, it is less subject to change.

Definitions for curriculum

It should be clear by now that a simple definition for the curriculum, such as the one supplied
at the beginning of the chapter, does not fully capture the complexity of the social context. In
reality, the struggle among the curriculum stakeholders to influence the design and
construction of the curriculum is mediated by diverse political and economic pressures.
The curriculum is perceived and experienced differently by stakeholders. One outcome is
that textbook writers often seem to be determined to invent new jargon. Preservice teachers
should not be intimidated by this. Many terms involve putting an adjective in front of the
word curriculum and have a straight-forward meaning. For instance, the taught curriculum
refers to what is actually taught in school. Other similar terms include the intended
curriculum, the enacted curriculum, the assessed curriculum and the received curriculum.
Some terms are more complex with a specific meaning. For instance, the hidden curriculum
refers to unintended learning outcomes that are usually associated with cultural norms (e.g.
girls sitting back passively and allowing boys to perform hands-on investigations during
science classes leading to the belief that science is not an appropriate subject or career choice
for girls).
This section has shown that curriculum is always dynamic and changes in response to the
changing demands of society. In addition, curriculum documents come and go, and
curriculum jargon is invented and replaced.

Curriculum Designs that put Students first

Addressing diversity and inequality via a democratic curriculum
In Western democracies, educators, politicians and the public generally agree that the primary
role of education is to prepare young people for active citizenship and productive work lives

8
(Tyler, 1988). The primary purpose of curriculum design and construction, therefore, is to
enable educators to pass on skills and information from one generation to the next. When the
official curriculum is highly prescriptive and restricts the freedom of teachers, this purpose is
achieved in a manner where power flows in a ‘top-down’ direction. On the other hand, when
the official curriculum is broad and encourages the development off a strong local
curriculum, this purpose can be achieved in manner where power flows in a ‘bottom-up’
direction some of the time.
American philosopher John Dewey (1916) argued that democratic citizenship is a crucial
life skill that should be developed and practiced within the school setting. A democratic
approach to education accordingly argues that assuming society wants the next generation to
be active and productive citizens, students need to be actively involved in the development
and implementation of the classroom curriculum (Apple & Beane, 2007). The political nature
of the democratic curriculum is that power is able to flow in a ‘bottom-up’ direction. This
gives stakeholders in the local curriculum a greater measure of freedom and, assuming the
wider school community is committed to democratic principles, it offers an effective way to
address issues of diversity and inequality in the community.
It is always desirable from a moral and ethical standpoint to address poverty and
minimise societal misery but, in addition, recent research shows that when these issues are
addressed systematically, the whole society reaps a tangible reward. Specifically, aggregated
international data measuring a wide range of social and economic indicators has shown that
nations that minimise inequality do significantly better than other nations (Wilkinson &
Pickett, 2010).

Student-centred curriculum designs

A student-centred approach to curriculum construction often means that when children
and young people search for coherence and understanding, subject area boundaries are often
blurred. Indeed, big problems that matter to society but don’t have simple solutions are better
investigated through the lens of more than one subject area (Brady & Kennedy, 2010).
Environmental controversies provide an interesting cross-curricular context for engaging
adolescent learners. For instance, a proposed pulp mill in Tasmania provided a fascinating
curricular context for rich learning in social education, science and economics (McLaine &
Dowden, 2011).
Young adolescents respond especially well to being given a degree of responsibility and
control over their learning. For example, the concept of negotiating the curriculum has been
trialled in Australian contexts (Boomer, Lester, Onore, & Cook, 1992) and a student-centred
democratic curriculum model, where teachers and students collaboratively construct the
curriculum, is considered to be an exemplary approach to middle schooling (Dowden, 2007;
Middle Years of Schooling Association, 2008).
Curricula for young children should be constructed thoughtfully to ensure that learning is
a “joyful and meaningful experience” (Moravcik, Nolte, & Feeney, 2013, p. 6). Teachers in
NZ have a long tradition of constructing child-centred curricula with the needs of young
children in mind. In the 1950s Silvia Ashton-Warner developed an “organic” reading method
with Māori children in a primary school in the Hawkes Bay region (1963, p. 27). She rejected
the sterile Euro-centric reading resources of the day and, instead, helped children create their
own readers using subject matter from their local community. More recently, New Zealand
primary school teacher Chris Brough adapted Beane’s (2005) democratic curriculum model
to meet the particular needs of young children. She invited children in her classes in the
Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions to construct classroom curricula around ‘teachable
moments’. Her classroom pedagogy and research has demonstrated that, as long as sufficient
scaffolding is provided, young children can capably collaborate with their teacher to co-

9
construct a democratic child-centred curriculum that results in powerful learning outcomes
(Brough, 2012).

Summary
This chapter has focused on helping you develop an understanding the curriculum. Our
discussion has shed light on five key ideas. First, curriculum stakeholders shape and
influence curriculum design and construction. Second, national and/or state curricula are
official documents and mandate what should be taught in schools. Despite their official
nature, curriculum documents do not necessarily provide a complete blueprint for successful
learning and teaching. Third, the school and the classroom are important sites of curriculum
design. An effective local curriculum can have a major impact on the success of a school
community. Fourth, curricular change is guaranteed. The rapid growth of technologies and
the constantly changing dynamics of politics ensure that the official curriculum will keep
changing. Fifth, definitions for the curriculum are complex because every curriculum is
mediated by the social context. Democratic and student-centred curriculum designs address
diversity and inequality, and respond to children’s and young people’s developmental needs.

Discussion Questions
1. Reflect on your personal experience as a high school or college student. Consider how the
stakeholders in the curriculum used their influence and power.

2. Describe an instance where an individual curriculum stakeholder has made a significant

difference to a school curriculum.

3. Compare the broad detail of two curricula at national and/or state level. Do they have
different goals? Apart from the subject areas, how much emphasis is there on other aspects
that are relevant to learning and teaching?

4. Imagine that an official curriculum document does not require teachers and schools to take
into consideration student diversity, developmental needs, gifted and talented needs, or
special needs when the school and classroom curricula are designed and constructed. Is there
a sound rationale for attending to these or are they optional extras?

5. A teacher is thinking about implementing a radical Grade 5 classroom curriculum where

her students get to decide what they will learn. She wants to go ahead with the idea but
doubts others will disapprove. She wisely decides to seek advice. With reference to your own
life experience, what do you think other curriculum stakeholders, such as her students’
parents, her principal, the teachers in her school and in the local high school might say?

6. An inexperienced teacher discovers that he can buy ready-to-use units of work on-line.
With reference to your local context what advice would you offer in regard to the selection of
a unit of work for purchase?

7. With reference to your local context, what kinds of curriculum design and classroom
pedagogy might help to reduce the impact of the ‘hidden’ curriculum?

10
Essay Topic or Research Project
Identify an aspect of this chapter that has given you food for thought in terms of theory
and/or practice. Critically discuss relevant aspects of theory and practice, then develop an
idea you could implement in the classroom.

Further Reading
Official curriculum documents (national and/or state)
Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2010). Curriculum construction (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW:
Pearson.
Churchill, R., Ferguson, P., Godinho, S., Johnson, N. F., Keddie, A., Letts, W., … Vick, M.
(2011). Teaching: Making a difference. Milton, QLD: Wiley.
Groundwater-Smith, S., Ewing, R., & Le Cornu, R. (2011). Teaching: Challenges and
dilemmas (4th ed.). Sydney, NSW: Harcourt Brace.
Hill, L., Stremmel, A., & Fu, V. (2005). Teaching as inquiry: Rethinking curriculum in early
childhood education. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Killen, R. (2009). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from research and practice (5th ed.).
South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage.
Marsh, C. (2010). Becoming a teacher: Knowledge, skills and issues (5th ed.). Frenchs
Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.
Smith, D., & Lovat, T. (2003). Curriculum: Action on reflection (4th ed.). Tuggerah, NSW:
Social Science Press.

References
Alexander, S. (2012). A cook’s life. Camberwell, VIC: Penguin Australia.
Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (2007). Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education
(2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011). Australian curriculum.
Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/curriculum.html
Beane, J. A. (2005). A reason to teach: Creating classrooms of dignity and hope. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Boomer, G., Lester, N., Onore, C., & Cook, J. (Eds.). (1992). Negotiating the curriculum:
Educating for the 21st century. London, UK: Falmer.
Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2010). Curriculum construction (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW:
Pearson.
Brough, C. (2012). Implementing the democratic principles and practices of student-centred
curriculum integration in primary schools. The Curriculum Journal, 23(3), 345–369.
Department of Education, Training and the Arts, Queensland. (2008). P-12 Curriculum
Framework. Brisbane, QLD. Author.
Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: MacMillan.
Dowden, T. (2007). Relevant, challenging, integrative and exploratory curriculum design:
Perspectives from theory and practice for middle schooling in Australia. Australian
Educational Researcher, 34(2), 51–71.
Dowden, T. (2010). Curriculum integration in Aotearoa New Zealand: Rediscovering the
potential of student-centred curriculum design in the middle years. Australian Journal of
Middle Schooling, 10(2), 4–10.

11
Dowden, T. (2012). Middle schooling in Tasmania: Teachers’ beliefs about classroom
pedagogy. Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 12(1), 4–11.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. London, UK: Falmer Press.
Killen, R. (2009). Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from theory and practice (5th ed.).
South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage.
Marsh, C. (2004). Key concepts for understanding curriculum (3rd ed.). London, UK:
Falmer.
McKernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and imagination: Process theory, pedagogy and action
research. New York, NY: Routledge.
McLaine, J., & Dowden, T. (2011). Accommodating environmental controversies in the
classroom curriculum: Too hot to handle or opportunities for deep learning? The Social
Educator, 29(2), 22–29.
Middle Years of Schooling Association, Australia. (2008). MYSA position paper: Middle
schooling people, practices and places. Brisbane, QLD: Author.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, Australia.
(2008). The Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians.
Retrieved from
http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Education
al_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf
Ministry of Education, New Zealand. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum (English-medium
teaching and learning in Years 1-13). Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
Moravcik, E., Nolte, S., & Feeney, S. (2013). Meaningful curriculum for young children.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Neville-Tisdall, M. (2002). Pedagogy and politics in New Zealand’s middle schools. Middle
School Journal, 33(4), 45–51.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5). Retrieved from
http://www.hfmboces.org/HFMDistrictServices/TechYES/PrenskyDigitalNatives.pdf
Schubert, W. H. (1995). Toward lives worth living and sharing: Historical perspective on
curriculum coherence. In J. A. Beane (Ed.), Toward a coherent curriculum (ASCD 1995
Yearbook) (pp. 146–157). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Spencer, H. (1896). Education: Intellectual, moral and physical. New York, NY: Appleton.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Tyler, R. W. (1988). Progress in dealing with curriculum problems. In L. N. Tanner (Ed.),
Critical issues in curriculum. Eighty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education (Part 1), pp. 267–276. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone
(Rev. ed.). London, UK: Penguin.

***

12