This paper examines the curriculum design approach called CRISPA, developed by P.B. Uhrmacher, C. McConnell, and B. Conrad, to explore its significance and challenges, thereby deriving implications for curriculum studies. CRISPA is an acronym for Connections, Risk-Taking, Imagination, Sensory Experience, Perceptivity, and Active Engagement. It has been developed under the influence of J. Dewey's theory of aesthetic experience and E. Eisner's theory of curriculum, particularly the concept of perception which is distinguished from the concept of recognition.

The CRISPA approach is a curriculum design framework that consists of creating expressive objectives, designing connections, designing other elements, designing the sequence of events in the lesson, and the writing and adorning of lesson plans. Lesson plans in CRISPA serve as a means for teachers to express their imagination and authorship, positioning them as active agents in curriculum design within the classroom context. When developing a unit plan in CRISPA, G. Wiggins' "backward design" and multiple curriculum design methods are incorporated to ensure that the CRISPA framework does not become a rigid procedural approach but rather a flexible and adaptive system for curriculum development.

This study identifies two key contributions of the CRISPA approach. First, it provides a concrete reference framework for an arts-based curriculum design rooted in Dewey's philosophy, offering a structured way to integrate aesthetic experiences into education. Second, it suggests a distinction between elements that require strict planning and those that allow for flexible implementation, which can help educators navigate curriculum development in a way that balances structure and adaptability. In particular, regarding the debate on technological approach versus Rashomon approach in curriculum development, CRISPA provides insights into what should be strictly planned and what should remain flexible. As a framework for teachers' curriculum design at the classroom level, CRISPA emphasizes the importance of teachers' autonomy in adapting lesson plans while also incorporating state standards and using "backward design" to define goals-assessments relationships at the unit planning level. Uhrmacher and colleagues' perspective thus offers insights into which aspects of curriculum design should be standardized and which should be left to the discretion of individual teachers.

However, this study identifies several challenges within the CRISPA approach. First, the criteria for selecting among multiple curriculum design methods remain unclear. Second, the role of educational assessment within the CRISPA framework is not explicitly defined, raising concerns about how to evaluate student learning and curriculum effectiveness. Third, it is important to consider how to train teachers as the primary agents of curriculum design. Fourth, the conditions under which aesthetic experience is considered to be realized are not specified, raising concerns about the potential for superficial implementation in practice.

By elucidating these aspects, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of the CRISPA approach and its applicability within curriculum studies and educational practice. Future studies should further explore methods for refining the framework, particularly in relation to assessment strategies and teacher education programs, to enhance the applicability and effectiveness of the CRISPA approach in diverse educational settings.

This study deals with a methodology for qualitative reconstruction of teacher judgement. Drawing on insights from methodological reflections in Germany, it aims to theoretically and methodologically refine and reposition the stimulated recall method with a case study. Through the inquiry, this study seeks to explore the way of describing teacher judgments in a qualitative manner and assess the significance of this methodology for curriculum studies.

As a theoretical consideration, the study mainly reviews the perspectives of Herbart, Nohl, and Biesta, emphasizing the necessity of individualized descriptions in the study of "pedagogical tact" and "pedagogical moments" and highlighting the importance of focusing on situations where teachers experience conflicts and challenges to judge.

Based on the theoretical framework, the study presents a model that distinguishes between the dimensions of practice, reflection, and analysis, which then requires a clear distinction between reconstruction and re-reconstruction. Reconstruction is a general term to indicate that a socially constructed situation or practice is re-formulated by an interpreter. This study applies this term as the teacher's reflection on his and her own practice. Researchers then starts their work to understand the process and values of the practice and teacher reflection, which therefore corresponds re-reconstruction. The stimulated recall method had never provided such differentiated dimensions, and may therefore enjoy benefits from this methodological sophistication. By integrating notions from the recent studies on videography methods mainly cultivated in Germany, this study employs the following methodological steps: 1) segment analysis, 2-1) sequence analysis, 2-2) analysis of teachers' conflict situations using the stimulated recall, and 3) comparative integration of sequence analysis and analysis of stimulated recall. The results of step 3 are presented as a storyline that describes teachers' judgement processes and the logic underlying their pedagogical actions. In step 2, discrepancies are expected in the selection of conflict situations and critical judgement moments between the two analyses. However, these discrepancies contribute to ensuring the validity of the reconstructive interpretation of teachers' narratives.

The methodological framework invented through this study is applied to a case analysis of lesson practice. Through teachers' reflections, it becomes evident that the teacher's wish and the students' perspective continued to run in parallel without convergence: The teacher, aiming to encourage students to recognize their own majority status, introduced teaching materials related to minority groups. However, the students consistently maintained their initial motivation to inquire about "helping the minority", which could inadvertently reinforce the structural conditions that sustain minority status itself. In response to students' state of motivation, the teacher took a risk and posed a strongly directive question in an attempt to steer the students' thinking into the direction that he wanted.

View PDF for the rest of the abstract

The article aims at clarifying the revision process of the Swedish Craft subject, Sloyd, syllabus in the 1994 National Curriculum for compulsory schools taking into consideration the discourse about the value of the Sloyd subject at that moment. An archival analysis on official documents and media documents was conducted to access the revision process.

A starting point of the revision was the school minister's directive for the curriculum revision in 1991. The National Curriculum Committee was ordered to reconsider whether the Sloyd subject, the Home Economic subject and the Childcare subject should be selective or mandatory in compulsory schools. This order brought a controversy in schools and mass media.

Protests against making Sloyd a selective subject had been registered by Sloyd teachers and Sloyd teacher educators. They contributed their opinions to the correspondence column on the magazine and newspapers. In column, Sloyd teachers insisted three types of the subject's value: the subject develops 1) knowledge related to production and 2) skills through craft and 3) has a significant and unique work style. Specifically, as 1) knowledge related to production, they claimed that pupils acquire knowledge and skills to make objects by themselves. In addition, teachers mentioned to the possibility to develop pupils' sense of production such as to look at objects from environmental, consumer's, traditional and gender aspects. 2) Skills developed through craft was expressed as self-confidence, problem-solving skills, creativity, a sense of solidarity and foundational skills such as for reading, writing, drawing and so on. Moreover, they claimed the Sloyd subject provided 3) a unique learning style which application of theory and of other subject's knowledge and which pupils found joy and fun of learning. Teachers described how pupils got above value in the Sloyd subject classrooms for reasoning of their statement. Moreover, teachers found the value on the Sloyd subject beyond National Curriculum's description because the value of growing self-confidence, a sense of solidarity and craft's unique working style was not stipulated in former 1980's syllabus.

These public opinions were expressed in mass media as well as throughout lobbying action. Protests resulted in the Sloyd subject remaining as a mandatory in the coming syllabus. In parliament, the standing committee's report which required the government to remain Sloyd as mandatory was adopted. In line with this report, parliament members admitted the Sloyd subject's value which was stipulated in former syllabus, developing creativity, aesthetic value, fine motor skills, understanding value of cultural heritage and of processing and caring recourses economically and gender equality. A final decision to keep the Sloyd subject required was made by the National Curriculum Committee because the Sloyd and the Home Economic subject had significant role to share cultural heritage, to raise subject-specific practical skills and to break rooted gender roles.

View PDF for the rest of the abstract

Curriculum research produces knowledge which frequently fails to reach classrooms and school curricula, and is rarely taken on board by policymakers (British Curriculum Forum, 2018). This paper explores the potentiality of teachers as researchers of the specified curriculum, using Stenhouse's 'teacher as researcher' concept as a framework for understanding how teachers might fruitfully be engaged in this process and the possible positive outcomes for teachers and learners. The paper considers the challenges to Stenhousian curriculum research engagement for teachers in the English education policy context, where a policy agenda has foregrounded the need for curriculum to be take seriously by schools and a 'what works' agenda has encouraged teachers to use research evidence, but not provided them with the agency or means to engage in their own curriculum research. The paper goes on to explore Japanese lesson study (LS) as one possible solution which aligns with Stenhouse' vision for curriculum research in classrooms: it includes teacher study of curriculum material, the testing of evidence from research through live lessons, input from external academics, and publication of teacher research findings in the form of case studies. Challenges to LS implementation in English schools are then analysed, including a historic lack of engagement in research by teachers, the institutionalised nature of ineffective professional development practices and a lack of access to outside experts. Finally, some solutions from research into successful implementation of LS in English schools are presented, and specifically the important role of in-school LS leaders or champions. These leaders make LS work through passion, perseverance, deep knowledge of LS, humility, and the allocation of time and budget. Finally, the paper draws out implications for the wider implementation of LS as a tool to encourage teacher engagement in curriculum research and more effective partnerships between universities and schools in England.