Layout: A5 HuSSci
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Chapter No.: 1
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
Page: 1/12
CHAPTER 1
F
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
PR
OO
ED
5
Cristyne Hébert, Awad Ibrahim, Nicholas Ng-A-Fook
and Bryan Smith
How do we internationalize that which is deeply provincial and national?
Situating our focus on and interest squarely within curriculum studies, how
do we internationalize without imperializing or imposing old, colonial,
and so-called “First World” conceptualizations of education on teaching, learning, and curriculum? Let us not anticipate simple answers to such
complex questions. Being under no illusion that we hold Solomonic wisdom,
we editors turned to the wisdom of others. A curricular response to such
pedagogical questions is this edited volume. In it, we called on contributors
CT
4
RR
E
3
Internationalizing Curriculum Studies:
Histories, Environments, and Critiques
C. Hébert (*)
Faculty of Education, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada
UN
CO
2
A. Ibrahim · N. Ng-A-Fook
Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
e-mail: aibrahim@uOttawa.ca
N. Ng-A-Fook
e-mail: nngafook@uottawa.ca
B. Smith
James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia
© The Author(s) 2019
C. Hébert et al. (eds.), Internationalizing Curriculum Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01352-3_1
1
2
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
F
19
to speak and write from their cultural, linguistic, and national locations, from
the places they know best. We invited them to grapple with these questions
in an increasingly globalized world while also thinking through the general
and particular tasks of curriculum theorists (Derrida 2000).
We present this volume as a dialogic tapestry where our discursive
exchanges are taken up as complicated conversations (Pinar et al. 1995).
In turn, such conversations, as the chapters in the volume make clear, are
suggestive of two dialogic frameworks. The first uses history to complicate local and global understandings of curriculum theorizing. The second
involves a radical push of curriculum theorizing toward (re)imagining a
better future that promises, without promise, bringing into existence that
which is yet to come. Internationally oriented conversations start, as Pinar
(2010) suggests elsewhere, at the national level where the “nation-state”
continues to be a territorial and political domain from which important
and consequential educational reforms are made and in turn need to be
understood. For Pinar, the project of “internationalization denotes the
possibility of nationally distinctive fields in complicated conversations with
each other” (p. 3). But why understand the tasks of curriculum theorists
in relation to internationalization versus globalization?
In Curriculum Studies as an International Conversation, JohnsonMardones (2018) reminds us that the potential of thinking through
the concept of internationalization “is not limited to ‘moving beyond
the nation’ in order to reconstruct the national narrative or to reformulate a national cannon; it also includes the exploration of international
conversations as in-between scholarly spaces” (p. 5). Despite the critiques, Hardt and Negri (2000) tell us, globalization cannot be reduced
to not one thing. For them, “the multiple [curricular and pedagogical] processes that we recognize as globalization are not unified or univocal” (p. 219). With this in mind, this collection seeks to understand
the local—with its history, environment, and critique—as the starting
point for different disciplinary—vertical and horizontal—dimensions of
an internationalization of curriculum studies in relation to globalization
(Pinar 2015). How might we recognize the analytical and synthetical
tensions and possibilities between internationalization and globalization,
and how can we root (route) our differing international approaches for
studying, or better yet understanding, a concept we call curriculum? This
is what we are calling, to lean on Huebner’s term, “the task of the curriculum theorist”: to think through and re/direct the familiar into new, and
more hopeful educational and societal directions.
PR
OO
18
C. HÉBERT ET AL.
ED
17
Page: 2/12
CT
16
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
RR
E
15
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Chapter No.: 1
UN
CO
14
Layout: A5 HuSSci
Layout: A5 HuSSci
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Chapter No.: 1
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
Page: 3/12
1
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
F
58
PR
OO
57
ED
56
In a time of uncertainty, as education becomes increasingly corporatized
and monetized and as de-intellectualization, in the form of alt-right
politics, continues to grow and be further embedded in public consciousness, the need to think through the task of the curriculum theorist
is becoming more urgent than ever (Epstein 2016; Spring 2015). In light
of (or sitting in the dark shadows caused by) Islamophobia, police brutality, hate-fueled attacks, and refusals to respond to the injustices that have
been inflicted upon Indigenous communities across the globe, we began
this work in careful consideration. We came together, from different parts
of the world, to attend the International Association for the Advancement
of Curriculum Studies Conference (IAACS) in May 2015. People spoke in
their own accents, listened to one another with a sense of loving humility,
and tried to rearticulate and reimagine what Huebner (1975/1999) calls
language forms and their respective radical possibilities.
It is worth noting that the Ottawa IAACS conference was the fifth
iteration of our gathering together. The first iteration of this conference
began 15 years ago at Louisiana State University. At that time, a community of curriculum scholars congregated to “talk about issues in curriculum, hearing what people do, how they do it, [and] how they think
about things” with the hope that we could learn from each other (Trueit
2003, p. ix). Like Aoki (2000/2005) suggested then, the IAACS and
its associated conference provided a potential space to “generate newness and hope” (p. 457). Then titled The Louisiana State University
Conference on the Internationalization of Curriculum Studies, it was
organized with the intention of both “encourag[ing] the internationalization of curriculum studies” and calling on curriculum theorists to
“contribute to the formation of a world-wide field of curriculum studies”
(Pinar 2003, p. 1). At this first gathering, Pinar (2003) offered the following cautionary note:
CT
55
3
RR
E
54
UN
CO
53
INTERNATIONALIZING CURRICULUM STUDIES …
Despite the bitterness and our despair over the development in the
schools, many of us Americans still exude a naïve, if more than occasionally
imperialistic, confidence that “the world is ours.” Of course this is nonsense, but somewhere in the American unconsciousness such nonsenses is
it seems, always at work. (p. 4)
Since then, the conference has been held triennially, hosted by universities in China (2003), Finland (2006), South Africa (2009), and Brazil
(2012). In December of 2018, the conference will be held in Australia.
4
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
F
95
Forty-five years prior to this triennial gathering, in his groundbreaking
article, Dwayne Huebner (1975/1999) first thought through The Tasks of
the Curriculum Theorist. Huebner challenged readers to reconceptualize
the field of curriculum studies as a space for multiplicity, recognizing the
variety of shapes and forms various curricular phenomena, research about
said phenomena, and the language we ascribe to them could assume. He
stressed three areas as fields where our tasks as curriculum theorists lie:
within history, the environment, and critique. This collection is organized
around these three fields, and we expand upon each briefly. First, when it
came to history, Huebner argued, process and continuity were at the forefront of our conversations. And in many ways, they still are. For Huebner,
we always need to ground ourselves in a time and a place so that we know
where we come from and where we are going. This is what we are calling
“histories,” in the plural, because history can never be singular interpretation of our relationships with the past. Consequently, there are as many
histories as there are interpreters and interpretations. Huebner stressed
then, that what has begun is never quite finished, while at the same time
reminding us of our allegiances to the past, in terms of tracing our intellectual histories within their particular and partial contextual states.
Huebner (1975/1999) also warned against a tendency toward ahistorical curriculum studies, a proneness for being “messianic” in the adoption of “new and permanent vehicles of salvation” positioned as “the
only and only best way to talk about curricular phenomena” (p. 218).
“To be aware of our historical nature,” he continued, “is to be on top
of our past, so we can use it as a base for projection into the future”
(p. 218). Considering his comment in light of current global challenges,
this projection need not be linear; tracing a clear line from past to present
may not be possible, or indeed, desirable. Instead, projection might be
interpreted as a metaphysical force, a movement or motion that disrupts
certain ascendant historical logics while advancing alternative narratives.
Here, we are looking not to “draw forth old solutions” but rather to be
pushed as he put it, “to new levels of awareness” (p. 221).
Second, beyond a more general grounding of curricular work,
Huebner’s (1975/1999) tasks for curriculum theorists extend to an
engagement with what he labels the “environment” of education, consisting of both the places of education—inside and outside of the
school—and subjective experiences within these spaces. To fully understand Huebner’s approach to the “environment,” which is the second
pillar of this book, we need to distinguish between the “school” (as the
PR
OO
94
C. HÉBERT ET AL.
ED
93
Page: 4/12
CT
92
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
RR
E
91
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Chapter No.: 1
UN
CO
90
Layout: A5 HuSSci
Layout: A5 HuSSci
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Chapter No.: 1
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
Page: 5/12
1
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
F
134
PR
OO
133
ED
132
CT
131
5
place, the geography, the building) and “schooling” (as the experiences
people have in that place, what they do in it, and in turn what the place
does to them). The building does not determine people’s lived experiences but rather is directly related to them. Situating curriculum theory,
in part, within Huebner’s “environment” might help us understand and
in many ways reverse the process of alienation that detaches “the individual from the history of the situation” and makes challenging the aforementioned process of change and growth (p. 223). Locating our selves
in relation to others and spaces aids in the recognition of curriculum as
a “form of human praxis, a shaping of the world” (p. 226) that requires
reaching out, drawing from, and contributing to an active, political, and
aesthetic community committed to imaging the world around us anew.
The third and final pillar of the book is centered around what
Huebner calls “critique.” Huebner (1975/1999) tasks curriculum theorists with a continued responsibility for conducting research as a means
of determining the viability and vitality of institutions by “subjecting
[them] to empirical and social criticism appropriate to given historical
communities” (pp. 227–228). Apart from institutions, we might consider Huebner’s move toward research as an effort to ground the field
in a type of critique, wherein its language, form, and function are placed
under the microscope. As he explains, “the empirical critique determines
the adequacy of the form for the facts [and] the social critique determines the adequacy of the form in terms of the logical, esthetic, economic, and political values of users” (p. 227). Today, such callings upon
curriculum theorists may ground our curriculum inquiries, while also
moving them toward a reconceptualization of our practices and policies
in particular spaces, opening up larger theoretical questions of how we
might create spaces, in curriculum studies, for new ways of sitting with
and thinking through both general and particular curricular issues.
Inspired by Huebner’s (1975/1999) call to reconsider the tasks of the
curriculum theorist, the 2015 meeting of IAACS provided an opportunity for our community to examine more closely what it might mean to
curriculum theorize in the present time, in a moment of crisis; to reconsider what it might mean to live hopefully, radically, ethically, and lovingly with one another, across borders that are becoming increasingly
real and more difficult to traverse (Lear 2008); to imagine what it might
mean to open up new spaces, and to “look at things as if could be otherwise” (Greene 1995, p. 19). These complicated conversations were
conducted through a variety of ever-expanding interpretive traditions:
RR
E
130
UN
CO
129
INTERNATIONALIZING CURRICULUM STUDIES …
6
Layout: A5 HuSSci
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Chapter No.: 1
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
Page: 6/12
C. HÉBERT ET AL.
177
TURNING TO OTHERS: WHAT TO EXPECT IN WHAT FOLLOWS
174
175
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
PR
OO
173
In the first section, “Grounding Curricular Histories,” the authors invite
us to reconsider different historical conversations within the field of curriculum studies. Christou and De Luca offer a brief history of the movement in curriculum studies frequently referred to as reconceptualization.
Identifying three tensions in the current state of the field—contemporaneity, discursive balkanization, and methodological diffusion—they
challenge curriculum scholars to open up curricular spaces, to consider
“who is able to participate in the conversation, how that conversation
is referenced, the degree of coherence within the conversation, and the
value and function of the conversation.” Quinn and Christodoulou
unearth curriculum by constructing an alternative world devoid of curriculum theory, examining its presence through absence. Describing curriculum theory as “the interdisciplinary study of educational experience,
involving [an] extraordinarily complicated conversation,” they recount
their histories in curriculum theory, calling attention to both the historical roots that ground them in particular spaces and time and the fecund
“cross-fertilizing” space between them. In so doing, curriculum theory
becomes a generative force of nourishment, one that has the potential to
both maintain and transform.
Moreira and Ramos provide an important historical overview of
the field of curriculum studies in Brazil that centers on the shift from
educational transfer to mobility in light of internationalization. They
draw on interviews from scholars in the USA, Canada, China, Finland,
Great Britain, and Brazil to ground an inquiry into internationalization, arguing that scholars view internationalization as: a path toward
homogenization, an attempt to understand how countries have grappled with globalization, and as a means for “changes and exchanges of
ED
172
CT
171
RR
E
170
UN
CO
169
F
176
historical, political, racial, gendered, phenomenological, post-structural/
deconstructive/postmodern, (auto)biographical, aesthetic, theological, institutional, international, environmental, indigenous, postcolonial, and cosmopolitan. The chapters offered in this collection represent a move to ground
curriculum studies as an international conversation. While grounding connotes a certain permanence when considering the etymology of the term—
solidifying a foundation, constructing a firm basis, or rooting down—the
chapters call attention to the possibilities for multiplicity suggested through
rerouting (re-rooting) our conceptions of curriculum studies.
168
Layout: A5 HuSSci
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Chapter No.: 1
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
Page: 7/12
1
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
F
210
PR
OO
209
ED
208
CT
207
7
experiences.” Fleming offers a history of second language education in
contention, drawing on a disagreement between scholars to shed light
on the second language education in relation to the hidden curriculum
and as a complicated conversation, highlighting the active nature of the
curriculum. Focusing on the Canadian Language Benchmarks in particular, Fleming argues for an expansion of curricular implementation models, noting that language curricula might be developed both relationally
and in consideration of current classroom contexts.
Ebenezer, Harden, Sseggobe-Kiruma, Pickell, and Hamden explore
phenomenography and self-reflective journaling in the context of a
doctoral seminar. After offering a comprehensive history of curriculum
knowledge development, the authors turn to student voices to demonstrate how curriculum is conceptualized by doctoral students as a means
of promoting openness and flexibility, listening to students’ voices, and
engaging in reflective thinking. Their chapter calls on educators to think
about curriculum as dispersion of theories existing at a given time in history rather than a progression of theories that is getting better and better
and will ultimately lead to the most plausible theory as in science. Meyer,
Nicol, Maalim, Olow, Ali, Nashon, Bulle, Hussein, Hussein, and Hassan
bring an end to this first section by examining curriculum within the
context of refugee camps, highlighting the tensions of working with students in long-term and yet also emergency situations, where “the opportunity for education in a long-term refugee situation but [working] with
curriculum that has limitations, perhaps barriers, for transition and life
after returning to their homeland.” The text offers a series of narratives
that explore what it means to learn and teach in a refugee camp in northeastern Kenya. The authors call for curriculum theorists, to “rethink
emphases and create pedagogical possibilities commensurate with: the
exigency of time in long-term displacement situations; the implications
of crossing physical, social, and cultural borders; the losses endured by
marginalized communities; and the problematics of adaptation in lieu of
choice in the daily life of displaced people.”
In “Grounding Educational Environments,” the authors attempt
to answer our opening questions in relation to Huebner’s conceptualization of “environment.” They investigate conceptions of selves, others, and place in relation to curriculum studies. Aitken and Radford
call our attention to the subjectivities of future teachers, drawing on a
psychoanalytic framework to consider how students in capstone course
took up environmental stewardship. More specifically, they explore
RR
E
206
UN
CO
205
INTERNATIONALIZING CURRICULUM STUDIES …
8
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
F
249
tensions that emerged as students grappled with socio-environmental
equity, arguing for the value of “attending to psychic dynamics” that
emerge within the classroom while challenging curriculum theorists
to “renew attention to the significance of psychic dynamics in education.” Ropo takes up autobiographical narratives as a means of grounding the self in particular temporal and locational contexts. Reviewing
identity through the lenses of psychology, sociology, and philosophy,
he uses Cote’s epistemological and individual/social classifications to
make a case of the significance of taking up identity in school contexts.
Woven into the text is Ropo’s own autobiographical writing, offered
as a way to demonstrate how narratives can serve as “tools for repositioning,” “anchor[ing] to place one’s life course in chronological time
and contexts, geographical places and environments, and the conditions
of everyday lives” while at the same time constructing new “reflected
narratives [that] comprise the capital for identity repositioning as a
resource for future life contexts.”
Dernikos, Lesko, McCall, and Niccolini ground their curriculum
theorizing within the psychic dimensions of affect. Beginning with the
affective turn, they argue in favor of affect’s focus on the body, thus disrupting the ever-present legacy of dualism. Highlighting the “creative,
unpredictable, and vital force” of affect as “a means of interrupting
and remodulating dominant moves of power and rigid normativities,”
Dernikos, Lesko, McCall, and Niccolini provide a series of vignettes as
“affective encounters” that serve to “push against dominant configurations of power in schools.” Shields ends this second section through a
self-study that works to “unpack … seminal experiences that inform and
guide our definitions of curriculum.” Using both Pinar and Clandinin
and Connelly’s work as a basis for her inquiry, she stresses the significance of “com[ing] to know the roots of our own perceptions about
what is important to promote in our curriculum theorizing and teaching,” highlighting narrative as a place for inquiry, recovering and
reconstructing meaning, and building personal power. In addition
to uncovering her own roots through narrative writing, Shields also
describes a series of methods used in teaching and supervising students
that are helpful for thinking through how we might aid others, as curriculum scholars, in the process of collectively coming to know the grounding of our own ways of knowing and being in the world.
We end our collection in the final section thinking through Huebner’s
concept of “critique.” In this third section, “Grounding Curricular
PR
OO
248
C. HÉBERT ET AL.
ED
247
Page: 8/12
CT
246
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
RR
E
245
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Chapter No.: 1
UN
CO
244
Layout: A5 HuSSci
Layout: A5 HuSSci
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Chapter No.: 1
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
Page: 9/12
1
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
F
organic relationality that transcends dualism, non-instrumental engagement that engages students’ growth without trying to control the outcome, playfulness that decenters fixity and allows emergence in teaching
and learning, the necessity of the inner work simultaneous with the outer
work, a radical denouncement of violence in all forms, and the feminist
advocacy of peace are all important aspects of nonviolence.
PR
OO
287
Understanding nonviolence as engagement with self, relationship with
difference, and as an essential task of the curriculum theorist, Wang
suggests that nonviolence is “not a destination or ideal to reach, but
an ongoing process of daily work to unlearn the mechanism of domination internally and relate compassionately externally to others and the
world.” In this respect, grounding our critiques as nonviolence is both
an inward and an outward move. Le Grange writes about the potential
of the African concept of Ubuntu as a means for thinking through our
becoming in relation to others, or others’ becoming in relation to us.
After providing a history of education in South Africa, his text offers a
skillful braiding of currere and Ubuntu, as Le Grange weaves the practices together, offering Ubuntu-currere as anti-humanist, relational, and
post-anthropocentric critique of the very concept we call curriculum.
In our collection’s concluding chapter, Whitlock situates her curriculum inquiries and critiques within theology. She examines the theological/theoretical works of Bonhoeffer through the lens of queer theology,
alongside narrative accounts of a Southern place, Christian fundamentalism and losing one’s religion in order to return one’s self to theology and its respective study. Whitlock also proposes placing theology
in conversation with education. She asks us to reconsider that “there is
no human apart from the power-less, emptied, suffering God.” What
Whitlock offers here is a means of thinking through curriculum in relation to God, a “theological curriculum framework [that] presents God as
a lived curriculum, as radical love, as currere.”
Thinking through the tasks of curriculum theorists, it seems, is a call
to write and re-write our complicated international conversations, while
also questioning the quotidian of our live(d) experiences as curriculum
ED
286
CT
285
9
Critique,” authors call attention to a series of theoretical moves that
might open up new spaces for working within/through curricular issues.
Wang invites us to rethink nonviolence in relation to curriculum theorizing. She describes such thinking through as an:
RR
E
284
UN
CO
283
INTERNATIONALIZING CURRICULUM STUDIES …
Layout: A5 HuSSci
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Chapter No.: 1
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
Page: 10/12
10
C. HÉBERT ET AL.
331
REFERENCES
326
327
328
329
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
PR
OO
325
Aoki, T. (2005). Postscript. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in
a new key: The collected works of Ted. T. Aoki. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Derrida, J. (2000). Of hospitality. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Epstein, J. (2016). Here’s the proof of Donald Trump’s racism, sexism & anti-gay
rhetoric you’ve been asking for, trolls. Retrieved from http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/joshuaepstein/trump.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Huebner, D. (1975/1999). The tasks of the curricular theorist. In V. Hillis
(Ed.), The lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne E. Huebner
(pp. 212–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson-Mardones, D. F. (2018). Curriculum studies as an international conversation: Educational traditions and cosmopolitanism in Latin America. New
York: Routledge.
Lear, J. (2008). Radical hope: Ethics in the face of cultural devastation.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pinar, W. F. (2003). Toward the internationalization of curriculum studies.
In D. Trueit, W. Doll, H. Wang, & W. Pinar (Eds.), The internationalization
of curriculum studies (pp. 1–14). New York: Peter Lang.
Pinar, W. F. (2010). Introduction. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum studies in
South Africa: Intellectual histories and present circumstances (pp. 1–18). New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pinar, W. F. (2015). Educational experience as lived: Knowledge, history, alterity.
New York, NY: Routledge.
ED
324
CT
323
RR
E
322
UN
CO
321
F
330
scholars, teachers, and human beings. The authors in this collection
therefore call on each of us, like Huebner (1999) before them, to use
“the unformed to create form; as a focusing on the unconditioned in
order to develop new conditions” (p. 227). Even as we face what some
might call a world in political, environmental, economic, existential, and
so on crisis, the “radical” concept of hope continues to sustain the conditions that inform are past, present, and future tasks as international curriculum theorists. To this curricular and pedagogical end, this collection
represents an evocative conceptualization of the challenging histories,
environments and critiques international curriculum theorists continue
to take up in their groundbreaking intellectual work.
320
Layout: A5 HuSSci
Book ID: 461308_1_En
Book ISBN: 978-3-030-01352-3
Chapter No.: 1
Date: 25 October 2018 19:49
Page: 11/12
1
364
F
363
PR
OO
362
ED
361
CT
360
11
Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
Spring, J. (2015). Economization of education: Human capital, global corporation, skills-based schooling. New York: Routledge.
Trueitt, D. (2003). Democracy and conversation. In D. Trueit, W. Doll,
H. Wang, & W. Pinar (Eds.), The internationalization of curriculum studies
(pp. ix–xvii). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
RR
E
359
UN
CO
358
INTERNATIONALIZING CURRICULUM STUDIES …