Curriculum frameworks : who (or what) is framing whom?

Marsh, Colin and Harris, Catherine 2005, Curriculum frameworks : who (or what) is framing whom?, in Proceedings of the 2005 National Biennial Conference of the Australian Curriculum Studies Association : Blurring the Boundaries, Sharpening the Focus, Australian Curriculum Studies Association,, pp. 1-9.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Curriculum frameworks : who (or what) is framing whom?
Author(s) Marsh, Colin
Harris, Catherine
Conference name Australian Curriculum Studies Association. Conference (2005 : Sunshine Coast, Qld.)
Conference location Sunshine Coast, Qld.
Conference dates 21-23 Sep. 2005
Title of proceedings Proceedings of the 2005 National Biennial Conference of the Australian Curriculum Studies Association : Blurring the Boundaries, Sharpening the Focus
Publication date 2005
Start page 1
End page 9
Publisher Australian Curriculum Studies Association
Summary Various theorists and educators over the years have produced their preferred knowledge groupings or frameworks. Most well-known ones include those produced by Hirst (1974) and Phenix (1964).

Curriculum frameworks were advocated by many educators in the 1990s as an important springboard and focus for teachers in terms of curriculum planning. It was argued that they would be a stimulus for evoking creative ideas and activities. Yet, they are also a major tool for control and direction.

The use of curriculum frameworks were very evident in Australia in April 1991 when eight learning areas were created by the Australian Education Council (AEC) and planned for use in all states and territories. These eight learning areas, or key learning areas (KLA's) have largely endured in all states and territories even though the ambitious plans for national statements and profiles did not survive.

This paper provides a stock-take on the current uses, benefits and problems in using KLA's as curriculum frameworks in Australia. There are many different contextual factors operating, which affect their use and effectiveness. Disjunctions can occur between major players at federal and state levels which provide different and often conflicting points of leverage. It is timely to analyse their impact on curriculum planning and implementation in Australia.
ISBN 1875864520
Language eng
Field of Research 130202 Curriculum and Pedagogy Theory and Development
Socio Economic Objective 930302 Syllabus and Curriculum Development
HERDC Research category L2 Full written paper - non-refereed (minor conferences)
Persistent URL

Connect to link resolver
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 445 Abstract Views, 0 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 12 Nov 2008, 13:08:49 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact