The Landscape of Curriculum and Instruction

Curriculum and instruction refers to one of the largest and most diverse set of activities within the field of education. Many universities and colleges have departments and programs of curriculum and instruction, and there are state, provincial, and school board divisions and departments of curriculum and/or instruction. The study of the immense range of activities covered by curriculum and instruction defines the field of curriculum studies. The scope of curriculum and instruction activities is so broad that it consists of a diverse array of established academic and practical communities of subfields and specializations.

So broad is the practical, public display of concerns of curriculum and instruction and of its sub-fields and specializations that it encompasses almost the entire range of educational thought. Disentangling what is purely curriculum from what is education more generally is difficult. Ultimately, curriculum and instruction is delimited by configurations of factors, which Schwab (1960) called commonplaces, acting together in practical, real world environments. The significance of the breadth and practical relevance of curriculum and instruction is that these matters are central to educational thought and are never far from practical, political, policy, and public discussions in education.

Broadly speaking, the practical communities of subfields and specializations may be thought of as falling into three main areas: curriculum subject matters (e.g., history, mathematics, sex education), topics (e.g., antiracism, gender, indigenous education) and preoccupations (e.g., curriculum evaluation, curriculum implementation), and general curriculum or curriculum theory. This breakdown, without the latter general curriculum or curriculum theory area, more or less reflects [Page x]the curriculum structure and preoccupations of the schools. There are, of course, positions in university curriculum and instruction departments that have no counterpart in the schools. But when they exist, for instance, as a position in curriculum evaluation, equity, multicultural curriculum, or urban education, they are there because of practical realities in the schools, because of community and public concerns, or because of a combination of both. The landscape of practice drives the metalevel organizational structure and inquiry in curriculum and instruction. There can be little doubt from reading the literature that practical topics are revealed, understood, shaped, and sometimes improved by theoretical application and critique. But theory is not the principal source of practice and institutional organization. Practice and public concern are the ground and justification for university departments of curriculum and instruction and for the research and teaching pursued there. The university's curriculum structure and work originates in practice and is ultimately justified in practical and public terms. Justification, of course, comes in many forms, ranging from cooperative partnership to sharp critique.

Organizationally, the set of subfields and specializations are held together more by the idea of curriculum and instruction than by the scholarly bonds of a field of close colleagues with common academic interests in the form of conferences, journals, and other accoutrements of collegiality. This situation is seen in schools where teachers of different subjects and topics may belong to different professional societies, attend different professional development day activities and conferences, subscribe to different professional magazines, and so on. Likewise, in colleges and universities, members of a curriculum or curriculum and instruction department will rarely travel, meet, or work together except for general curriculum department considerations, such as staffing, program considerations, university and professional certification reviews, and social events. Apart from these general activities, departmental members may have relatively independent professional career trajectories.

The field of curriculum studies and the meaning of the term curriculum continues to undergo the significant growth noted by Jackson (1992) for the English language literature. This growth is related to the expanding range of practical, policy, and political matters in educational thought more generally; to the nature and quality of public discourse; and to expanding philosophical and methodological possibilities (Green, Camilli, & Elmore, 2006; Short, 1991) originating in the social sciences, humanities, and arts. In the curriculum studies research literature, this expansion is most noticeable in the expanding diversity of practical subject matters and in the topics and preoccupations that are studied. Curriculum subject matter areas (science education and social studies education) and topics and preoccupations (reading, textbooks, language learning, antiracism, gender, achievement, and equity) are increasingly studied with a rich and nuanced assortment of methodologies, conceptual analyses, philosophical perspectives, and political and/or social considerations. Once nonexistent or small practical curriculum areas are now often considered fields of their own with conferences, journals, and books replete with competing academic and ideological outlooks.

Banks and Banks (2004), for instance, edited the massive 49-chapter Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, a larger volume than this handbook of curriculum and instruction, for which multicultural curriculum is one of its topics. Banks and Banks show that multicultural education was linked to late 19th century and early 20th century African American scholarship and to the curriculum reform movement of the 1930s, but it was not until the impact of the civil rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s that this topic came into its own. Multicultural education has become an important part of educational studies in general and also an important part of curriculum studies as it appears in this handbook. Likewise, in recent years, curriculum and instruction has branched out into other areas in response to the diversification of cultures, languages, communications, economies, ecological systems, and ways of living in countries, locales, and inevitably in schools and in research related to curriculum and instruction. This intricate diversity poses both opportunities and challenges to all curricular stakeholders, such as teachers, parents, students, administrators, and curricular policymakers, in terms of finding new, multiple, and eclectic ways of making curriculum, managing curriculum, diversifying curriculum, teaching curriculum, internationalizing curriculum, and inquiring into curriculum.

Moreover, the diversity of inquiry in curriculum subject matter areas and in the topics and preoccupations is further enriched by the application of a wide array of alternative theoretical [Page xi]possibilities infusing the intellectual arena from the social sciences, humanities, arts, and sciences. So expansive is this diversity, that favored and established theoretical sources in one topic may be mostly unknown or perhaps supplanted by competing theoretical positions in a related topic or preoccupation. This growth of practical diversity and range of available theoretical resources is now one of the curriculum and instruction field's most noticeable features. Moreover, comparative, cross-cultural, and multicultural curriculum studies are bringing forward different ways of knowing and being, which challenge taken for granted forms of logic, practice and theory, and rationality. In addition to these developments, the general curriculum or curriculum theory area has also been influenced by the social sciences, humanities, arts, and sciences. Here, too, there is a diverse array of writings, some with practical connections to curriculum subject matters and to the topics and preoccupations, and some concerned with more abstract matters.

Assessing the Need for a Handbook

The breadth of the curriculum and instruction field and the diversity of its curriculum subject matters and topics and preoccupations presented the greatest challenge to conceptualizing and planning this handbook. As we began the initial stages of organizing the structure of this handbook, we wondered, “Was such an undertaking feasible?” To include all possible curriculum subject matters, topics and preoccupations, and general curriculum or curriculum theory positions would result in an index rather than a handbook. Accordingly, the task was one of finding a way to represent this imaginary index with an inclusive concept and framework. There is important precedence with several publications claiming a Handbook of Curriculum title. The classic, standard-setting document is Jackson's (1992) Handbook of Research on Curriculum: A Project of the American Educational Research Association. Over 50 scholars in diverse areas are represented in that handbook's author list. The Jackson handbook was important to our thinking.

In determining the need for a new handbook, we canvassed a cross section of curriculum scholars by letter, e-mail, telephone, and video conference. Strong support for the significance and impact of the Jackson handbook (1992) was expressed. There was also recognition of the need for a new handbook that acknowledges the increasing practical diversity and complexity of the field's subject matters and topics and preoccupations. In addition, we undertook a literature review of curriculum journals for the period 1992–2005. This review reflected our interest in published research in curriculum and instruction and our attempt to size up developments in the field following the Jackson handbook. We paid special attention to published reviews of the Jackson handbook and to commentary on the overall state of the field of curriculum studies. The results of the canvas, the reviews of the Jackson handbook, journal reviews, and reviews of the state of the field revealed six matters that needed to be addressed in a new handbook: (1) a working vision or conceptualization of the field that respects its diversity; (2) a comprehensive and inclusive set of authors, ideas, and topics; (3) an international, global, and comparative outlook; (4) a target audience of curriculum and instruction practitioners as well as graduate students and university researchers; (5) a focus on post-1992 curriculum policy, practice, and scholarship; and (6) a representation of curriculum subject matters without covering specific subjects.

Vision and Conception of the Field: Addressing the Six Needs

The first two handbook needs, conceptualization of the field and inclusiveness, are closely related. A conceptualization of the field that respects its diversity will be comprehensive and will include authors with widely different views. Our first thought was that the literature of curriculum theory might be the place to find inclusive conceptualizations. This literature was helpful to some extent. Reading this literature reveals a multiplicity of viewpoints, many of which could serve as a possible starting point for conceptualizing this handbook: social, political, philosophical, moral, historical, spiritual, theological, ecological, critical, epistemological, experiential, and others. Attractive as any one of these might be, there is a built-in exclusiveness to each that would, at the very least, result in other views being read through a particular lens if such were chosen to organize this handbook. Nevertheless, all of these views need to be welcome in this handbook's conception.

As we thought about this matter, we realized that any conception for this handbook other [Page xii]than perhaps an alphabetized list of topics would give shape to the field and would, therefore, not be neutral with respect to other conceptual possibilities. Accordingly, our effort became one of advancing a conception of curriculum that was as inviting and inclusive as possible and then of making our view as transparent as possible. The remainder of this section serves this purpose.

From Identified Needs to Handbook Structure

A preliminary handbook prospectus built around the above considerations was circulated to the 18 scholars who comprise this handbook's editorial advisory board. These scholars, who represent a cross section of diverse interests and scholarly pursuits in the field, were consulted on the need for this Handbook and on its direction; their views were incorporated into the development of The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction.

Moving from the initial review and resulting six needs for a new handbook, we undertook several conceptual initiatives and refinements of the original six needs. We began by concentrating on the idea of recognizability. Recognizability is rarely an issue for researchers when research is being reviewed and drawn forward, but it is an issue for policymakers and practitioners who want to know what is happening in the world of research relative to their concerns. We grappled with this question by asking ourselves what it is that curriculum people actually do. We wondered if it would be possible to structure this handbook in a way that reflects curriculum work and that makes it possible to draw research together under these activities. As a result, three rather simple notions governed our thinking behind the final structure of this handbook: verbs representing curriculum work (e.g., making curriculum), the grounding of curriculum studies in practice, and the notion of experience.

Starting with a practical conception of curriculum focused on the experience of curriculum as it appears in schools, policy discussion, and public discourse rather than with reflective theoretical thought about it led us to structure this handbook from practice to theory rather than the other way around. Thus, The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction is divided into three parts: Part I: Curriculum in Practice, Part II: Curriculum in Context, and Part III: Curriculum in Theory. This structure is intended as a symbol of how this complex field is given life and moves forward. We see curriculum as ongoing in schools and in state and provincial departments day by day, and we see it in daily public discourse in the media, political campaigns, and in professional organizations. Curriculum is visible in practical and public venues. We wanted to place this sense up front and to craft this handbook in such a way that the field's most obvious, visible features would be in the foreground. Abstract, theoretical thought could then be seen as eclectically taking its place as appropriate to these visible features of the curriculum landscape and its context.

This three-part structure should not be made more of than is intended by its symbolic representation of the field's central logic of resting upon and being grounded in the concrete practical activity called curriculum. We might as easily have used a two-part structure of practice and theory or even have reversed the part order, giving an appropriate codicil to our reasoning. We might also have used a different orienting language: curriculum practice, curriculum context, and curriculum theory rather than inserting in to each part title (e.g., “Curriculum in Practice”). Again, though it could have been otherwise, we chose this linguistic form to symbolically avoid one of the field's worries, which is that the form of theoretical writing called curriculum theory could become somewhat independent of curriculum, as if curriculum theory were a field unto itself and curriculum practice yet another field. Our linguistic use of in is an attempt to convey a sense that theoretical curriculum writing is part of curriculum as practiced, and that curriculum as practiced is conceptually enriched with added meaning when thought about in terms of context and theory.

The idea of experience and what curriculum people do led us to the verb structure that governs the naming of this handbook's six sections. As with our use of in, in the part titles, the use of verbs in the section titles, such as “Making Curriculum,” could be otherwise, but is deliberately used to convey a particular concept of the curriculum field as practical, namely an action form of the practical. One might find this organizational structure of doings in the field useful while thinking that a different set of doings than those used in this handbook more adequately represents the field. We are not wedded to the particular set of six doings, though we do think they provide a usefully comprehensive map of the field. Within the six sections and their included chapters used in this handbook are [Page xiv]four chapters on making curriculum and three chapters on managing curriculum in Part I: Curriculum in Practice; five chapters on diversifying curriculum, three chapters on teaching curriculum, and three chapters on internationalizing curriculum in Part II: Curriculum in Context; and eight chapters on inquiring into curriculum in Part III: Curriculum in Theory.

The Editorial Process

The editorial process giving rise to the above considerations and handbook structure relied on an editorial advisory process. An editorial advisory board was appointed. Members were chosen primarily on the grounds of breadth of insight into the field and international interest and/or location. We consider ourselves particularly fortunate in having Philip Jackson on this board. Though Philip is well known for his scholarship, he is also known as a thoughtful, sometimes wry, observer and commentator on the field. He rises above a personal stance, and this is one of the reasons, no doubt, he was chosen to edit the Handbook of Research on Curriculum: A Project of the American Educational Research Association (1992). The board was involved in the process of defining and refining the purpose and scope of The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction as found in our handbook prospectus. The board was also involved in suggesting authors and consulting authors.

The list of authors and coauthors is the result of a rather lengthy, thoughtful process. In addition to the large number of names suggested by the editorial advisory board, we independently scanned membership lists in relevant organizations, and we reviewed authorship in relevant journals, books, and professional magazines. Our process was to identify the first author and to invite and encourage that person to work with coauthors. The choice of coauthor was entirely up to the contacted author, though we encouraged the involvement of more junior scholars, including advanced doctoral candidates. We also suggested using coauthors with international experience and/or international knowledge of the relevant literature. In several cases the person we approached agreed to contribute to this handbook, but in a coauthored role, to which we readily agreed.

We gave a great deal of thought to the manuscript review process and sought advice on this matter from our editorial advisory board. Our decision was to appoint consulting authors for each chapter. There are advantages to a blind review process, but criticism, at the expense of manuscript improvement, can sometimes overshadow this procedure. Our purpose was to strengthen submitted manuscripts. As a result, our manuscript review process was an open one in which consulting authors gave their best critical advice on improving the manuscript, knowing that they would ultimately be identified with it. We believe the method was a good one. Though consulting authors were aware that their identities were revealed to the authors, strong comment was often offered—so much so that in one or two cases manuscripts were withdrawn or replaced. The result, we believe, is that The Handbook consists of a set of strong chapters.

Due to the extensiveness of the field of curriculum studies and because we wanted to explore diverse perspectives and meaning in each of this handbook's parts, we appointed part editors: Ian Westbury for Part I, Allan Luke for Part II, and William Schubert for Part III. These editors were chosen for their comprehensive grasp of curriculum and for their ability to step outside their own particular reference points to review the writing of others. Their editorial task was principally to write the introductory essay for each part. They were free to offer editorial comment on each chapter, something that was taken up from time to time. Moreover, we consulted with the part editors as our bank of authored texts grew and we were able to assess possible areas still needing attention. As a result, several chapters were commissioned at a later stage in the development of The Handbook.

Finally, we hope that readers will join us in seeing curriculum and instruction as a field grounded in practice and characterized by a continuous interaction among practice, context, and theory. This interplay is shaped by and shapes the experiences of diverse curriculum stakeholders—students, parents, teachers, educators, policymakers, administrators, teacher educators, and curriculum scholars. To understand and to participate effectively in this interplay, flexible deliberative methods and flexible application of ideas are needed, both of which are expressed in The Handbook. Every chapter in this handbook brings forward the best and most important research and theory relevant to that chapter's topic. The chapters are neither prescriptive “how to do it” chapters, nor are they [Page xv]polemical. Taken together, the set of chapters constitute a scholarly summary of research and theory within a practical framework designed to foster the advancement of the field of curriculum and instruction.

References