Curriculum Perspectives

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 59–65 | Cite as

The Australian Curriculum and its conceptual bases: a critical analysis

  • Angela ScarinoEmail author
The Australian curriculum


A core consideration of any curriculum development undertaking must include an examination of how it is that learning and knowing are conceptualised. In this paper I interrogate the conceptual bases of the Australian Curriculum, specifically by discussing how learners and their life worlds, the enterprise of learning itself, knowledge and knowing and the curriculum as a whole are conceptualised. I conclude with a reflection on the consequences to reform when such a consideration is absent.


Conceptualisation of the Australian Curriculum Learners and learning View of knowledge and knowing Curriculum-as-a-whole 



  1. Aoki, T. (2005) Curriculum implementation as instrumental action and as situational praxis. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 111–123). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. First published 1983.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2009a). Shape of the Australian curriculum: Science. Sydney: ACARA Retrieved from Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2009b). Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics. Sydney: ACARA Retrieved from Scholar
  4. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2011). Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages. Sydney: ACARA Retrieved from Scholar
  5. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). The shape of the Australian Curriculum: Version 4.0. Sydney: ACARA Retrieved from Scholar
  6. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2016). Student diversity. Retrieved from
  7. Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. (1985). On teaching thinking: An afterthought. In S. F. Chipman, J. W. Segal, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills. Vol. 2: Research and open questions (pp. 597–608). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cole, M. (2010). What’s culture got to do with it? Educational research as a necessarily interdisciplinary enterprise. Educational Researcher, 39(6), 461–470. Scholar
  11. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of research on student conceptions in mathematics, science and programming. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 3–56). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100(Supp 1), 19–47. Scholar
  13. Holbrook, J. B. (2013). What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflection on the very idea of disciplinary integration. Synthese, 190, 1865–1879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, C. D. (2007). Culture, literacy and learning. New York and London: Teachers College Press. Teachers College. Columbia University.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, C. D. (2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development. How an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Researcher, 37(5), 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, C. D. (2010). Soaring above the clouds, delving the ocean’s depths: Understanding the ecologies of human learning and the challenge for education science. Educational Researcher, 39(9), 643–655. Scholar
  17. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne: MCEETYA Retrieved from Scholar
  18. Moss, P. A., & Schutz, A. (2001). Educational standards, assessment and the search for consensus. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Okon-Singer, H., Hendler, T., Pessoa, L., & Shackman, A. J. (2015). The neurobiology of emotion–cognition interactions: Fundamental questions and strategies for future research. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, art 58.
  20. Pinar, W. F. (2007). Intellectual advancement through disciplinarity: Verticality and horizontality in curriculum studies. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Putnam, R. T., Lampert, M., & Peterson, P. L. (1990). Alternative perspectives on knowing mathematics in elementary schools. Review of Research in Education, 16(1), 57–150. Scholar
  22. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Scarino, A. (2014). Learning as reciprocal, interpretive meaning-making: A view from collaborative research into the professional learning of teachers of languages. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 386–401. Scholar
  24. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shepard, L. A. (2015). If we know so much from research on learning, why are educational reforms not successful? In M. J. Feuer, A. L. Berman, & R. C. Atkinson (Eds.), Past as prologue: The National Academy of Education at 50. Members reflect (pp. 41–51). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  26. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  27. Stroud, C., & Heugh, K. (2011). Languages in education. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 413–429). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turner, M. (1991). Reading minds. The study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Vertovec, S. (2010). Towards post-multiculturalism? Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity. International Social Sciences Journal, 61(199), 83–95.Google Scholar
  30. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Wells, G. (1993). Text, talk and inquiry: Schooling as a semiotic apprenticeship. In N. Bird et al. (Eds.), Language and learning (pp. 18–51). Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education.Google Scholar
  32. Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (Eds.). (2006). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  33. Young, M. (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Young, M. (1998). The curriculum of the future: From the new sociology of education to a critical theory of learning. London: Falmer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Young, M. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructionism to social realism in the sociology of education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Young, M. (2009). Education, globalisation and the ‘voice of knowledge’. Journal of Education and Work, 22(3), 193–204. Scholar
  37. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: Lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45, 11–27. Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Curriculum Studies Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Creative IndustriesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Research Centre for Languages and CulturesUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations