Search results

Our awakening to the curriculum being made by children and families in home and community places grows out of a theoretical background that informs our current inquiry into the tensions experienced by children, families, and teachers as they compose diverse lives on school landscapes, contexts increasingly structured by achievement testing. Our understanding of curriculum is grounded in Clandinin and Connelly's (Clandinin, 1986; Connelly & Clandinin, 1988) earlier attention to curriculum making as the expression of a teacher's personal practical knowledge. They described this knowledge as “that body of convictions and meanings, conscious or unconscious, that have arisen from experience (intimate, social, and traditional) and that are expressed in a person's practices” (Clandinin & Connelly, 1995, p. 7). Dewey's (1938) notions of continuity, situation, and experience, shaped Clandinin and Connelly's (1992) understanding of the “teacher not so much as a maker of curriculum but as a part of it and to imagine a place for contexts, culture (Dewey's notion of interaction), and temporality (both past and future contained in Dewey's notion of continuity)” (p. 365). By bringing together their understandings of teachers’ knowledge as personal practical knowledge with Dewey's notion of experience and Schwab's (1969) four curriculum commonplaces – teacher, learner, subject matter, and milieu – Clandinin and Connelly (1992) suggested that curriculumbe viewed as an account of teachers’ and children's lives together in schools and classrooms … .[In this view of curriculum making] the teacher is seen as an integral part of the curricular process … in which teacher, learners, subject matter, and milieu are in dynamic interaction. (p. 392)

As we opened this chapter in relation with Loyla's life, we did so with a transcript excerpt from a research conversation in which Loyla spoke about a series of experiences shaping much unhappiness in her life; they were experiences also creating significant concern for Orie. On the day in May when Loyla, Orie, and Janice engaged in the conversation from which the transcript excerpt is taken, Orie and Loyla had, just hours prior, participated in an after-school meeting with Mrs. Gallagher. Orie explained to Janice that she had requested the meeting as a result of a series of situations unfolding over a number of months between Loyla, Cicily, and Ahlam. Recounting the events to Janice, Orie began with Loyla's shift in inviting Ahlam to her birthday party. Initially, Loyla suggested Ahlam as a friend she wanted to invite but then, the next morning, she told Orie she no longer wanted to invite Ahlam because Cicily had said that if Ahlam was invited, she would not attend (Journal entry, Orie, December 8, 2008).

As we engaged in this research, we returned to the earliest uses of the term curriculum making that we could find. We were not surprised to learn that curriculum making is most commonly used to refer to making the planned or mandated curriculum (Jackson, 1968) and not in reference to the curriculum making in which teachers and children engage in classroom and schools (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992). However, in our search, we read Cremin (1971), who drew our attention to William Torrey Harris, a school superintendent in the St. Louis school system in the United States during the 1870s. As Cremin wrote,What is of special interest is rather the analytical paradigm. There is the learner, self-active and self-willed by virtue of his humanity and thus self-propelled into the educative process; there is the course of study, organized by responsible adults with appropriate concern for priority, sequence, and scope; there are materials of instruction which particularize the course of study; there is the teacher who encourages and mediates the process of instruction; there are the examinations which appraise it; and there is the organizational structure within which it proceeds and within which large numbers of individuals are enabled simultaneously to enjoy its benefits. All the pieces were present for the game of curriculum-making that would be played over the next half-century; only the particular combinations and the players would change. (p. 210)

This chapter provides a summary and a concluding discussion on the main findings from the different cases and chapters throughout this volume. The chapter revisits the approach on curriculum making as non-linear and as framed around a conceptualisation of interrelated sites of activity – supra, macro, meso, micro and nano – presented in the introduction. A central conclusion of this book is that the meso site of activity stands out as critical for current developments within curriculum making, both in terms of a transformed role for the nation state in macro curriculum making, as well as implications of policy flows and processes from the supra site of activity. Based on our observations, we suggest an elaborated model for understanding curriculum making, with special attention to the significance of meso curriculum making and teacher agency. In the final part of the conclusions, we argue that there are a number of lessons to be learned from curriculum making in the European context. In line with the significance of meso curriculum making observed throughout the volume, we emphasize the importance of middle ground and mobility, the necessity of participatory curriculum making, and that systems of accountability need to be based on trust. We also underline the importance of a delicate balance concerning regulation– providing support, guidance and steering – together with a critical awareness of destructive as well as progressive forces for maintaining and providing the agency of the educational systemfor good curriculum making.

In this chapter, we inquire into our ever-unfolding experiences as teachers and with teacher research participants in order to explore the complexities of curriculum making in teacher education. In doing so, we lay the foundation for understanding narrative inquiry as both theory and method as such, frame our work in this volume. Curriculum making, a term introduced by Joseph Schwab, reflects the dynamic process of learning in which the teacher, learner, subject matter, and milieu interact. Moreover, we think about the ways people make sense of themselves, identity-making, in the process of curriculum making. Through Derek’s experiences with Lee, a previous Grade five student, and Cindy’s work with Jesse, a research participant, we inquire into their curriculum making and identity-making. We argue that in schools, there are multiple curricula in the making, going beyond the formal notions of curriculum as grade-level standards or classroom objectives. In our inquiry process, we consider experiences in schools through Aoki’s understanding of curriculum-as-plan and lived curriculum. In his writing, Aoki noted that the lived experience of curriculum in schools is much more complex and varied than the planned curriculum that is meant for a generalized audience; students and teachers bring their lives with them into particular contexts that indelibly shape the ways that curriculum is lived out. As well, we think about the ways experiences and places shape teachers and researchers and the ways we see the world.

This chapter provides an introduction to the European case study chapters in this volume on curriculum making. The chapter explores different conceptions of curriculum and curriculum making. It offers a critique of existing thinking about curriculum making as something that occurs withinreified levels within an educational system. Such thinking often construes curriculum making as occurring through linear and hierarchical chains of command from policy to practice. Drawing upon previous conceptualizations of curriculum making, the chapter develops a new approach to understanding curriculum making. This is a heuristic rather than a normative framing; it is essentially non-linear, framed around the concept of intertwined sites of activity – supra, macro, meso, micro and nano – within complex systems, with curriculum making framed as types of activity rather than institutional functions.

The interim research text shared at the beginning of this chapter was composed from field notes and other field texts created as we lived alongside Ji-Sook in her school and home places and through conversations with Ji-Sook and with Mrs. Han. The interim research text shows something of ways in which we recognized Ji-Sook's curriculum making as interwoven with her assessment making and identity making. By tracing Ji-Sook's assessment making in this interim research text, we see that before our coming to know Ji-Sook, she and her parents were already engaged in this process. At the centre of the family's assessment making was Ji-Sook's life, the life curriculum she was composing in Korea. As described in earlier chapters, Mr. and Mrs. Han were concerned about the competitive aspects of schooling in Korea. As Ji-Sook's parents, they wanted Ji-Sook to be deeply engaged in learning in school. In part, Mr. and Mrs. Han did not want Ji-Sook's life to be shaped by the dominant social and cultural plotlines of competition for the highest grades in schools in Korea. However, they did want her to attend university. Mr. and Mrs. Han had experienced long years of studying and testing as they competed for grades that would guarantee their acceptance into a Korean university. This was not what Mr. and Mrs. Han wanted for Ji-Sook's life, for her identity making. It was their dream of a “happier” childhood for Ji-Sook that shaped the family's immigration to Canada.

This article reports a study on the relationship between organizational climate and one aspect of school based curriculum development, namely, who makes the curriculum decisions and how. In a systematically selected sample of 20 primary schools in N.S.W., two questionnaire were administered: the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) to measure organizational climate, and the Curriculum Decision Making Questionnaire (CDMQ) to determine who makes the curriculum decisions and how. The results indicated a highly significant relationship between the organizational climate factor of principal supportiveness, and curriculum decision making by a group of staff, with group decision making more likely to occur when the principal was supportive. Conversely, there was less likelihood of curriculum decision making by the class teacher acting alone, when the principal was supportive.

The national core curriculum is renewed in Finland approximately every ten years, the most recent one being 2016. The core curriculum sets the general goals, providing the foundation for district- and school level curriculum development work (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016). The messages from transnational educational policy (e.g. OECD) are apparent in the core curriculum. However, districts, schools and teachers are highly autonomous in upholding, resourcing and deciding about the curriculum making at the local sites of activity. Accordingly, the curriculum making relies heavily on shared sense-making as a tool for cultivating transformative learning throughout the educational system. The chapter draws on the results of the national “School Matters” research project (2014-2018), to provide the meta-analysis of the sense-making in national curriculum making. Results suggested that the shared sense-making focused on engaging educational practitioners in learning at all layers of the system. However, the means for facilitating shared sense-making between the different layers of the system and curriculum was perceived to be less coherent by the stakeholders at the district and school level, than at the state level. This implies that the educational providers should not only be involved in co-creation of the aims, contents and values of the curriculum document, but also in designing novel and ecologically valid ways for orchestrating the complex and dynamic curriculum making.

As we gradually awakened to Loyla's, Ji-Sook's, and Brent's familial curriculum making, described in earlier chapters, we grew increasingly aware of tensions shaped by their experiences in their familial and school curriculum making. Our earlier chapters show something of these tensions. In this chapter we return to a focus on tensions by exploring the tensions embodied by Loyla, Brent, and Ji-Sook as they lived in these two curriculum-making places. As we inquire into the children's embodied tensions, we do so with a sense of wanting to restory the potential of tensions on school landscapes and in composing lives. We also want to show something of ways in which attention to children's embodied tensions makes visible the gaps and silences they experienced in living in these two curriculum-making places.