ScholarLens Back to search
1999•Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication ResearchOpen access

Hlebowitsh, Peter, "The Burdens of the New Curricularist," Curriculum Inquiry, 29(Fall, 1999), 343-354.

Peter S. Hlebowitsh

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

Argues that Pinar and similar curriculum theorists have separated their theory from practice, design, unity of the field, and from its history in a negative way; Westbury and Pinar respond in two articles that follow.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Argues that Pinar and similar curriculum theorists have separated their theory from practice, design, unity of the field, and from its history in a negative way; Westbury and Pinar respond in two articles that follow.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Argues that Pinar and similar curriculum theorists have separated their theory from practice, design, unity of the field, and from its history in a negative way; Westbury and Pinar respond in two articles that follow.

Key concepts: Curriculum, Sociology, Pedagogy

Related papers

Related paper 1Related paper 2Related paper 3
Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Hlebowitsh, Peter, "The Burdens of the New Curricularist," Curriculum Inquiry, 29(Fall, 1999), 343-354. — Research Paper | ScholarLens