미국의 전통주의자와 재개념주의자 간의 교육과정 담론이 가진 의미: 1990년 이후를 중심으로 = Implications of Curriculum Discourse between Traditionalists and Reconceptualists in the United States since 1990s

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Schwab`s article ``the practical`` was published in 1969. Since then, curriculum field has been developed in two paradigms: curriculum development and understanding/reconceptualization. Looking over the developing processes, curriculum development was dominating in this field in the beginning but curriculum understanding/reconceptualization becomes a dominant paradigm at this moment in the United States. This historical processes have been involving academic discussions among scholars in both to conceptualize and understand their boundaries during the last 40 years, and it has played an important role in developing their conceptual differences. In addition, this efforts definitely help to understand, specialize, and detail in their perspectives on curriculum. Looking briefly over this discussion process, in the beginning, curriculum scholars of understanding/reconceptualization (often called reconceptualists) mainly criticized scholars of curriculum development paradigm (often called traditionalists), and a few traditionalists tried to defend them. However, since 1990s, traditionalists, especially Hlebowitsh and Wraga, have begun to participate in the discussions very actively with reconceptualists. Traditionalists had tried to re-interpret, re-evaluate, and point out reconceptualists` misunderstandings on the Tyler`s rationale in the early 1990s. After the late 1990s, traditionalists have tried to criticize against and stimulating to reconceptualists through various discussions. On the other side, reconceptualists have never been silent against traditionalists` discussions. This article purports to, first, understand what has been going on. Secondly, this article tried to understand their discussions and major concepts on both paradigms through these discussions. Thirdly, this article attempts to suggest some implications in Korean curriculum field through these discussions.