Since its first issue, the Journal oj Curriculum Studies has included in its statement of purposes a concern for both curriculum theory and practice and the theory, methodology, and practice of teaching. Artides reflecting the JournaFs interest in teaching have appeared fairly regularly during the last ten years—although in a trickle rather than a steady flow, and as the decade has progressed the papers on teaching and instruction that the Journal has published’ have more and more often been written by psychologists interested in the classroom than by scholars with a clear identity in the field of curriculum. Inevitably then, given the small number of papers on teaching and their authorship, one wonders what kind of statement the Journal is making when it continues to include a concern for teaching among its purposes. Are we expressing an aspiration more than a considered reflection of the scope of the problems that curriculum studies in the broadest sense is addressing?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ian Westbury (1978) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: