Evolution of Curriculum Design Approaches in Education Studies
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines the progression of curriculum design methodologies via bibliometric and graphical analyses, uncovering significant theoretical and practical shifts in educational research. The findings indicate that curricular studies have transitioned from conventional, content-focused models to dynamic, technology-integrated frameworks that prioritize digital literacy, sustainability, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Co-authorship and institutional network diagrams reveal robust cooperation spearheaded by universities such Purdue, Michigan, and Monash, while global trends demonstrate increasing contributions from the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and Indonesia. The findings indicate that the future of curriculum design will be characterized by cross-national, data-driven, and competency-focused methodologies that address the requirements of 21st-century education. The study theoretically positions curriculum as a socio-technical construct influenced by global interconnectedness and technological transformation, while practically providing insights for educators and policymakers to develop flexible, inclusive, and sustainable educational frameworks.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
A. Kelly, “The curriculum: Theory and practice,” 2009.
R. W. Tyler, “Basic principles of curriculum and instruction,” in Curriculum studies reader E2, Routledge, 2013, pp. 60–68.
H. Taba, “Curriculum development: Theory and practice,” Harcurt Brace, 1962.
A. C. Ornstein and F. P. Hunkins, Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues. Allyn and Bacon Boston, 1993.
J. Dewey, “Experience and education,” in The educational forum, Taylor & Francis, 1986, pp. 241–252.
M. S. Schiro, Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Sage publications, 2012.
J. A. Beane, Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. Teachers College Press, 1997.
J. S. Bruner, The process of education. Harvard university press, 2009.
J. Voogt and N. P. Roblin, “A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies,” J. Curric. Stud., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 299–321, 2012.
W. G. Spady, Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. ERIC, 1994.
R. M. Harden, “Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: is there a difference?,” Med. Teach., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 151–155, 2002.
M. Bray, B. Adamson, and M. Mason, Comparative education research: Approaches and methods, vol. 19. Springer, 2014.
M. Priestley, G. J. J. Biesta, S. Philippou, and S. Robinson, “The teacher and the curriculum: Exploring teacher agency,” SAGE Handb. curriculum, Pedagog. Assess., pp. 187–201, 2015.
D. Laurillard, Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge, 2013.
A. W. Bates, “Teaching in a digital age,” 2015.
M. B. Horn and H. Staker, Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
N. Selwyn, Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.
M. Apple and M. W. Apple, Ideology and curriculum. Routledge, 2004.
G. Gay, Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. teachers college press, 2018.
W. F. Pinar, What is curriculum theory? Routledge, 2019.
M. Rieckmann, Education for sustainable development goals: Learning objectives. UNESCO publishing, 2017.
M. Fullan, The new meaning of educational change. Teachers college press, 2016.
J. W. Creswell and C. N. Poth, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications, 2016.
D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement,” Bmj, vol. 339, 2009.
V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qual. Res. Psychol., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, 2006.
Y. S. Lincoln and E. G. Guba, “Criteria for Assessing Naturalistic Inquiries as Reports.,” 1988.
L. Chen, P. Chen, and Z. Lin, “Artificial intelligence in education: A review,” IEEE access, vol. 8, pp. 75264–75278, 2020.
Z. Bahroun, C. Anane, V. Ahmed, and A. Zacca, “Transforming education: A comprehensive review of generative artificial intelligence in educational settings through bibliometric and content analysis,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 17, p. 12983, 2023.
C. M. Tyng, H. U. Amin, M. N. M. Saad, and A. S. Malik, “The influences of emotion on learning and memory,” Front. Psychol., vol. 8, p. 235933, 2017.
R. S. Alsawaier, “The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement,” Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 56–79, 2018.
C.-L. Lai and G.-J. Hwang, “A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course,” Comput. Educ., vol. 100, pp. 126–140, 2016.
M. Estai and S. Bunt, “Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review,” Ann. Anatomy-Anatomischer Anzeiger, vol. 208, pp. 151–157, 2016.
R. Lozano, M. Y. Merrill, K. Sammalisto, K. Ceulemans, and F. J. Lozano, “Connecting competences and pedagogical approaches for sustainable development in higher education: A literature review and framework proposal,” Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 1889, 2017.