Curriculum, text and forms of textuality

Q1 Arts and Humanities
M. Peters, P. Jandrić
{"title":"Curriculum, text and forms of textuality","authors":"M. Peters, P. Jandrić","doi":"10.1080/23265507.2018.1555488","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Building on Peters’ and Jandrić's previous work on curriculum as ‘text’ and ‘discourse’ (Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2018b). The curious relationships between discourse, genre and curriculum. Open Review of Educational Research, 5(1).), this article seeks to refresh and extend the central metaphor of ‘curriculum as text’ that is adopted as the organizing metaphor of William Pinar’s 2006 book Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. We undertake this analysis by referring to five theoretical notions: Jorge Luis Borges’ ‘The garden of forking paths’ (1941), Roland Barthes’ structuralism (1977), Julia Kristeva's intertextuality (1966/1986), Ted Nelson's hypertextuality (1965), and Gilles Deleuze's and Felix Guattari's extratextuality (2004/1980). In conclusion, we show that the text is neither simply an artefact nor is it simply a sequence of uttered sounds. The text does not solely reside within the domain of the reader and cannot be considered as the exclusive domain of the author. Looking at relationships between text, textuality, curriculum, and technology, we show that the metaphor of ‘curriculum as text’ is inherently postdigital and that it requires development of a new postdigital language of inquiry and new postdigital forms of textual and non-textual expressions of that language in the years to come.","PeriodicalId":43562,"journal":{"name":"Open Review of Educational Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23265507.2018.1555488","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2018.1555488","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Building on Peters’ and Jandrić's previous work on curriculum as ‘text’ and ‘discourse’ (Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2018b). The curious relationships between discourse, genre and curriculum. Open Review of Educational Research, 5(1).), this article seeks to refresh and extend the central metaphor of ‘curriculum as text’ that is adopted as the organizing metaphor of William Pinar’s 2006 book Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. We undertake this analysis by referring to five theoretical notions: Jorge Luis Borges’ ‘The garden of forking paths’ (1941), Roland Barthes’ structuralism (1977), Julia Kristeva's intertextuality (1966/1986), Ted Nelson's hypertextuality (1965), and Gilles Deleuze's and Felix Guattari's extratextuality (2004/1980). In conclusion, we show that the text is neither simply an artefact nor is it simply a sequence of uttered sounds. The text does not solely reside within the domain of the reader and cannot be considered as the exclusive domain of the author. Looking at relationships between text, textuality, curriculum, and technology, we show that the metaphor of ‘curriculum as text’ is inherently postdigital and that it requires development of a new postdigital language of inquiry and new postdigital forms of textual and non-textual expressions of that language in the years to come.
课程、文本和文本形式
摘要基于Peters和Jandrić之前关于课程作为“文本”和“话语”的工作(Peters,M.A.,&Jandrič,P.(2018b)。话语、流派和课程之间奇怪的关系。教育研究公开评论,5(1)。),本文试图对William Pinar 2006年出版的《理解课程:历史与当代课程话语研究导论》一书中的组织隐喻“课程即文本”这一中心隐喻进行更新和扩展。我们通过参考五个理论概念进行分析:豪尔赫·路易斯·博尔赫斯的《岔路花园》(1941年)、罗兰·巴特的结构主义(1977年)、朱莉娅·克里斯特娃的互文性(1966/1986年)、泰德·纳尔逊的超文本性(1965年)以及吉勒·德勒兹和费利克斯·瓜塔里的文本外性(2004/1980年)。总之,我们表明,文本既不是简单的人工制品,也不是简单的发音序列。文本并不完全属于读者的领域,也不能被视为作者的专属领域。研究文本、文本性、课程和技术之间的关系,我们发现“课程即文本”的隐喻本质上是后数字的,它需要在未来几年发展一种新的后数字探究语言,以及该语言的文本和非文本表达的新的后数字形式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Open Review of Educational Research
Open Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信