The Question Concerning Curriculum

  • Steven HodgeEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Education book series (BRIEFSEDUCAT)


Heidegger’s philosophy and direct contributions to educational thought do not make it easy to envisage a form of curriculum that can promote openness to Being. Much debate goes on about curriculum already. There are arguments that curriculum should be about appreciating the achievements of human culture, or about preparing for the demands of life in the modern world, or about the meaning that learners make of experience—or some combination of these. This chapter considers these three curriculum orientations from the perspective of Heidegger’s philosophy. His critiques of the Tradition and humanism undermine the idea that curriculum should be about appreciating culture. His critique of the instrumental mindset challenges the idea that curriculum should focus on the demands of modern living. That curriculum should be a matter of developing the learner and that the learner’s experience is itself a form of curriculum appears to be more consistent with Heidegger’s thinking. However, it is argued that although a curriculum oriented to awakening the sense of Being has a similar starting point to a curriculum oriented to the learner’s experience, it takes a different direction: into the disclosure of Being itself. The chapter goes on to describe a vision of an ontological curriculum that goes some way toward answering the question of what a curriculum could be like from the perspective of Heidegger’s philosophy.


Curriculum Liberal arts Technology Poetry 


  1. Bernstein, B. (2000), Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique (rev. ed.). Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  2. Bonnett, M. (1995). Teaching thinking, and the sanctity of content. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 29(3), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnett, M. (2002). Education as a form of the poetic: A Heideggerian approach to learning and the teacher—pupil relationship. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Heidegger, education, and modernity. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  4. Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. J. (2013). Curriculum construction (5th ed.). Melbourne, VIC: Pearson Education Australia, Ltd.Google Scholar
  5. Doll, W. E. (2002). Ghosts of the curriculum. In W. E. Doll & N. Gough (Eds.), Curriculum visions. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Egan, K. (2007). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Gagné, R. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  8. Gordon, H. (2000). Heidegger on poetry and thinking: Some educational implications, Παιδεία Contemporary Philosophy. Google Scholar
  9. Hamilton, D. (1990). Curriculum history. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  10. Heidegger, M. (1949). Existence and being. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company.Google Scholar
  11. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (trans. Macquarrie and Robinson), Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Heidegger, M. (1968). What is called thinking? New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper Torch books.Google Scholar
  14. Heidegger, M. (1993). The self-assertion of the German University (1933). In R. Wolin (Ed.), The heidegger controversy. A critical reader. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Heidegger, M. (1998). Pathmarks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heidegger, M. (2002). Heidegger on the art of teaching (trans. & ed. Allen & Axiotis). In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Heidegger, education, and modernity. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  17. Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and time (trans. Stambaugh, rev. Schmidt). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hodge, S. (2007). The origins of competency-based training. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 47(2), 179–209.Google Scholar
  19. Hodge, S. (2009). The return of the gods: Heidegger and mythopoetic curriculum theory. In P. Willis, T. Leonard, A. Morrison, & S. Hodge (Eds.), Spirituality, mythopoesis and learning. Flaxton, QLD: Post Pressed.Google Scholar
  20. Huebner, D. (1967). Curriculum as concern for man’s temporality. Theory into Practice, 6(4), 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Macdonald, J. B. (1995). In B. Macdonald (Ed.), Theory as a prayerful act. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  22. Marsh, C. J. (2007). Key concepts for understanding curriculum (4th ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Peters, M. A. (Ed.). (2002). Heidegger, education, and modernity. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Pinar, W. (1975a), Currere: Toward reconceptualisation. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing. The reconceptualists. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Pinar, W. (1975b). The reconceptualisation of curriculum studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10(3), 205–214.Google Scholar
  26. Pinar, W., & Grummett, M. R. (1976). Toward a poor curriculum. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  27. Pinar, W., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  28. Schubert, W. H. (1985). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. London: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  29. Spanos, W. (1993). The end of education: Toward posthumanism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  30. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Thomson, I. D. (2002). Heidegger on ontological education, or how we become what we are. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Heidegger, education, and modernity. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  32. Thomson, I. D. (2005). Heidegger on ontotheology. Technology and the politics of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations