1982 年 37 巻 p. 47-56,en235
There seems to be much confusion and controversy in the definitions and interpretations of the basic concepts in the sociology of curriculum. The confusion can be described as follows;
1) whether the curriculum means the subject-matters or all the experiences of students in school.
2) whether the hidden curriculum is informal learning process or all the unintended products of learning.
3) whether the educational code is the classification of the relationships among subject-matters or it is the degree of the control over teachers (or students).
In the development of the sociology of curriculum, the following frameworks may be useful;
1) the school is an institution of the educational society to transmit the culture and to create the new culture.
2) the society of school is composed of the personality of teachers and students, the sub ject-matters including various values, and the social systemsi. e., the structure and process of human-relations.
3) the curriculum are intended to form teacher's plan of value-contents into students.
4) the “hidden curriculum” is not an adequate term, but there are many types of the “hidden learning”; incidental learning, accidental learning and anti-social learning in the process of teaching-learning in the school.
For example, Lippitt & White's experimental study of leadership type should be not interpreted in terms of “hidden curriculum”, but the climates of working groups are always intended by the leaders, and each group-members may become to learn unconsciously the different types of conduct.
5) the power of the social control has effects on the contents of curriculum and also the range of freedom in the decision-making and relationship in the teaching-learning field.