مسائل مهم در مطالعات برنامه آموزشی

Abstract

1- The crisis in the curriculum field: a historical examination

2- Schwab as a curriculum scholar and the deliberative approach to curriculum

3- Didaktik and curriculum

4- Liberal and general education: what do they mean for curriculum as a field?

5- Assessment and curriculum

References

I met Emeritus Professor Ian Westbury during the summer of 2017. A mutual acquaintance, upon reading some of my writing and judging it might be of interest to Professor Westbury, forwarded it to him. When we met, it did not take me a long time to realize that I was interacting with a walking encyclopaedia on curriculum and its theory. It occurred to me back then that a formal interview with this seasoned curriculum scholar would be beneficial to the field and its students. I readily took the responsibility for a formal interview and informed Westbury of my desire to realize such a possibility. To my luck, my invitation appealed to him. I had one fundamental rationale for the interview during the planning phase. It was, and still is, the belief that recently there has been less interest in the core issues of the field of curriculum. This assertion, of course, does not mean to claim that recent interests and efforts in the field are of less value in terms of substance or quality; rather, it is to point to a need to revitalize some of the quintessential aspects of the field. In short, my determination has been to talk about matters that, I believe, matter in the field of curriculum in the form of a smallscale oral history (see e.g. Miller, King, Mark, & Caracelli, 2016) for hopefully sparking scholarly exchanges on these matters. I must remark that literature in which scholars interviewed figures in their fields to learn from them influenced the planning phases of this study, as well as the writing process. For example, Cardellini (2013) interviewed Peter J. Fensham, a prominent science educator, to present, in general, Fensham’s views of what he calls ‘science for all’. Similarly, Miller et al. (2016) conducted an oral history study with Robert E. Stake, a pioneer name in curriculum evaluation, where he declares that his recent interest is to inform evaluators on challenges that the field has faced since its earlier days. In the field of curriculum specifically, Fishbein and Tyler (1973), Ryan, Johnson, Newman and Tyler (1977), Nowakowski (2011/1981), Mickler (1986), Madaus and Stufflebeam (1989), Tyler and Hiatt (1994) and Horowitz (1995) have all interviewed Ralph W. Tyler. Each one of these interviews focused on a different theme. In addition, a collection of 18 personal essays by established scholars under the title Leaders in Curriculum Studies also inspired the effort at hand, especially in terms of recording the individual experiences of scholars in the field (Short & Waks, 2009). In general, this latter line of studies are important historical records from which contemporary as well as future curricularists might benefit. My hope is that the present effort builds on these studies. During the planning phase of the interview, I formulated a framework1 for the interview process from which I derived a set of questions to ask Westbury. After that, I presented the set to him so that he would have an initial look prior to the actual interview. I have to admit, however, that, during the interview, the flow turned out to be richer than I expected. Therefore, I had to rearrange my questions, asking some unplanned ones in the direction that the interview took to elicit rich answers from the interviewee. Thus, should I be asked what type of interview this has been, I must say that it is a semi-structured one. What followed in the process was transcribing the audio-recorded interview. I transcribed the audio file twice to ensure that the transcription would not miss any important details. Then, Westbury thoroughly read the transcription to correct some parts that might have passed my scrutiny due to the fact that I was unfamiliar with his Australian accent while also adding some crucial information to the initial transcription. In doing so, he included a couple of citations to the parts he added, which, I believe, can help readers who might seek more information or context on what Westbury discusses. As a result of this process, we arrived at the final version of the interview. I organized the interview into five subsections to ensure that reading was thematic and easy to follow. Before moving to the main reading, let me do the honour of presenting my interviewee. Westbury’s biography as a professor of curriculum has, expectedly, spanned a long period of time and different continents. He earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Latin and History in 1959 from the University of Melbourne, Australia. In 1968, he completed his PhD at the University of Alberta, Canada. Åbo Akademi (Turku, Finland) awarded him an honorary degree (Pe.D., h. c.) in 2005. During his career, he served as a secondary teacher (1961–64, Australia), lecturer and assistant professor (1966–68, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and 1968–73, University of Chicago) and associate professor and professor (1973–2008, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). He has published extensively on curriculum, curriculum theory, mathematics education, science education, curriculum and teacher education from international perspectives, as well as on Schwab and the deliberative tradition of curriculum making. He served as the vice-president of Division B (Curriculum Studies) of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) between 1985 and 1987. In addition, for his academic efforts, Division B of AERA rewarded him with a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2003. Finally, from 1975 to 2009, Westbury served as an associate and later general editor of the Journal of Curriculum Studies, a pivotal publication in the field. His long involvement with this journal, I believe, gives Westbury a vantage point to legitimately talk about the field. Obviously, there is more to say about Westbury and his achievements. However, as my emphasis in this interview is on the discussion of important curricular matters rather than providing a personal history of Westbury, what I have said thus far should suffice. Now, without further ado, I present the interview.