Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Politics of Curriculum and Instructional Design/Theory/Form: Critical Problems, Projects, Units, and Modules

  • Published:
Interchange Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What should be learned? How should it be organized for teaching? These seemingly simple questions are deceivingly political. Curriculum theorists are preoccupied with the politics of the first question at the expense of the realpolitik of the second. Instructional designers are preoccupied with the realpolitik of the second question at the expense of the politics of the first. I argue that conceptual distances between curriculum theory and instructional design are based on divisions of labour established during the 1960s. After decades of neglect, curriculum theorists, and specifically critical theorists, appear clueless when it comes to curriculum design and the realpolitik of their causes. When it comes to the realpolitik of practice their political causes are formless. Quite the opposite of critical theorists, instructional theorists nearly mastered the realpolitik of form but have no political causes. I argue that, to contradict the status quo of C&I, curriculum theorists will have to dirty their hands with the realpolitik of form and instructional designers will have to clutter their heads with theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Apple, M.W. (1973). The adequacy of systems management procedures in education and alternatives. In A. Yee (Ed.), Perspectives on management systems approaches in education (pp. 3–31). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apple, M.W. (2000). Can critical pedagogies interrupt rightist politics? Educational Theory, 50(2), 229–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronowitz, S. (1991). The punishment of disciplines. In S. Aronowitz & H.A. Giroux (Eds.), Postmodern Education (pp. 136–156). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, L. (1938). This thing called "method"-II. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education, 27(4), 133–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, L. & Apple, M. (Eds.). (1988). The curriculum: Problems, politics, and possibilities.New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobbitt, F. (1924). How to make a curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bode, B. (1927). Modern educational theories. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonser, F.G. & Mossman, L.C. (1923). Industrial arts for elementary schools. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossing, N. (1942). Progressive methods of teaching in secondary schools. New York: Houghton Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdeau, J. & Bates, A. (1997). Instructional design for distance learning. In S.N. Dijkstra, F. Seel, F. Shott, & R.D. Tennyson (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 369–397). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. (1993). How to be universal: Some cybernetic strategies, 1943-70. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 107–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M.M. (1978). A conceptual scheme and decision-rules for the selection and organization of home economics content. Madison, WI: Department of Public Instruction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education.New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1971). The process of educationrevisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 53(1), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, R. (1973). An instructional module design. In P. Kapfer & M. Kapfer (Eds.), Learning packages in American education (pp. 61–68). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, W.H. (1933). The unit concept in learning: An attempt at simple explanation. Educational Outlook, 7(4), 206–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, W.H. (1952). The guidance of learning activities. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charters, E.W. (1923). Curriculum construction. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1990). Cognitive development and formal schooling. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 89–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. & Engestrom, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 1–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A.B. & Sumara, D. (1997). Cognition, complexity and teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 105–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A.B. & Sumara, D. (2000). Curriculum forms: On the assumed shapes of knowing and knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(6), 821–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A.B., Sumara, D. & Kiernen, T. (1996). Cognition, co-emergence and curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deever, B. (1996). If not now, when? Radical theory and systemic curriculum reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 171–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. New York: Heath. (Original work published 1910)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of instruction. Dallas: Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll, W. (1993). A postmodern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E.W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner. E.W. & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Berkeley: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efland, A. (1988). How art became a discipline. Studies in Art Education, 29(3), 262–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eraut, M. (1967). An instructional systems approach to course development. Audiovisual Communication Review, 15(1), 92–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R. (1962). The sources of curriculum development. Theory into Practice, 1(3), 204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. & Briggs, L. (1974). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. (1994). The ontology of the enemy: Norbert Wiener and the cybernetic vision. Critical Inquiry, 21, 228–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach, V.S. & Ely, D. (1971). Teaching and media: A systematic approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glathorn, A. (Ed.). (1975). Alternatives in education: Schools and progress. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasersfeld, E., von. (1995). A constructionist approach to teaching. In L.P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 3–15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmid, B. & Goldschmid, M. (1972). Modular instruction: Principles and applications in higher education. Learning and Development, 3(8), 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodson, I. (1992). On curriculum form: Notes toward a theory of curriculum. Sociology of Education, 65(1), 66–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodson, I. (1993). School subjects and curriculum change (3rd ed.). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harap, H. (1937). The organization of the curriculum. In Joint Committee on Curriculum (Ed.), The changing curriculum (pp. 74–88). New York: D. Appleton-Century.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1985). A Manifesto for cyborgs. Socialist Review 15(2), 65–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashim, Y. (1999). Are instructional design elements being used in module writing?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 341–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R., Molenda, M., & Russell, J. (1985). Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction.New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrick, V.E. (1950). Concept of curriculum design. In V.E. Herrick & R. W. Tyler (Eds.), Toward improved curriculum theory (pp. 37–50). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrick, V.E. (1957). Design of the curriculum. Review of Educational Research, 27(3), 270–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, J. (1921). Criteria of the project. Teachers College Record, 22(4), 329–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herschbach, D.R. (1989). Conceptualizing curriculum change. Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, 15(1), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hlynka, D. & Belland, J.C. (Eds.). (1991). Paradigms regained. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hultgren, F. & Wilkosz, J. (1986). Human goals and critical realities. Journal of Vocational Home Economics Education, 4(2), 135–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P. (1993). (Ed.). Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (1968). Definitions and models in curriculum theory. In E. Short & G. Marconnit (Eds.), Contemporary thought on public school curriculum (pp. 42–50). Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, B. & Weil, M. (1980). Models of teaching (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapfer, P. & Ovard, G. (1971). Preparing and using individualised learning packages. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashope-Wright, H. (2000). Nailing jell-O to the wall: Pinpointing aspects of state-of-the-art curriculum theorizing. Educational Researcher, 29(5), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, R. (1968). A system approach to education: Derivation and definition. Audiovisual Communication Review, 16(4), 415–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, J., Morrison, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Designing effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 14(4), 319–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, W.H. (1921). Introductory statement. Teachers College Record, 22(4), 283–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, W.H. (1925). Foundations of method. New York. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleibard, H.M. (1975). The rise of scientific curriculum making and its aftermath. Curriculum Theory Network, 5(1), 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kliebard, H.M. (1985). What happened to American schooling in the first part of the twentieth century? In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing, 84th yearbook of the National Society for the study of education, Part II (pp. 1–22). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleibard, H.M. (1992). Forging the American curriculum: Essays in curriculum history and theory. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J.T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingstedt, J.L. (1971). Developing instructional modules for individualized learning. Educational Technology, 11(10), 73–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messer-Davidow, E., Shumway, D. & Sylvan, D. (Eds.). (1993). Knowledges: Historical and critical studies in disciplinarity. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J.R. (1994). The new problem of curriculum. Synthese, 94, 85–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mau, B. (2001). Life style. New York: Phaidon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauch, J.A. (1962). A systems analysis approach to education. Phi Delta Kappan, 43(2), 267–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazza, K. (1982). Reconceptual inquiry as an alternative mode of curriculum theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 4(2), 5–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meriam, J.L. (1921). Review of The elementary school curriculumby F. G. Bonser. Journal of Educational Research, 3(5), 389–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMurry, C. (1920). Teaching by projects. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, J.D. (1981). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam, E. & Taylor, P.G. (1998). Teacher im/material: Challenging the new pedagogies of instructional design. Educational Researcher, 27(8), 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, D. (Ed.). (1971). Instructional design: Readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mickelson, J.M. (1987). The evolving concept of general method. Theory Into Practice, 26(special issue), 402–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miel, A. (1964). Reassessment of the curriculum-Why?. In D. Huebner (Ed.), A reassessment of the curriculum (pp. 9–23). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenda, M. (1997). Historical and philosophical foundations of instructional design. In R. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives, volume 1 (pp. 41–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Morrison, H.C. (1926). The practice of teaching in the secondary school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, H.C. (1931). The practice of teaching in the secondary school (2nd. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mossman, L.C. (1934). Statement of the problem. In G.M. Whipple (Ed.), The activity movement, 33rd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part II (pp. 1–8). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikolova, I. & Collis, B. (1998). Flexible learning and design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology,29(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, D. (1993). Integrated learning systems: The educational engineer meets Wayne's world. ReThinking Schools, 8(2), 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogletree, E.J., Gebauer, P. & Ujlaki, V.E. (1980). The unit plan: A plan for curriculum organizing and teaching. Washington, DC: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, A. (1978). Maxi-mizing mini-courses: A practical guide to a curriculum alternative. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ornstein, A. (1984). Curriculum contrasts: A historical overview. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(6), 404–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, M. (Ed.). (1999). After the disciplines: The emergence of cultural studies. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S. (1993). Under the corporate thumb: Troubles with our MATE (Modular Approach to Technology Education). Journal of Technology Education, 5(1), 81–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S. (1998). Multidisciplinary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(2), 105–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S. (2000a). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 181–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S. (2000b). The political ecology of design and technology education: An inquiry into methods. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(3), 207–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrina, S. (2002). Getting a purchase on "The School of Tomorrow" and its constituent commodities: Histories and historiographies of technologies. History of Education Quarterly, 42(1), 75–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phenix, P. (1962). The use of the disciplines as curriculum content. The Educational Forum, 26(3), 273-280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phenix, P. (1969). The moral imperative in contemporary American education. Perspectives on Education, 2(2), 6-13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W.F. (1975a). (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley: McCutchan

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W.F. (1975b). Sanity, madness and the school. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists (pp. 359–383). Berkeley: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W.F. (1988). (Ed.). Contemporary curriculum discourses. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch, Scarisbrick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W.F. (1994). Autobiography, politics and sexuality: Essays in curriculum theory, 1972-1992. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W.F. (1999). Response: Gracious submission. Educational Researcher, 28(1), 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W.F. (2004). What is curriculum theory? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W.F., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (1996). Understanding Curriculum.New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. (1957). How to Solve It.Garden City, NY: Doubleday. (Original work published 1945)

    Google Scholar 

  • Popkewitz, T. (1997). The production of reason and power: Curriculum history and intellectual traditions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(2), 131–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. & Rudnitsky, A. (1994). Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers (4th ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postlethwait, S.N. (1969). Time for microcourses? Library College Journal, 2(1), 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postlethwait, S.N. & Hurst, R. (1971). Minicourses. Library College Journal, 4(1), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffe, D. (1994). Modular strategies for overcoming academic/vocational divisions: Issues arising from the Scottish experience. Journal of Educational Policy, 9(2), 141–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, P. (2001). Learning style and laboratory preference: A study of middle school technology education in Virginia. Journal of Technology Education, 13(1), Retrieved from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v13n1.

  • Reigeluth, C. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models, volume 2 (pp. 5–29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Reigeluth, C. & Garfinkle, R. (Eds.). (1994). Systemic change in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. & Dick, W. (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romey, W. (1973). The curriculum-proof teacher. Phi Delta Kappan, 54(5), 407–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romiszowski, A.J. (1981). Designing instructional systems. New York: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romiszowski, A.J. (1984). Producing instructional systems. New York: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. (1974). Modular instruction. Minneapolis: Burgess.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. (2001). New paradigm or old wine? The status of technology education practices in the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 12(2), Retrieved from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v12n2.

  • Saylor, J.G., Alexander, W., & Lewis, A. (1981). Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning.New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, W.H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. The Educational Record, 43(2), 197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. (1964). Structures and dynamics of knowledge. In S. Elam (Ed.), Education and the structure of knowledge (pp. 6–42). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. (1969) College curriculum and student protest.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, E. (1991). Forms of curriculum inquiry. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvern, L.C. (1968). Cybernetics and education K-12. Audiovisual Instruction, 13(4): 267–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slattery, P. (1995). Curriculum development in the postmodern era. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B.O. (1945). The normative unit of instruction. Teachers College Record, 46(4), 219–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B.O., Stanley, W., & Shores, J.H. (1957). Fundamentals of curriculum development. Harcourt, Brace & World.

  • Stanley, M. (1978). The technological conscience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steininger, E.W. (1959). Unit teaching practices in the elementary school. Dissertation Abstracts, 20/09, 3135. (University Microfilms No. AAC6000238).

  • Stevenson, J.A. (1924). The project method of teaching. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, W. (Ed.). (1983). Unit teaching: Perspectives and prospects. Saratoga, CA: R & E Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streitz, R. (1939). An evaluation of "units of work." Childhood Education, 15(6), 258–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockton, J. (1920). Project work in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. & Posner, G. (1976). Epistemological perspectives on conceptions of curriculum organization and learning. In L.S. Schulman (Ed.), Review of research in education 4 (pp. 106–138). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. (1989). History of the school curriculum. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. & Schott, F. (1997). Instructional design theory, research and models. In R. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives, volume 1 (pp. 1–16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Theodossin, E. (1980). The modular market. Coombe Lodge, England: FE Staff College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venable, T. (1958). Patterns in secondary school curriculum. New York: Harper & Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waks, L. (1997). The project method in postindustrial education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(4), 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D. (1989). Managing the modular course. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wraga, W.G. (1997). Patterns of interdisciplinary curriculum organization and professional knowledge of the curriculum field. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(2), 98–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wraga, W.G. (1998). "Interesting if true:" Historical perspectives on the "reconceptualization" of curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 14(1), 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wraga, W. (1999a). 'Extracting sun-beams out of cucumbers'. The retreat from practice in reconceptualized curriculum studies. Educational Researcher, 28(1), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wraga, W. (1999b). The continuing arrogation of the curriculum field: A rejoinder to Pinar. Educational Researcher, 28(1), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuga, K. (1987). Conceptualizing the technology education curriculum. Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, 13(1), 50–58.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Curriculum Studies, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, CANADA, V6T 1Z4

    Stephen Petrina

Authors
  1. Stephen Petrina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Petrina, S. The Politics of Curriculum and Instructional Design/Theory/Form: Critical Problems, Projects, Units, and Modules. Interchange 35, 81–126 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INCH.0000039022.53130.d5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INCH.0000039022.53130.d5

Search

Navigation