Anka Kuşu veya Sisifos Schwab’tan Sonra Eğitim Programları Alanı 23 / 26

Year 2020, Volume: 53 Issue: 3, 1153 - 1178, 01.12.2020

M. Emir Rüzgar

https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.644741

Cited By: 3

Abstract

In an essay published in 1969, Schwab argued that the field of curriculum was in a moribund
state in that it was unable by its back-then present principles and methods to do curriculum
work. Schwab also discussed that curricular energies had to be turned to practical rather than
theoretical so that the field could do its function. Schwab’s arguments have met numerous

infavor and counter arguments in the field since they were subject of studies of various scholars.
Especially reconceptualists, opponents of a curricular movement, have occupied a significant
space in the curriculum scholarship. In the present article, the author aimed at examining the
significance of Schwab’s arguments in the present age of curriculum studies especially within
the American context. The primary argument of the author was that the field was not moribund,
yet there were talks of a crisis in the field. The author, moreover, discussed that it was essential
to revitalize the relation of the field to schools and schooling as Schwab formulated it by
emphasizing a practical conception of the field in order to overcome the crisis talks in the field.

Keywords

Schwab, the practical, reconceptualization, curriculum theory, curriculum development

Anka Kuşu veya Sisifos Schwab’tan Sonra Eğitim Programları Alanı

Abstract

Schwab 1969 yılında yayımladığı bir çalışmasında eğitim programları alanının o dönemdeki
mevcut ilke ve yöntemleriyle program işini yapamaz durumda olduğunu tartışmış ve alanın can
çekiştiğini öne sürmüştür. Ayrıca alanın işlevsel duruma gelebilmesi için alandaki uğraşların
kuramsaldan kılgısala döndürülmesi gerektiği iddiasında da bulunmuştur. Schwab’ın bu
savları, alanda birçok cevap makalesine neden olmuş ve özellikle yurt dışı alanyazında birçok
çalışmanın konusu olmuştur. Bu çalışmalar arasında yeniden kavramlaştırma olarak bilinen bir
program akımı alanda gözle görülür bir ilgi çekmiştir. Bu makalede ise yazar, özellikle Amerika
Birleşik Devletleri alanyazınını temel alarak Schwab’ın iddialarının günümüz eğitim programı
alanı için geçerliğini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Yazarın temel iddiası, belirtilen bağlam içinde
alanın can çekişir durumda olmadığı, ancak alanda bir bunalım (kriz) söyleminin hâlâ var
olduğu yönündedir. Yazar ayrıca bu bunalım söylemlerini aşmanın, alanın tarihi çerçevesini
kavrayarak Schwab’ın da dile getirdiği üzere program alanının okullara ve okullaşmaya olan
bağı temelinde kılgısal bir yaklaşımla olanaklı olduğunu öne sürmüştür.

Keywords

Schwab, kılgı, yeniden kavramlaştırma, program kuramı, program geliştirme

References

• Antonelli, G. A. (1972). The man and his work. Peabody Journal of Education, 50(1), 68-74.Appelbaum, P. (2002). Disconceptualizing curriculum: Is there a next in the generational text? Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 18(1), 7-19. Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Apple, M. W. (2009). On being a scholar/activist in education. E. C. Short ve L. J. Waks (Ed.), Leaders in Curriculum Studies: Intellectual Self-Portraits içinde (s. 1-14). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Ben-Peretz, M. (2009). My journey in the curriculum field: Looking back with hope. E. C. Short ve L. J. Waks (Ed.), Leaders in Curriculum Studies: Intellectual Self-Portraits içinde (s. 15-26). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Biesta, G. (2014). Pragmatising the curriculum: bringing knowledge back into the curriculum conversation, but via pragmatism. The Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 29-49. Bird, A. (1998). Philosophy of Science. (n.p.): Routledge. Bird, A. (2013). “Thomas Kuhn,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Sürümü), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/thomas-kuhn/Bobbitt, J. F. (2017). Eğitim Programı (M. E. Rüzgar, çev.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 1918). Broudy, H. S. (1991). The role of art education in the public school. G. Willis ve W. H. Schubert (Ed.), Reflections from the heart of educational inquiry understanding Curriculum and Teaching through the Arts içinde (s. 60-73). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Bushaw, W. J. ve Lopez, S. J. (2010). A time for change: The 42nd annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 9-26.Bümen, N. T. ve Aktan, S. (2014). Yenı̇den kavramsallaştırma akımı ışığında Türkı̇ye’de eğı̇tı̇m programları ve öğretı̇m alanı üzerı̇ne özeleştı̇rel bı̇r çözümleme. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(3), 1123-1144. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1987). A social project for curriculum: Post‐structural perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 295-316. Connelly, F. M. (2013). Joseph Schwab, curriculum, curriculum studies and educational reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 622-639, DOI:10.1080/00220272.2013.798838.Deng, Z. (2013). The “Why” and “What” of curriculum inquiry: Schwab’s The Practical revisited. Education Journal, 41(1–2), 85–105. Doll, W. E. (1993). Curriculum possibilities in a “post”-future. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(4), 277-292. Eisner, E. (1984). No easy answers: Joseph Schwab's contributions to curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 201-210. Feinberg, W. (2016). What is public education and why we need it. A philosophical inquiry into self-development, cultural commitment and public engagement. Lanham, MD: Lexington. Franklin, B. M. ve Johnson, C. C. (2008). What the schools teach: A social history of the American curriculum since 1950. F. M. Connelly, M. F. He ve J. Phillion (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction içinde (s. 460-477). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (20th Year Anniversary Ed). New York, NY: Continuum. Garcia–Huidobro, J. C. (2017). Addressing the crisis in curriculum studies: Curriculum integration that bridges issues of identity and knowledge. The Curriculum Journal, 29(1), 25-42, DOI:10.1080/09585176.2017.1369442Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Greene, M. (1980). Response to Philip Jackson. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(2), 172-175. Grimmett, P. P. ve Halvorson, M. (2010). From understanding to creating curriculum: the case for the co-evolution of re-conceptualized design with re-conceptualized curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(2), 241-262, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2010.00480.xGünay, D. ve Günay, A. (2016). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de yükseköğretim okullaşma oranları ve gelişmeler. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 6(1), 13-30. Habacı, İ., İncekara, A., Ürker, A., Atıcı, R. ve Habacı, Z. (2013). Türk eğitim sisteminde okullaşma sorunları. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 310-338. Hansen, D. T., Anderson, R. F., Frank, J. ve Nieuwejaar, K. (2008). Reenvisioning the Progressive Tradition in Curriculum. F. M. Connelly, M. F. He ve J. Phillion (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction içinde (s. 440-459). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Hazlett, J. S. (1979). Conceptions of curriculum history. Curriculum Inquiry, 9(2), 129-135. Hlebowitsh, P. S. (1999a). The burdens of the new curricularist. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 343-354. Hlebowitsh, P. S. (1999b). More on “The burdens of the new curricularist”. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 369-373.Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 109-124.Huebner, D. (1976). The moribund curriculum field: Its wake and our work. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(2), 153-167.Jackson, P. (1992). Conceptions of Curriculum and Curriculum Specialists. P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum içinde (s. 3-40). New York: Macmillan.Jackson, P. W. (1980). Curriculum and its discontents. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(2), 159-172. Kanigel, R. (1997). The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency. New York, NY: Viking. Kavramlaştırma. (2019). Türk Dil Kurumu (Büyük Türkçe Sözlük). http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_bts&arama=kelime&guid=TDK.GTS.5c7dc6ea34a039.17208818 adresinden erişilmiştir.Kılgısal. (2019). Türk Dil Kurumu (Büyük Türkçe Sözlük). http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_bts&arama=kelime&guid=TDK.GTS.5c7dbc31c2bbf3.38328991 adresinden erişilmiştir.Kim, P. ve Marshall, J. D. (2001). Expanding traditions: Curriculum in transition—the seventies. The Educational Forum, 65(1), 62-72, DOI: 10.1080/00131720008984463. Klein, M. F. (1986). Alternative curriculum conceptions and designs. Theory Into Practice, 25(1), 31-35, DOI: 10.1080/00405848609543195. Kliebard, H. M. (1976). Curriculum past and curriculum present. Educational Leadership, 33(4), 245-248. Künzli, R. (2014). The German Curriculum Movement – a failure of transatlantic exchange. European Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1(1), 53-60. Miller, J. L. (2005). The American curriculum field and its worldly encounters. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 21(2), 9-24.Morrison, K. R. B. (2004) The poverty of curriculum theory: a critique of Wraga and Hlebowitsh. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(4), 487-494, DOI: 10.1080/0022027042000211458. Null, J. W. (2008). Curriculum Development in Historical Perspective. F. M. Connelly, M. F. He ve J. Phillion (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction içinde (s. 478-490). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Oberle, E. ve Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2016). Stress contagion in the classroom? The link between classroom teacher burnout and morning cortisol in elementary school students. Social Science & Medicine, 159, 30-37.Özbaş, M. (2012). Kız çocuklarının ortaöğretı̇mde okullaşma oranlarına etkı̇ eden nedenlere ı̇lı̇şkı̇n algıları. International Journal of New Trends in Arts, Sports & Science Education, 1(4), 60-71. Pinar, W. F. (1978a). The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10(3), 205-214. Pinar, W. F. (1978b). Notes on the curriculum field. Educational Researcher, 7, 5-12. Pinar, W. F. (1999). The reconceptualization of curriculum studies. Counterpoints, 70, 483-497. Pinar, W. F. (2008). Curriculum Theory Since 1950: Crisis, Reconceptualization, Internationalization. F. M. Connelly, M. F. He ve J. Phillion (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction içinde (s. 491-513). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Pinar, W. F. ve Miller, J. L. (1982). Feminist curriculum theory: Notes on the American field 1982. The Journal of Educational Thought, 16(3), 217-224. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M, Slattery, P. ve Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, New York: Peter Lang.Ponder, G. A. (1974). Curriculum: field without a past? Educational Leadership, 31, 461-464.Reid, W. A. (1998). OP-ED Erasmus, Gates, and the end of curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(5), 499–501, DOI: 10.1080/002202798183413Reid, W. A. (2001). Rethinking Schwab: Curriculum theorizing as a visionary activity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 17(1), 29-41. Reid, W. A. (2009). Life is a curriculum. E. C. Short ve L. J. Waks (Ed.), Leaders in Curriculum Studies: Intellectual Self-Portraits içinde (s. 153-164). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Riquarts, K. ve Hopmann, S. (1995) Starting a dialogue: issues in a beginning conversation between Didaktik and the curriculum traditions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 3-12, DOI: 10.1080/0022027950270102. Roby IV, T. W. (2008). How Joe Schwab thinks. A review of the Practical 1 after 40 years. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 24(1), 85-89. Rüzgar, M. E. (2018). On matters that matter in the curriculum studies: An interview with Ian Westbury. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 670-684, DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2018.1537374Schubert, W. H. (1981). Knowledge about out-of-school curriculum. The Educational Forum, 45(2), 185-198, DOI: 10.1080/00131728109336070. Schubert, W. H. (2008). Curriculum Inquiry. F. M. Connelly, M. F. He ve J. Phillion (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction içinde (s. 399-419). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R. ve Meece, J. (2007). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The Practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 78(1), 1-23. Schwab, J. J. (1971). The Practical: Arts of eclectic. The School Review, 79(4), 493-542. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The Practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501-522. Schwab, J. J. (1983). The Practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239-265. Scott, D. (2014). Knowledge and the curriculum. The Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 14-28. Sears, J. T. (1992). The second wave of curriculum theorizing: Labyrinths, orthodoxies, and other legacies of the glass bead game. Theory Into Practice, 31(3), 210-218. Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum development in the postmodern era (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Snaza, N. (2014). The death of curriculum studies and its ghosts. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 11(2), 154-173, DOI: 10.1080/15505170.2014.966932. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York, New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Tanner, D. ve Tanner, L. N. (1979). Emancipation from research: the reconceptualist prescription. Educational Researcher, 8, 8-12.Thomas, G. (2013). Education: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tyler, R. W. (2014). Eğitim Programlarının ve Öğretimin Temel İlkeleri. (M. Emir Rüzgar ve Berna Aslan, çev.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. (Orijinal eserin basım tarihi 1949). Walker, D. (1976). Toward comprehension of curricular realities. Review of Research in Education, 4(1), 268-308. West, M. R., Peterson, P. E., ve Barrows, S. (2017). What do parents think of their children's schools? Education Next, 17(2), 9-18. Westbury, I. (1972). The character of a curriculum for a “Practical” curriculum. Curriculum Theory Network, 10, 25-36. Westbury, I. (1999). The burdens and the excitement of the “new” curriculum research: a response to Hlebowitsh's “The burdens of the new curricularist”. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 355-364.Westbury, I. (2013). Reading Schwab’s the ‘Practical’ as an invitation to a curriculum enquiry. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 640-651, DOI:10.1080/00220272.2013.795246.Wraga, W. G. (1998). “Interesting, if true”: historical perspectives on the “reconceptualization” of curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(1), 5-28. Wraga, W. G. ve Hlebowitsh, P. (2003). Toward a renaissance in curriculum theory and development in the USA. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(4), 425-437, DOI: 10.1080/00220270305527.Wyse, D., Hayward, L., ve Pandya, J. (Ed.). (2016). The SAGE handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Yazzie-Mintz, E. (2007). Voices of students on engagement: A Report on the 2006 high school survey of student engagement. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495758.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir. Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: a knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101-118, DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2013.764505.